It's even intrinsically immune to the build up of dust and detritus!
I seriously doubt that. Anyone who has repairs computers can tell you that even rapidly spinning fan blades can accumulate a thick coating of dust. Since this new device spins at "low and very quiet speeds", it's probably even less immune to dust.
You'll be hard pressed to come up with more than a few hundred MB of email in a year, the size of an average PowerPoint, I guess.
I do support for a number of businesses, and it's not at all uncommon to find people with upwards of 30,000 messages left in their inbox, easily taking up a few GB. I used to see Acer laptops shipped with FAT32 filesystems, and Outlook would break down severely when their.PST or.OST files hit the 4GB file size limit. Not to mention, accessing data in a huge Outlook data file gets pretty slow, so there are legitimate reasons not to treat your Inbox like a full-blown filesystem.
So move it to different folders ("Sales Leads", "Projects", whatever). And archive it.
Even archiving has it's drawbacks with Outlook. Archive files are created on the user's local hard drive, so no backup copies are created automatically. Relocating to a network share, for example, is not supported.
I always tell people if they have file attachments they want to keep, save them in a proper filesystem outside their e-mail program, in a location where they'll be backed up.
Due to the hierarchical nature of DNS, there is no difference between adding one more TLD and allowing any domain as a TLD (. vs.com).
I don't think that's true. There are only a small number of root servers around the world. Having an unlimited set of TLD's will require root servers to host much larger databases and to handle more traffic.
I faced a similar problem a couple of years back. I needed the ability to go online with my laptop while travelling south through Washington to California. I found what I needed at an AT&T store, but activating the required data plan involved some significant obstacles:
1. I couldn't open an account without an address with a US zip code. PO boxes are not acceptable. Fortunately I did have a US mailing address.
2. I had to leave a cash deposit of approx. $500.
3. I had to keep the plan active for a minimum number of months before I could claim my deposit back.
4. The monthly bills had to be delivered from my US mailing address to my home address in Canada.
5. AT&T cannot accept a bill payment from a non-US credit card! I had to send payments by mail to the US.
6. When I eventually closed the account and asked for my deposit back, some of it was withheld (for reasons I can't recall), and the remainder was given to me on some kind of prepaid credit card instead of cash. The card wasn't accepted at most places in Canada.
While I was able to get the Internet access I required, the trouble and expense involved was not worth it for me.
As for non-transferable, it just wouldn't work. You make money in those games by buying and selling virtual items. It needs to be tradeable.
I haven't played the games myself, but from the article it sounds like you earn credits by slaving away at some menial or repetitive tasks. If whatever credits or items you earn can't be transferred to another player, the problem described in the article would not exist. I don't think items "need" to be tradeable - it's a design choice.
It is known as "gold farming", the practice of building up credits and online value through the monotonous repetition of basic tasks in online games such as World of Warcraft. The trade in virtual assets is very real, and outside the control of the games' makers.
Why not simply make credits non-transferable within the game?
... You drank the Koolaid that online pervs are the biggest risk to kids... The biggest risk of abuse comes from family members... Online pervs are a drop in the bucket...
Why do you assume there is a distinction between "online pervs" and family members? One pedophile with fulltime access to a child (such as a parent or caregiver) could produce (and distribute) a lot of child porn.
Or is there something in TFA I didn't get? I confess the word "cloud" repeated every other line gave me a hard time understanding what the hell he was talking about.
I thought I was understanding him, until my brain bashed into this sentence:
"One credit union customer has been running end-point security for three years and has already experienced authentication token security.”
Sort of like saying you're perfectly happy to drive over bridges that have a decent chance of collapsing, so long as they haven't collapsed at that time?
No, it's not like that at all. A bridge that has "a decent chance of collapsing" is unsafe.
Isn't the issue that a site which is perfectly safe to browse but vulnerable to attack can become unsafe to browse in an instant,
In the case of web browsing, my main concern is whether a page is safe at the instant I view it, not whether it might become unsafe at a later time.
