If I had to suggest a reason that XP/Vista systems were not forcibly upgraded to 8/10, then it would be that the hardware/performance/memory requirements of 10 are sufficiently beyond those of XP/Vista that there is a very high probability of the update causing major problems.
No, it is most likely driver issues. Windows 7 and 8 both run fine with 2-4 GB for basic use.
There were major changes to the video, audio, and networking stacks from XP to Vista. There were further changes from Vista to present, with most of the security and stability changes between Vista and 7.
As a result, there is probably a lot of hardware from the XP and Vista era that requires a driver update to function in 7/8/10. And most of that hardware is old enough to be unsupported by the manufacturer at this point.
What they don't want is a huge slab of negative publicity and early-evening-news leaders claiming, "Microsoft's forced update just broke my PC!"
Exactly.
They have done an excellent job of keeping the RAM requirements steady for over a decade in spite of numerous security and functional improvements. But they cannot address every device driver in the world.
So, cheap labor was supplied by a subcontractor who worked for the company that Tesla hired to build an add-on to its existing facility?
How is this news worthy?
If Tesla were deliberately skirting US labor laws, that would be news worthy. If they chose to contract with well-known abusive employers overseas, that might be important to potential buyers.
But outside of defense and aerospace, how many industries routinely vet every subcontractor they hire? No one. At best, they might check the primary contractor to make sure they don't have a sketchy history. But not everyone he might hire.
Because that is a ton of work. It takes lots of time and money to investigate, especially since you'll need to check every bidder before you award the contract.
If you personally don't like it, support laws that prohibit foreign workers or make disclosure of foreign labor required for all primary contractors.
A company cannot be expected to investigate the labor practices of every company it might contract. That is just insane, and that is why this article is worthless trash.
Or the manufacturer could just lock everything in a box, and only let cryptographically-signed firmwares in, and call it a day. (and hope no GPLv3 got violated in the process)
It does not violate the GPL if they only allow signed firmware.
As long as they provide the source code, they are fulfilling their licensing obligations.
There is finite usable spectrum, and Wifi had to go somewhere.
Usable spectrum in this case means:
* not absorbed by the atmosphere * reasonable effective range per unit power * harmless to organic tissues * capable of penetrating typical construction materials
If you're aware of an unallocated band that you think the FCC has overlooked, feel free to contact them to ensure the oversight is corrected.
First of all, those modules are part of Windows Server, not the desktop operating systems.
Second, almost every large company buys operating systems. Even Linux. At a minimum, there are support contracts
With Red Hat, they will actually support running LDAP for authentication. You'd still need a third party application to enforce host configuration---Puppet, Chef, whatever you like.
And if you want to argue that you can admin Linux without enterprise support and paid management applications, then you're going to be paying twice as much for skilled admins---so it's gonna cost you one way or another.
You differ because you are talking about two entirely different things. Management in enterprise includes policing the IT staff, not just deploying a system and keeping it up to date.
Managing enterprise assets requires a simple means of prohibiting local administrators from doing bad things just to make their lives easier. Or at least being able to monitor for such changes, if you cannot prevent them outright.
Active Directory and Group Policy are free, simple, and sufficient for most cases.
His argument is that every engine or generator powered by fossil fuels has an inherent subsidy because they are not paying for all of the environmental damage they cause.
If you look at the impacts of carcinogenic waste products, global warming, and acidic rain / ocean acidification, then you can see there are huge costs associated with fossil fuels that the producers and consumers of those products are not paying.
He is arguing that fossil fuels have an unfair advantage in the energy market until we slap them with fees that pay for the damage.
The solar/wind subsidies may compensate for some of the unfairness, but Musk apparently believes fossil fuels still have an unfair or unreasonable advantage.
The edition naming still has a point---Professional is the lowest version that can join a domain. Pretty much every organization steps up to Professional when it outgrows the "mom and pop" market.
Many mid-sized organizations do not go up to Enterprise.
If you have a thousands of employees, it's almost certainly worth it---but it doesn't start looking attractive unless you have a large IT footprint, above-average security requirements, or both.
This move forces businesses with security requirements to pay for Enterprise. I know for a fact that security requirements in the finance and defense industries will prohibit the Windows Store on most of their computers. I suspect HIPAA will force companies in healthcare to deploy Enterprise as well.
