It only asks for administrator passwords when doing administrative things like installing programs and changing global settings.
Yep, that's exactly what Windows does. They really have done work on Windows in the last 17 years!
Well, they've certainly slapped on a series of bandaids that make you think that's what Windows does. It doesn't really work that way - on UNIX you can elevate a security token with new privs via authentication and authorization, in windows, you have to start with the max permissions and then mask it to reduce permissions and only then can you unmask *existing* permissions within a process. Hint for the slow, that means essentially you effectively have all permissions of the process available at all times. That's entirely unlike unix. So no, that's not what windows does.
Originally, IIRC, only actual inventions (ie, concrete implementations) were patentable. A large part of that depended on the interpretation of the three folks tasked with approving patents.
That's definitely some stagnation, although I thought AMD was pushing out some new CPUs? I'll be honest, when my current CPU hasn't been bested by enough to make an upgrade worth looking at, I haven't really kept up to date on all CPU advancements, or lack thereof. Yay - here's a $1500 part that goes 10% faster... Wake me when it's a $100 upgrade for 10%.
It hasn't held true, since about 6 years ago. Fabrication processes have slowed down miniaturization, and heat has killed off creating more powerful systems. (both of which moore's law implied. We all knew there would be a plateau reached, we just got there faster than expected. Architectures changed in the early 2000s, and then again in the late 2000s. We are now requiring a new architecture.
I built myself a gaming PC about two years ago. I've been an AMD supported for decades, so I went with the best CPU AMD was offering at the time. Two years later, it's still the best CPU AMD offers.
Well, I built a PC 7 years ago. It STILL is within roughly 30% of the top comparable system you can build today. These are Intel CPUs btw. Their performance plateaued with the Sandy Bridge core design, although the Gulftown I have competes well with the top end available with even the current i7s. Yes, the 4790K is faster single threaded, but if you OC both the extra overhead available on the Gulftown closes the gap considerably. And overall performance the Gulftown doesn't get doubled until you go to the current 20 core monster that isn't even available for desktop use yet.
So just realize that Moore's law is done, at least for the last 8 years it has not held. Real performance has barely doubled in the last 7 years by any measure. We have reduced power and heat during that time frame for equivalent performance. So there's still progress, but it's not the 1990s through 2010 heyday we experienced where major performance improvements occurred pretty much every 2 years.
by repeatedly pointing out errors (however trivial) out of the tens of thousands of news stories that are published every day
In other words, exactly the same thing the New York Times (and others) do with Trump's utterances. Please don't pretend that this is a one-sided thing.
Only with Trump, you can just wait for the next 4 sentences he utters, and at least 3 of them will have at least 1 error each. The fourth will be 100% opinion (It will be the GREATEST 'x'!)
I'm currently blocking quite a few google sites by default. No real issues here, other than a certain subset of videos don't play. This is perfectly fine by me, as I generally don't watch videos in a web browser anyways. I also don't use google search, and regularly clear all cookies.
I agree, a coder should be more than a low-level technician. Engineer might be taking it a little too far, just for a coder. After all, a master mechanic that can diagnose an engine problem as well as an engineer will still have little ability to design an engine from scratch. I am not sure the coding world would be better with 100% engineers in place. After all, things like commons-digester and struts were designed by a prolific engineer, and the former is an absolutely atrocious solution no one should use ever IMNSHO. The latter was a common target for replacement for years due to short-comings, but sufficed for low-hanging fruit projects so stubbornly clung on for a decade.
The job to evaluate technological skills must always be done by a chief engineer (or equivalent). If you do not have a chief engineer, then you cannot evaluate the technological skills of people, and that is it. Other engineering disciplines do understand this. But "coders" are often not even viewed as engineers these days, which is just plain stupid and just another facet of the same problem.
Most coders are not engineers in any way shape or form. Want to know if they might qualify as an engineer? Ask them how the memory access for an algorithm works. I'll bet you 99% of those you ask today cannot answer that question. Most of the remainder won't know how address space works under the covers nor how processes and threads work. They are nothing more than the mechanics at your local oil change place that don't have a clue about how the engine actually works. They can slap a few things together, change some stuff out, but that's it (just to throw in the car analogy)
What was actionable: The 150+ Emails containing classified information that were on her unclassified private server. Each email constitutes a count of either failure to protect/negligent mishandling or intentional security compromise. Both charges are felonies, the first though has no requirement of Intent. Each count is worth 5 to 10 years in Prison and $10,000 or higher fine. How is that for actionable and quantifiable "what"?