... just as the unsafe bridge works fine.. until it doesn't?
Again, I'm drawing a distinction between unsafe and vulnerable. The "unsafe bridge" is unsafe - period. I do not want to cross it, even if it's still "working fine".
If you want a bridge analogy, think of it like this: A bridge has a removable metal pin underneath. If someone removes the pin, the bridge will collapse when you cross it. Ideally, there should be a padlock on the pin that prevents removal. The question becomes, is the bridge "unsafe" if the pin is in place but not locked?
Getting back to McAfee, does their security scanner purport to tell you if the pin is in place, or if the pin cannot be removed? Another commenter has shown that McAfee was making both claims, and have therefore failed their own test.
the company aggressively markets its own McAfee Secure service that is supposed to assure consumers that McAfee has scanned a website and found it to be safe
There is a difference between whether a website is vulnerable to attacks and whether it's unsafe to view. If I'm going to open a page in my browser, I care whether or not the page is fact dangerous to view at that point in time, not whether it could potentially be made dangerous.
This is not to say I don't give a damn about XSS vulnerabilities and the like. It's simply a different (albeit related) topic.
4. IP addresses: This is a big one, if you host multiple websites on your server, and you only have a single IP address, you can't host more than one SSL certificate.
Any SSL cert that I've ever used was tied to a name, not an IP address. Try going to secure website and view the certificate. Do you see an IP address amongst the certificate details?
Using multiple names for the same site is an issue, however. If you want to accept both https://www.domain.com/ and https://domain.com/ for example, you need to pay for a more expensive type of certificate, or else your users will get a scary warning message when they connect with a name that's not on your certificate.
GPS is certainly nice. I was delighted to find out that my iPhone can guide me around an unfamiliar city by indicating where the nearest bus stop is, which bus I should catch, and when it's coming. I saved a bundle by hopping buses instead of taking taxis during a recent trip to Ottawa.
I guess iPhone developers don't speak French, however. Things went wrong the moment I bused over a bridge and into Quebec.
Palm PDA's have had this feature for ages. You entered your own information under Contacts, and then selected that contact as your "Business Card". Then, holding down the Contacts button would beam your card to another Palm via infrared. It was fast, and quite convenient back in the days when a lot of business people carried Palm Pilots.
Disclosure: I still carry a Palm Tungsten T5. I've also used smartphones such as a Blackberry, HP iPAQ, and iPhone 3GS. For the basic functions of contact management and calendar, I've never found anything that works as well as my old Palm PDA.
Ya, flicking that scroll button once is a huge price to pay for some potentially useful information.
Sheesh.
I can understand if some people don't like the format and prefer to use other sites, but to actually complain about it? I don't know if there's a word for people who complain about free stuff, but there should be.
It's hard to imagine how they could match the magic of the original cast. Sean Young sitting at Decker's piano and letting her hair down was breathtakingly beautiful. Rutger Hauer's (partially improvised) death scene still moves me after countless viewings. I could go on and on.
There is certainly room for expansion on the story, however. The lives of the replicants off-world were only hinted at, but fascinating: "Kick-murder squads". "Pleasure models". "Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion". There is enormous potential - to be either great or disappointing. Hollywood has produced great sequels on occasion. (The Godfather: Part 2 is a classic example). I'm going to be cautiously optimistic. I want to see more of this world.
It used to be fairly common for SCSI drives to have a read-only jumper. From a law enforcement perspective, it sounds like SSD's need a switch to disable writing. If this issue causes problems in enough court cases, it wouldn't surprise me if governments tried to make such a switch mandatory.
My first experiences with speech recognition began back around 1990. A computer company I worked for was experimenting with voice control. After being misinterpreted repeatedly, the person trying to use it would inevitably adopt a tone that was either (A) pleading, or (B) infuriated. It was always entertaining to listen to, and my favourite joke of yelling "FORMAT C COLON! YES! YES!" over the cubicle wall never lost its hilarity for me.