Now Professional is setup as the basic small-business version of Windows, and Enterprise will be necessary for most medium and large businesses. Microsoft will probably push this trend even further. They tweaked the features and licensing of their Server products when 2012 launched.
The Enterprise editions of Windows have only been available with Software Assurance, which is a subscription-like add-on to standard Windows licenses.
Acquiring SA grants access to additional support, enterprise tools, and some additional use rights. There is a cost-avoidance consideration since licenses with SA are upgraded to new versions of Windows (provided the SA is maintained through the date the new version is released).
Many enterprises---including my employer---bought SA on its own merits because the program benefits were worth it. However, some companies have decided that SA is not worth the price.
This move pushes businesses who need to disable access to the Windows Store to buy SA. Any admin can easily add/remove the Store feature from the OS, so if you are required to block it then you now need to pay for it.
Only Home and Professional editions are eligible for the free upgrade to Windows 10, so this ensures that businesses will be paying one way or another---enterprise customers will have to pay for the upgrade even if Microsoft decides to offer Enterprise without SA.
This is 100% about soaking enterprise customers for more money. If it happens to inconvenience some home users, well, that's just too bad.
You have to do manual markup to add stuff, but at least it makes sense.
This is exactly why Sharepoint is so popular.
The users don't want to learn markup, and they're happy screwing around with the documents in Microsoft Office until they look right.
And since the office staffers are already used to massaging Microsoft Office documents into shape, it's basically zero learning curve. I've seen Help Desk explain CAPS LOCK on multiple occasions; I have no hope the entire office can be trained on wiki markup.
The Sharepoint admin has to invoke some serious black magic to get the search feature working decently after every migration to a new version (because apparently Microsoft can't implement decent default behavior)---but the users don't see that. They see the familiar Internet Explorer and Office GUIs, and they get to stay inside their comfort zones.
There are some problematic bacteria that live in the stomach, and they can cause problems if they are not kept in check by competition from "nicer" neighbors.
The bacteria that live in the lower GI tract are entirely different species. Pretty much nothing that lives in the extremely acidic environment of the stomach can thrive in the neutral environment of the intestines.
Consuming samples of bacteria that should grow in the throat or stomach is fine, and it may help. At the very least, it is not completely asinine.
Consuming samples meant for the lower GI tract will accomplish nothing because virtually all of them will die before leaving the stomach---hence the fecal transplant.
Sometimes the most effective methods are disgusting. Google some videos of debridement to see how doctors deal with necrotic flesh, and realize that this is how we avoid amputations.
The "need" for antivirus can be greatly diminished if these hosts are simply isolated properly.
If they want it on the domain for manageability, fine. Allow Kerberos/LDAPS/CIFS to domain controllers and Kerberos/CIFS to a file server for data transfer. Run antivirus on the file server.
Block everything else if you can, but make absolutely sure to deny HTTP and SMTP.
Put the damn things on their own subnet and enforce the restrictions via network ACLs so even the "clever" users can't disable it.
Medical and industrial equipment vendors have zero interest in making sure their tools work properly on a normal enterprise workstation. So give them their little sandbox, and keep them as far away from the business network as possible.
Congress has the power "to regulate Commerce... among the several States".
When Congress is granted a power, the states have no such power unless it is delegated back to them in law. Laws affecting commerce between the states are explicitly within federal jurisdiction.
Unless Congress hands that power back to the states, they cannot enforce laws of this nature. This is the part the Supreme Court clarified, but we already treat other federal powers this way.
As an example, Congress is also granted the power to establish and regulate the armed forces---which is why states are not allowed to form their own armies. The exception for the National Guard is authorized by Congress under Title 10 of the USC.
The same thing applies if a state tried to print its own money, negotiate foreign trade deals, or pass immigration laws. It is a federal power; they gave it up when they joined the Union.
If however they are on public property and you are for some reason annoyed by that, tough luck.
Not all public property is available to be used for any reason by anyone.
We have public parks, historical sites, stadiums, schools, etc., and the vendors would be kicked out of all of those places too.
If the sidewalk and roadside are not designed to accommodate vendor stalls, then it makes perfect sense to prohibit vendors from occupying those spaces. Sure, they can travel on the pavement like anyone else---so long as they keep moving instead of becoming an obstacle.