Everybody entrusted with classified information is held to the same legal standards, many a lessor person has faced decades in Jail for such a crimes. She could get lucky and be charged with the negligent mishandling charges for all the emails she sent. (she is not liable for emails sent to her that might have contained such info, but then the FBI should be going after whoever sent those to her), but as Classified information, is stored on physically separate networks and machines, the act of transferring the data, especially the Top Secret info that was on some of the emails, is a deliberate act so she should face the slightly more severe deliberate security compromise charges.
Last I looked at this, there was sensitive information on about 110 emails. Not classified, sensitive. There were 8 with what was considered "classified" information, at the time of the review. Nothing was said about who the source of those emails were, nor whether they were classified information at the time of sending. Note also that Clinton, as Sec of State, is someone with the authority to classify information. If she deemed it non-classified at the time of sending, it's non-classified at that time. So, unless you can convincingly prove that Clinton actually knowingly mishandled classified information, this is pretty much dead. Note that if you can prove this, you'd likely be in line for a high level DOJ spot, as quite a few rabidly partisan folks with law degrees and years of experience couldn't figure out a way to make that case.
In short, this is all about perception and a smear campaign. Where's the outrage about Powell's or Rice's use of private (non-governmental) email servers? Where's the review of those emails? Perhaps there isn't a criminal story in any of this.
What part about a one sided declaration of closing of the conversation while putting in parting shots begging for a response don't you get? Or are you just a hypocrite? Note that is a rhetorical question, I don't need or want a response as it will be pointless.
It was actually a refusal to get sidetracked into information theory.
which was clearly justified by your closing diss of Hillary. Not saying that I like her, but I'm already pretty certain that you can't convince me she was such an exceptionally bad candidate and I had no problem voting for her, even if I would have preferred a less conservative option.
I primarily don't like her because IMHO she's been far less than honest about anything she's asked about in discussion, engendering a sense of unease. I am not alone.
Next you'll be telling me that you have a guaranteed compression algorithm that will make any file at least one bit smaller, right?
Unless you have something new or interesting to say, I'm filing this as pointless and closed.
I do have a guaranteed compression algorithm that makes any file at least one bit smaller (remove EOF, ok maybe more than 1 bit;)
No. Go study some information theory. Reality is not like that.
You cannot pretend the complexity does not exist. If you force the legislature to ignore the complexities (by compressing their legislation)
I don't pretend that complexities don't exist. What I'm saying is that at this level of government, perhaps we'd be better served by our laws being understandable pieces of legislation. The current system is anything but understandable, even within a single law, even to one schooled in law. Apparently something is broken.
If you prevent the bureaucracy (as part of the executive branch) from addressing the complexities
It is the executive branch's job to execute the laws, wherein they need to address any complexities that may arise. e.g., if congress approves a budget for NASA to go to Mars, and the executive decides that company x will provide y, and delegate bob from state s has a competitor and disagrees, well, too bad (that's the "complexities" currently handled by congress, otherwise known as "pork") Congress should stick to laws, not micromanaging every aspect of said law. If they don't like how the law is being executed, they should repair it, replace it, or repeal it. Judges (in the context of the 3 branches, i.e., the SC) should only rule on whether a law is constitutional or not or whether the executive is operating within the context of said law, or not. Those are the checks and balances.
Right now I'm thinking you might be one of the angry losers who supported #PresidentTweety for his delusional lies about delusional greatness
You would be wrong, on all counts, except for dump's delusions. I think the (not alternative) fact that he's delusional is obvious to all at this point. Voting for hillary was similar to punching yourself in the face. Sadly, voting for trump was much much worse and unprintable much like many of his now public comments and who knows how many that aren't yet.
Perhaps, but how much is your time worth to fix the data issues from failed drives? I personally haven't touched a Seagate since their terrible >1 TB drives came out. I personally have 3 of those that failed within a year of purchase. It wasn't even worth exchanging them, I just replaced them with WD/Hitachi and never looked back.
Slashdot Mirror
It only asks for administrator passwords when doing administrative things like installing programs and changing global settings.
Yep, that's exactly what Windows does. They really have done work on Windows in the last 17 years!
Well, they've certainly slapped on a series of bandaids that make you think that's what Windows does. It doesn't really work that way - on UNIX you can elevate a security token with new privs via authentication and authorization, in windows, you have to start with the max permissions and then mask it to reduce permissions and only then can you unmask *existing* permissions within a process. Hint for the slow, that means essentially you effectively have all permissions of the process available at all times. That's entirely unlike unix. So no, that's not what windows does.
Originally, IIRC, only actual inventions (ie, concrete implementations) were patentable. A large part of that depended on the interpretation of the three folks tasked with approving patents.