Then there was the submarine simulation game I purchased, which taught me that, contrary to my expectations, short utterances were more frequently misinterpreted than longer phrases. I recall giving the succinct command to "DIVE", to which the game responded "We don't have a periscope sir".
I was impressed when dictation products like "Naturally Speaking" came along, but ultimately decided that even 98% accuracy wasn't good enough. Correcting two percent of things that are recognized incorrectly is tiresome, and negates any time saving you would have gained.
Today I use voice dialing on a number of so-called "smart phones", and the frustration is about the same as it was 20 years ago. I need to deliberately mispronounce my own surname when trying to call family members, and mimicking the phone's own mispronunciation of my name doesn't help.
I think were still a long ways away from having any meaningful (non-aggravating) chats with our computers
Generally, good administrators tend to disable service that aren't wanted or needed in their systems. Who's to say that there's not going to be a vulnerability for the service discovered down the road...
Can't argue with that. It's just that on my own network, I get to choose my own balance of laziness vs. paranoia.
Slashdot Mirror
It's even intrinsically immune to the build up of dust and detritus!
I seriously doubt that. Anyone who has repairs computers can tell you that even rapidly spinning fan blades can accumulate a thick coating of dust. Since this new device spins at "low and very quiet speeds", it's probably even less immune to dust.
You'll be hard pressed to come up with more than a few hundred MB of email in a year, the size of an average PowerPoint, I guess.
I do support for a number of businesses, and it's not at all uncommon to find people with upwards of 30,000 messages left in their inbox, easily taking up a few GB. I used to see Acer laptops shipped with FAT32 filesystems, and Outlook would break down severely when their .PST or .OST files hit the 4GB file size limit. Not to mention, accessing data in a huge Outlook data file gets pretty slow, so there are legitimate reasons not to treat your Inbox like a full-blown filesystem.
So move it to different folders ("Sales Leads", "Projects", whatever). And archive it.
Even archiving has it's drawbacks with Outlook. Archive files are created on the user's local hard drive, so no backup copies are created automatically. Relocating to a network share, for example, is not supported.
I always tell people if they have file attachments they want to keep, save them in a proper filesystem outside their e-mail program, in a location where they'll be backed up.
Due to the hierarchical nature of DNS, there is no difference between adding one more TLD and allowing any domain as a TLD (. vs .com).
I don't think that's true. There are only a small number of root servers around the world. Having an unlimited set of TLD's will require root servers to host much larger databases and to handle more traffic.
Vultures Show German Police How to Find Bodies
Post some inflammatory content concerning Anonymous. Include boasts about being invulnerable to retaliation.
While I was able to get the Internet access I required, the trouble and expense involved was not worth it for me.
As for non-transferable, it just wouldn't work. You make money in those games by buying and selling virtual items. It needs to be tradeable.
I haven't played the games myself, but from the article it sounds like you earn credits by slaving away at some menial or repetitive tasks. If whatever credits or items you earn can't be transferred to another player, the problem described in the article would not exist. I don't think items "need" to be tradeable - it's a design choice.
FTA:
It is known as "gold farming", the practice of building up credits and online value through the monotonous repetition of basic tasks in online games such as World of Warcraft. The trade in virtual assets is very real, and outside the control of the games' makers.
Why not simply make credits non-transferable within the game?
Buy a dick towel today.
... You drank the Koolaid that online pervs are the biggest risk to kids... The biggest risk of abuse comes from family members... Online pervs are a drop in the bucket...
Why do you assume there is a distinction between "online pervs" and family members? One pedophile with fulltime access to a child (such as a parent or caregiver) could produce (and distribute) a lot of child porn.
Or is there something in TFA I didn't get? I confess the word "cloud" repeated every other line gave me a hard time understanding what the hell he was talking about.
I thought I was understanding him, until my brain bashed into this sentence:
"One credit union customer has been running end-point security for three years and has already experienced authentication token security.”
Whaaaaat???
Sort of like saying you're perfectly happy to drive over bridges that have a decent chance of collapsing, so long as they haven't collapsed at that time?