I like the idea of a public square where anyone can conduct business openly and freely, but people shouldn't be setting up shop where the land is dedicated to another purpose.
I as a software developer have virtually unlimited income potential working out of a $600 a month apartment
Which is fine by me, if I were your neighbor, because your development causes me to experience no:
1. Loud or disruptive noises 2. Unpleasant odors 3. Measurable health risks 4. Traffic congestion 5. Crowding / foot traffic 6. Loss of privacy
Any business that causes those things---and most cause more than one---can and should take place a good distance from my residence.
I am perfectly willing to choose a residence away from those things, but only zoning laws can ensure that such residential properties remain pleasant places to reside in.
What else can I say about someone who I have a low opinion of though?
You say nothing at all about the person and confine your commentary to their arguments.
they've been taken over by crazy idiots who are very counter-productive
All of the major social/political movements seem to be heading this way.
I think the loudest nutjobs are trying to be the next MLK or Gandhi, but they are not not smart or charismatic enough to pull a movement together. And some are simply self-serving and getting attention however they can.
The mudslinging is just another way to rally support and build that tribe, and extract some money from them.
It also provokes the opposition---which can be a good career move if the activism is a means to personal rather than social ends. If someone wants the national spotlight, there's nothing better than a verbal brawl that gets play with media pundits and editors.
It's not simply a matter of excluding part of the population from the information, but it's also about how to ensure that the research can continue in the future.
That is a laughable argument.
The LHC was built using tax money granted by CERN's member nations.
If they want to continue the research, CERN will be funded for new equipment and facilities when the time comes.
Netscape v Microsoft was a David/Goliath matchup when you look at the companies behind the software. Plus Microsoft used illegal means to promote IE over Navigator.
The phone OS market is entirely different. Both Android and iOS are supported by large corporations. Both are entrenched with an ecosystem of apps dependent on them, and users' money sunk into those apps.
Navigator actually did have some unique plugins, but other browsers eventually implemented their plugin API. And users didn't have their money invested in the platform.
I'd say the chances of upheaval in the phone OS market are nowhere near the same as what it was for the 90s browsers.
I'd rate a compatible-yet-superior implementation like Cyanogen as the best bet, but even that's a long shot. Google has more than enough resources to respond to any serious contenders.
It's not even hatred of MS that doomed their phones. I tried one in a store, and it was actually pretty usable. Arguably better than the contemporary Android phones.
But they had no apps. Back then, Google Maps was the top dog, and it wasn't on Windows Phone. Maybe one app out of a dozen that I wanted actually ran on it. And I couldn't find replacements for half of them.
If people don't develop for the platform, it's not gonna live long. Even the perception of "no apps" is deadly because it makes people---both devs and users---shy away from that platform.
Microsoft failed to get the jump on mobile with Windows CE, and Windows Phone was good but too late to the party.
I would prefer Windows Phone over iOS (as it's the less-walled garden), but an OS without developer support is worthless.
The systems were setup in 2008. They probably do run Windows XP.
And don't forget that most industrial control systems are not modified after installation. Vendors are notoriously reluctant to support any changes at all, including basic OS updates.
My employer has equipment connected to unpatched XP SP1 systems because the vendor won't support anything else, and the organization is not willing to spend $200K+ to replace machines that are doing their jobs.
They are standalone systems because of issues exactly like this one. If someone took an infected file over, it would be a long time before we noticed. There is no value in traditional antivirus without signature updates---which might be a consideration if the vendor supported it with antivirus in the first place.
This is what a lack of competition looks like. They don't have to support basic security measures because there are only one or two other companies in the world that make comparable equipment, and they offer the same level of support. So our security is screwed until the government decides to regulate it.
And nevermind all the man-hours we waste doing data transfers to/from these systems. That's just a cost of doing business.
A pocket-sized, internet-connected computer is extremely useful in some cases.
These are predominantly new use cases based on user mobility---so yes, your regular computer is still better if you can sit at a desk to use it. Lots of things cannot be done at a desk or at home, and that is where smartphones shine.
I use my phone more than my laptop during business travel, and I am eagerly awaiting the day I can leave the laptop behind entirely.