Until they can double the performance of an OC'd 980x and do it for a total cost of less than $500, I will not be interested. :)
That's definitely some stagnation, although I thought AMD was pushing out some new CPUs? I'll be honest, when my current CPU hasn't been bested by enough to make an upgrade worth looking at, I haven't really kept up to date on all CPU advancements, or lack thereof. Yay - here's a $1500 part that goes 10% faster... Wake me when it's a $100 upgrade for 10%.
It hasn't held true, since about 6 years ago. Fabrication processes have slowed down miniaturization, and heat has killed off creating more powerful systems. (both of which moore's law implied. We all knew there would be a plateau reached, we just got there faster than expected. Architectures changed in the early 2000s, and then again in the late 2000s. We are now requiring a new architecture.
I built myself a gaming PC about two years ago. I've been an AMD supported for decades, so I went with the best CPU AMD was offering at the time. Two years later, it's still the best CPU AMD offers.
Well, I built a PC 7 years ago. It STILL is within roughly 30% of the top comparable system you can build today. These are Intel CPUs btw. Their performance plateaued with the Sandy Bridge core design, although the Gulftown I have competes well with the top end available with even the current i7s. Yes, the 4790K is faster single threaded, but if you OC both the extra overhead available on the Gulftown closes the gap considerably. And overall performance the Gulftown doesn't get doubled until you go to the current 20 core monster that isn't even available for desktop use yet.
So just realize that Moore's law is done, at least for the last 8 years it has not held. Real performance has barely doubled in the last 7 years by any measure. We have reduced power and heat during that time frame for equivalent performance. So there's still progress, but it's not the 1990s through 2010 heyday we experienced where major performance improvements occurred pretty much every 2 years.
by repeatedly pointing out errors (however trivial) out of the tens of thousands of news stories that are published every day
In other words, exactly the same thing the New York Times (and others) do with Trump's utterances. Please don't pretend that this is a one-sided thing.
Only with Trump, you can just wait for the next 4 sentences he utters, and at least 3 of them will have at least 1 error each. The fourth will be 100% opinion (It will be the GREATEST 'x'!)
I'm currently blocking quite a few google sites by default. No real issues here, other than a certain subset of videos don't play. This is perfectly fine by me, as I generally don't watch videos in a web browser anyways. I also don't use google search, and regularly clear all cookies.
They'll be that meek, lives in grandma's basement, bookish skinny kid.
There is another solution to this that conceptually already exists and is in use. Maybe it's time to figure out a way to apply it on a large scale.
Easier solution: Simply make it illegal to resell tickets at higher than face value.
That's already been done in various locales and has had near zero effect, other than you can't buy tickets walking up to the venue.
Maybe look at Sudan, Syria, or Somalia?
I agree, a coder should be more than a low-level technician. Engineer might be taking it a little too far, just for a coder. After all, a master mechanic that can diagnose an engine problem as well as an engineer will still have little ability to design an engine from scratch. I am not sure the coding world would be better with 100% engineers in place. After all, things like commons-digester and struts were designed by a prolific engineer, and the former is an absolutely atrocious solution no one should use ever IMNSHO. The latter was a common target for replacement for years due to short-comings, but sufficed for low-hanging fruit projects so stubbornly clung on for a decade.
This is what happens when you combine a syncing service with a backup service into a cloud product.
FTFY
The job to evaluate technological skills must always be done by a chief engineer (or equivalent). If you do not have a chief engineer, then you cannot evaluate the technological skills of people, and that is it. Other engineering disciplines do understand this. But "coders" are often not even viewed as engineers these days, which is just plain stupid and just another facet of the same problem.
Most coders are not engineers in any way shape or form. Want to know if they might qualify as an engineer? Ask them how the memory access for an algorithm works. I'll bet you 99% of those you ask today cannot answer that question. Most of the remainder won't know how address space works under the covers nor how processes and threads work. They are nothing more than the mechanics at your local oil change place that don't have a clue about how the engine actually works. They can slap a few things together, change some stuff out, but that's it (just to throw in the car analogy)
Link for pretty in depth story on the email scandals.
What was actionable: The 150+ Emails containing classified information that were on her unclassified private server. Each email constitutes a count of either failure to protect/negligent mishandling or intentional security compromise. Both charges are felonies, the first though has no requirement of Intent. Each count is worth 5 to 10 years in Prison and $10,000 or higher fine. How is that for actionable and quantifiable "what"? Everybody entrusted with classified information is held to the same legal standards, many a lessor person has faced decades in Jail for such a crimes. She could get lucky and be charged with the negligent mishandling charges for all the emails she sent. (she is not liable for emails sent to her that might have contained such info, but then the FBI should be going after whoever sent those to her), but as Classified information, is stored on physically separate networks and machines, the act of transferring the data, especially the Top Secret info that was on some of the emails, is a deliberate act so she should face the slightly more severe deliberate security compromise charges.