1. Prior performance is not a guarantee, but it can be a good indicator. Tesla, in particular, is a suitable benchmark since both firms deal primarily with engineering challenges, supply logistics, and government regulatory bodies.
2. Not exactly a suitable comparison. The European conquerors couldn't bring their own air or constitute fuel and food from basic compounds. We can. I question why we should bother, but we certainly can adapt to less favorable terrain better than they could.
3. The Pyramids are a huge tourist destination (in spite of intermittent regional political issues), and they demonstrate a degree of achievement which was astounding given the tools of the day.
I'm not sure there's much value in establishing a Martian colony in this decade, but we will need to get ourselves off this rock. Especially given our concerted efforts to ignore the fact that we are destabilizing the climate and ecology.
All of the same fundamental engineering challenges will be there whether we do it now or later, so we might as well start working on them now.
On the other hand they included some response work to different incidents for which he had not been on trial.
If there are other incidents or questionable activity on the network, you have to investigate whether they might be related. Investigating a one-off event is simple---usually you can ask someone if he meant to do it and why, and from there it's not hard to determine whether the activity was authorized.
As you add more actions and more assets to the list, the complexity of reviewing them grows rapidly.
Maybe this was a one-click restore, but if there were other things going on then their IT staff should assume this intrusion is related and pass it along to the incident response team. The response team will have to spend some time reviewing the compromise until the audit data shows it is indeed isolated.
I did it because I could, not because I understood the potential consequences.
And even today, the school wouldn't have to press charges. It's their decision on whether they want to involve the police at all.
You also could have been tried as a juvenile, as high schoolers are generally under 18. Juvenile records can often be sealed upon reaching adulthood so it doesn't follow you for your entire life. There are mechanisms in place for handling children.
On the other hand, the journalist who is going to jail was a professional who knew there might be consequences and did it anyway.
I have sympathy for a kid who doesn't know any better or doesn't understand the consequences, but an adult flirting with the dangerous crowd can reap what he sows.
Slashdot Mirror
If I had to suggest a reason that XP/Vista systems were not forcibly upgraded to 8/10, then it would be that the hardware/performance/memory requirements of 10 are sufficiently beyond those of XP/Vista that there is a very high probability of the update causing major problems.
No, it is most likely driver issues. Windows 7 and 8 both run fine with 2-4 GB for basic use.
There were major changes to the video, audio, and networking stacks from XP to Vista. There were further changes from Vista to present, with most of the security and stability changes between Vista and 7.
As a result, there is probably a lot of hardware from the XP and Vista era that requires a driver update to function in 7/8/10. And most of that hardware is old enough to be unsupported by the manufacturer at this point.
What they don't want is a huge slab of negative publicity and early-evening-news leaders claiming, "Microsoft's forced update just broke my PC!"
Exactly.
They have done an excellent job of keeping the RAM requirements steady for over a decade in spite of numerous security and functional improvements. But they cannot address every device driver in the world.
So, cheap labor was supplied by a subcontractor who worked for the company that Tesla hired to build an add-on to its existing facility?
How is this news worthy?
If Tesla were deliberately skirting US labor laws, that would be news worthy. If they chose to contract with well-known abusive employers overseas, that might be important to potential buyers.
But outside of defense and aerospace, how many industries routinely vet every subcontractor they hire? No one. At best, they might check the primary contractor to make sure they don't have a sketchy history. But not everyone he might hire.
Because that is a ton of work. It takes lots of time and money to investigate, especially since you'll need to check every bidder before you award the contract.
If you personally don't like it, support laws that prohibit foreign workers or make disclosure of foreign labor required for all primary contractors.
A company cannot be expected to investigate the labor practices of every company it might contract. That is just insane, and that is why this article is worthless trash.
Or the manufacturer could just lock everything in a box, and only let cryptographically-signed firmwares in, and call it a day. (and hope no GPLv3 got violated in the process)
It does not violate the GPL if they only allow signed firmware.
As long as they provide the source code, they are fulfilling their licensing obligations.
There is finite usable spectrum, and Wifi had to go somewhere.
Usable spectrum in this case means:
* not absorbed by the atmosphere
* reasonable effective range per unit power
* harmless to organic tissues
* capable of penetrating typical construction materials
If you're aware of an unallocated band that you think the FCC has overlooked, feel free to contact them to ensure the oversight is corrected.