Last I looked at this, there was sensitive information on about 110 emails. Not classified, sensitive. There were 8 with what was considered "classified" information, at the time of the review. Nothing was said about who the source of those emails were, nor whether they were classified information at the time of sending. Note also that Clinton, as Sec of State, is someone with the authority to classify information. If she deemed it non-classified at the time of sending, it's non-classified at that time. So, unless you can convincingly prove that Clinton actually knowingly mishandled classified information, this is pretty much dead. Note that if you can prove this, you'd likely be in line for a high level DOJ spot, as quite a few rabidly partisan folks with law degrees and years of experience couldn't figure out a way to make that case.
In short, this is all about perception and a smear campaign. Where's the outrage about Powell's or Rice's use of private (non-governmental) email servers? Where's the review of those emails? Perhaps there isn't a criminal story in any of this.
Aren't they required to conduct all government business on government systems? Didn't Hilary got a whole lot of crap (and lose an election) over this?
Welp, they're in charge so I guess they get to make the rules, but did they even bother to change the laws first?
Trump and the GOP are hypocrites?
That's unpossible!
Inconceivable!
Perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster agreed to detour around the plant if the Intel CEO cozied up to Trump. We just don't know! YOU DECIDE!
You are probably a person who believes that the pyramids in Egypt and Mesoamerica were built by aliens because some crazy white people said so.
There's movies and series about it, so it must be true! And Zero Point modules will feed all our energy needs, cleanly, for free.
What part about a one sided declaration of closing of the conversation while putting in parting shots begging for a response don't you get? Or are you just a hypocrite? Note that is a rhetorical question, I don't need or want a response as it will be pointless.
Mostly dismissed your comments as light scanning
It was actually a refusal to get sidetracked into information theory.
which was clearly justified by your closing diss of Hillary. Not saying that I like her, but I'm already pretty certain that you can't convince me she was such an exceptionally bad candidate and I had no problem voting for her, even if I would have preferred a less conservative option.
I primarily don't like her because IMHO she's been far less than honest about anything she's asked about in discussion, engendering a sense of unease. I am not alone.
Next you'll be telling me that you have a guaranteed compression algorithm that will make any file at least one bit smaller, right?
Unless you have something new or interesting to say, I'm filing this as pointless and closed.
I do have a guaranteed compression algorithm that makes any file at least one bit smaller (remove EOF, ok maybe more than 1 bit ;)
No. Go study some information theory. Reality is not like that.
You cannot pretend the complexity does not exist. If you force the legislature to ignore the complexities (by compressing their legislation)
I don't pretend that complexities don't exist. What I'm saying is that at this level of government, perhaps we'd be better served by our laws being understandable pieces of legislation. The current system is anything but understandable, even within a single law, even to one schooled in law. Apparently something is broken.
If you prevent the bureaucracy (as part of the executive branch) from addressing the complexities
It is the executive branch's job to execute the laws, wherein they need to address any complexities that may arise. e.g., if congress approves a budget for NASA to go to Mars, and the executive decides that company x will provide y, and delegate bob from state s has a competitor and disagrees, well, too bad (that's the "complexities" currently handled by congress, otherwise known as "pork") Congress should stick to laws, not micromanaging every aspect of said law. If they don't like how the law is being executed, they should repair it, replace it, or repeal it. Judges (in the context of the 3 branches, i.e., the SC) should only rule on whether a law is constitutional or not or whether the executive is operating within the context of said law, or not. Those are the checks and balances.
Right now I'm thinking you might be one of the angry losers who supported #PresidentTweety for his delusional lies about delusional greatness
You would be wrong, on all counts, except for dump's delusions. I think the (not alternative) fact that he's delusional is obvious to all at this point. Voting for hillary was similar to punching yourself in the face. Sadly, voting for trump was much much worse and unprintable much like many of his now public comments and who knows how many that aren't yet.
40% would be worse than guessing, with a yes/no possibility.
Perhaps, but how much is your time worth to fix the data issues from failed drives? I personally haven't touched a Seagate since their terrible >1 TB drives came out. I personally have 3 of those that failed within a year of purchase. It wasn't even worth exchanging them, I just replaced them with WD/Hitachi and never looked back.