First of all, those modules are part of Windows Server, not the desktop operating systems.
Second, almost every large company buys operating systems. Even Linux. At a minimum, there are support contracts
With Red Hat, they will actually support running LDAP for authentication. You'd still need a third party application to enforce host configuration---Puppet, Chef, whatever you like.
And if you want to argue that you can admin Linux without enterprise support and paid management applications, then you're going to be paying twice as much for skilled admins---so it's gonna cost you one way or another.
I beg to differ.
You differ because you are talking about two entirely different things. Management in enterprise includes policing the IT staff, not just deploying a system and keeping it up to date.
Managing enterprise assets requires a simple means of prohibiting local administrators from doing bad things just to make their lives easier. Or at least being able to monitor for such changes, if you cannot prevent them outright.
Active Directory and Group Policy are free, simple, and sufficient for most cases.
His argument is that every engine or generator powered by fossil fuels has an inherent subsidy because they are not paying for all of the environmental damage they cause.
If you look at the impacts of carcinogenic waste products, global warming, and acidic rain / ocean acidification, then you can see there are huge costs associated with fossil fuels that the producers and consumers of those products are not paying.
He is arguing that fossil fuels have an unfair advantage in the energy market until we slap them with fees that pay for the damage.
The solar/wind subsidies may compensate for some of the unfairness, but Musk apparently believes fossil fuels still have an unfair or unreasonable advantage.
The edition naming still has a point---Professional is the lowest version that can join a domain. Pretty much every organization steps up to Professional when it outgrows the "mom and pop" market.
Many mid-sized organizations do not go up to Enterprise.
If you have a thousands of employees, it's almost certainly worth it---but it doesn't start looking attractive unless you have a large IT footprint, above-average security requirements, or both.
This move forces businesses with security requirements to pay for Enterprise. I know for a fact that security requirements in the finance and defense industries will prohibit the Windows Store on most of their computers. I suspect HIPAA will force companies in healthcare to deploy Enterprise as well.
Now Professional is setup as the basic small-business version of Windows, and Enterprise will be necessary for most medium and large businesses. Microsoft will probably push this trend even further. They tweaked the features and licensing of their Server products when 2012 launched.
The Enterprise editions of Windows have only been available with Software Assurance, which is a subscription-like add-on to standard Windows licenses.
Acquiring SA grants access to additional support, enterprise tools, and some additional use rights. There is a cost-avoidance consideration since licenses with SA are upgraded to new versions of Windows (provided the SA is maintained through the date the new version is released).
Many enterprises---including my employer---bought SA on its own merits because the program benefits were worth it. However, some companies have decided that SA is not worth the price.
This move pushes businesses who need to disable access to the Windows Store to buy SA. Any admin can easily add/remove the Store feature from the OS, so if you are required to block it then you now need to pay for it.
Only Home and Professional editions are eligible for the free upgrade to Windows 10, so this ensures that businesses will be paying one way or another---enterprise customers will have to pay for the upgrade even if Microsoft decides to offer Enterprise without SA.
This is 100% about soaking enterprise customers for more money. If it happens to inconvenience some home users, well, that's just too bad.
You have to do manual markup to add stuff, but at least it makes sense.
This is exactly why Sharepoint is so popular.
The users don't want to learn markup, and they're happy screwing around with the documents in Microsoft Office until they look right.
And since the office staffers are already used to massaging Microsoft Office documents into shape, it's basically zero learning curve. I've seen Help Desk explain CAPS LOCK on multiple occasions; I have no hope the entire office can be trained on wiki markup.
The Sharepoint admin has to invoke some serious black magic to get the search feature working decently after every migration to a new version (because apparently Microsoft can't implement decent default behavior)---but the users don't see that. They see the familiar Internet Explorer and Office GUIs, and they get to stay inside their comfort zones.
There are some problematic bacteria that live in the stomach, and they can cause problems if they are not kept in check by competition from "nicer" neighbors.
The bacteria that live in the lower GI tract are entirely different species. Pretty much nothing that lives in the extremely acidic environment of the stomach can thrive in the neutral environment of the intestines.
Consuming samples of bacteria that should grow in the throat or stomach is fine, and it may help. At the very least, it is not completely asinine.
Consuming samples meant for the lower GI tract will accomplish nothing because virtually all of them will die before leaving the stomach---hence the fecal transplant.
Sometimes the most effective methods are disgusting. Google some videos of debridement to see how doctors deal with necrotic flesh, and realize that this is how we avoid amputations.
The "need" for antivirus can be greatly diminished if these hosts are simply isolated properly.
If they want it on the domain for manageability, fine. Allow Kerberos/LDAPS/CIFS to domain controllers and Kerberos/CIFS to a file server for data transfer. Run antivirus on the file server.
Block everything else if you can, but make absolutely sure to deny HTTP and SMTP.
Put the damn things on their own subnet and enforce the restrictions via network ACLs so even the "clever" users can't disable it.
Medical and industrial equipment vendors have zero interest in making sure their tools work properly on a normal enterprise workstation. So give them their little sandbox, and keep them as far away from the business network as possible.
There is no such law.
Yes, there is. The Constitution is law.
Congress has the power "to regulate Commerce... among the several States".
When Congress is granted a power, the states have no such power unless it is delegated back to them in law. Laws affecting commerce between the states are explicitly within federal jurisdiction.
Unless Congress hands that power back to the states, they cannot enforce laws of this nature. This is the part the Supreme Court clarified, but we already treat other federal powers this way.
As an example, Congress is also granted the power to establish and regulate the armed forces---which is why states are not allowed to form their own armies. The exception for the National Guard is authorized by Congress under Title 10 of the USC.
The same thing applies if a state tried to print its own money, negotiate foreign trade deals, or pass immigration laws. It is a federal power; they gave it up when they joined the Union.
If however they are on public property and you are for some reason annoyed by that, tough luck.
Not all public property is available to be used for any reason by anyone.
We have public parks, historical sites, stadiums, schools, etc., and the vendors would be kicked out of all of those places too.
If the sidewalk and roadside are not designed to accommodate vendor stalls, then it makes perfect sense to prohibit vendors from occupying those spaces. Sure, they can travel on the pavement like anyone else---so long as they keep moving instead of becoming an obstacle.
I like the idea of a public square where anyone can conduct business openly and freely, but people shouldn't be setting up shop where the land is dedicated to another purpose.
I as a software developer have virtually unlimited income potential working out of a $600 a month apartment
Which is fine by me, if I were your neighbor, because your development causes me to experience no:
1. Loud or disruptive noises
2. Unpleasant odors
3. Measurable health risks
4. Traffic congestion
5. Crowding / foot traffic
6. Loss of privacy
Any business that causes those things---and most cause more than one---can and should take place a good distance from my residence.
I am perfectly willing to choose a residence away from those things, but only zoning laws can ensure that such residential properties remain pleasant places to reside in.
What else can I say about someone who I have a low opinion of though?
You say nothing at all about the person and confine your commentary to their arguments.
they've been taken over by crazy idiots who are very counter-productive
All of the major social/political movements seem to be heading this way.
I think the loudest nutjobs are trying to be the next MLK or Gandhi, but they are not not smart or charismatic enough to pull a movement together. And some are simply self-serving and getting attention however they can.
The mudslinging is just another way to rally support and build that tribe, and extract some money from them.
It also provokes the opposition---which can be a good career move if the activism is a means to personal rather than social ends. If someone wants the national spotlight, there's nothing better than a verbal brawl that gets play with media pundits and editors.
It's not simply a matter of excluding part of the population from the information, but it's also about how to ensure that the research can continue in the future.
That is a laughable argument.
The LHC was built using tax money granted by CERN's member nations.
If they want to continue the research, CERN will be funded for new equipment and facilities when the time comes.
Netscape v Microsoft was a David/Goliath matchup when you look at the companies behind the software. Plus Microsoft used illegal means to promote IE over Navigator.
The phone OS market is entirely different. Both Android and iOS are supported by large corporations. Both are entrenched with an ecosystem of apps dependent on them, and users' money sunk into those apps.
Navigator actually did have some unique plugins, but other browsers eventually implemented their plugin API. And users didn't have their money invested in the platform.
I'd say the chances of upheaval in the phone OS market are nowhere near the same as what it was for the 90s browsers.
I'd rate a compatible-yet-superior implementation like Cyanogen as the best bet, but even that's a long shot. Google has more than enough resources to respond to any serious contenders.
It's not even hatred of MS that doomed their phones. I tried one in a store, and it was actually pretty usable. Arguably better than the contemporary Android phones.
But they had no apps. Back then, Google Maps was the top dog, and it wasn't on Windows Phone. Maybe one app out of a dozen that I wanted actually ran on it. And I couldn't find replacements for half of them.
If people don't develop for the platform, it's not gonna live long. Even the perception of "no apps" is deadly because it makes people---both devs and users---shy away from that platform.
Microsoft failed to get the jump on mobile with Windows CE, and Windows Phone was good but too late to the party.
I would prefer Windows Phone over iOS (as it's the less-walled garden), but an OS without developer support is worthless.
The systems were setup in 2008. They probably do run Windows XP.
And don't forget that most industrial control systems are not modified after installation. Vendors are notoriously reluctant to support any changes at all, including basic OS updates.
My employer has equipment connected to unpatched XP SP1 systems because the vendor won't support anything else, and the organization is not willing to spend $200K+ to replace machines that are doing their jobs.
They are standalone systems because of issues exactly like this one. If someone took an infected file over, it would be a long time before we noticed. There is no value in traditional antivirus without signature updates---which might be a consideration if the vendor supported it with antivirus in the first place.
This is what a lack of competition looks like. They don't have to support basic security measures because there are only one or two other companies in the world that make comparable equipment, and they offer the same level of support. So our security is screwed until the government decides to regulate it.
And nevermind all the man-hours we waste doing data transfers to/from these systems. That's just a cost of doing business.
A pocket-sized, internet-connected computer is extremely useful in some cases.
These are predominantly new use cases based on user mobility---so yes, your regular computer is still better if you can sit at a desk to use it. Lots of things cannot be done at a desk or at home, and that is where smartphones shine.
I use my phone more than my laptop during business travel, and I am eagerly awaiting the day I can leave the laptop behind entirely.
It is bad security, period, to allow a purchase without authenticating the user.
These apps were built insecurely in order to be "convenient", which is almost always a stupid decision.
I'm glad they got sued and lost. Now everyone will implement in-app purchases the right way because there is a legal precedent.
1. Prior performance is not a guarantee, but it can be a good indicator. Tesla, in particular, is a suitable benchmark since both firms deal primarily with engineering challenges, supply logistics, and government regulatory bodies.
2. Not exactly a suitable comparison. The European conquerors couldn't bring their own air or constitute fuel and food from basic compounds. We can. I question why we should bother, but we certainly can adapt to less favorable terrain better than they could.
3. The Pyramids are a huge tourist destination (in spite of intermittent regional political issues), and they demonstrate a degree of achievement which was astounding given the tools of the day.
I'm not sure there's much value in establishing a Martian colony in this decade, but we will need to get ourselves off this rock. Especially given our concerted efforts to ignore the fact that we are destabilizing the climate and ecology.
All of the same fundamental engineering challenges will be there whether we do it now or later, so we might as well start working on them now.
On the other hand they included some response work to different incidents for which he had not been on trial.
If there are other incidents or questionable activity on the network, you have to investigate whether they might be related. Investigating a one-off event is simple---usually you can ask someone if he meant to do it and why, and from there it's not hard to determine whether the activity was authorized.
As you add more actions and more assets to the list, the complexity of reviewing them grows rapidly.
Maybe this was a one-click restore, but if there were other things going on then their IT staff should assume this intrusion is related and pass it along to the incident response team. The response team will have to spend some time reviewing the compromise until the audit data shows it is indeed isolated.
I did it because I could, not because I understood the potential consequences.
And even today, the school wouldn't have to press charges. It's their decision on whether they want to involve the police at all.
You also could have been tried as a juvenile, as high schoolers are generally under 18. Juvenile records can often be sealed upon reaching adulthood so it doesn't follow you for your entire life. There are mechanisms in place for handling children.
On the other hand, the journalist who is going to jail was a professional who knew there might be consequences and did it anyway.
I have sympathy for a kid who doesn't know any better or doesn't understand the consequences, but an adult flirting with the dangerous crowd can reap what he sows.