No, it's not like that at all. A bridge that has "a decent chance of collapsing" is unsafe.
Isn't the issue that a site which is perfectly safe to browse but vulnerable to attack can become unsafe to browse in an instant,
In the case of web browsing, my main concern is whether a page is safe at the instant I view it, not whether it might become unsafe at a later time.
... just as the unsafe bridge works fine.. until it doesn't?
Again, I'm drawing a distinction between unsafe and vulnerable. The "unsafe bridge" is unsafe - period. I do not want to cross it, even if it's still "working fine".
If you want a bridge analogy, think of it like this: A bridge has a removable metal pin underneath. If someone removes the pin, the bridge will collapse when you cross it. Ideally, there should be a padlock on the pin that prevents removal. The question becomes, is the bridge "unsafe" if the pin is in place but not locked?
Getting back to McAfee, does their security scanner purport to tell you if the pin is in place, or if the pin cannot be removed? Another commenter has shown that McAfee was making both claims, and have therefore failed their own test.
the company aggressively markets its own McAfee Secure service that is supposed to assure consumers that McAfee has scanned a website and found it to be safe
There is a difference between whether a website is vulnerable to attacks and whether it's unsafe to view. If I'm going to open a page in my browser, I care whether or not the page is fact dangerous to view at that point in time, not whether it could potentially be made dangerous.
This is not to say I don't give a damn about XSS vulnerabilities and the like. It's simply a different (albeit related) topic.
4. IP addresses: This is a big one, if you host multiple websites on your server, and you only have a single IP address, you can't host more than one SSL certificate.
Any SSL cert that I've ever used was tied to a name, not an IP address. Try going to secure website and view the certificate. Do you see an IP address amongst the certificate details?
Using multiple names for the same site is an issue, however. If you want to accept both https://www.domain.com/ and https://domain.com/ for example, you need to pay for a more expensive type of certificate, or else your users will get a scary warning message when they connect with a name that's not on your certificate.
GPS is certainly nice. I was delighted to find out that my iPhone can guide me around an unfamiliar city by indicating where the nearest bus stop is, which bus I should catch, and when it's coming. I saved a bundle by hopping buses instead of taking taxis during a recent trip to Ottawa.
I guess iPhone developers don't speak French, however. Things went wrong the moment I bused over a bridge and into Quebec.
Palm PDA's have had this feature for ages. You entered your own information under Contacts, and then selected that contact as your "Business Card". Then, holding down the Contacts button would beam your card to another Palm via infrared. It was fast, and quite convenient back in the days when a lot of business people carried Palm Pilots.
Disclosure: I still carry a Palm Tungsten T5. I've also used smartphones such as a Blackberry, HP iPAQ, and iPhone 3GS. For the basic functions of contact management and calendar, I've never found anything that works as well as my old Palm PDA.
While it is hard to know with certainty that the site in Spain in Atlantis...
Yep, that's what the world has been waiting for. More unproven speculation about Atlantis.
I love it! It is being used for other meanings, however.
Ya, flicking that scroll button once is a huge price to pay for some potentially useful information.
Sheesh.
I can understand if some people don't like the format and prefer to use other sites, but to actually complain about it? I don't know if there's a word for people who complain about free stuff, but there should be.
It's hard to imagine how they could match the magic of the original cast. Sean Young sitting at Decker's piano and letting her hair down was breathtakingly beautiful. Rutger Hauer's (partially improvised) death scene still moves me after countless viewings. I could go on and on.
There is certainly room for expansion on the story, however. The lives of the replicants off-world were only hinted at, but fascinating: "Kick-murder squads". "Pleasure models". "Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion". There is enormous potential - to be either great or disappointing. Hollywood has produced great sequels on occasion. (The Godfather: Part 2 is a classic example). I'm going to be cautiously optimistic. I want to see more of this world.
It used to be fairly common for SCSI drives to have a read-only jumper. From a law enforcement perspective, it sounds like SSD's need a switch to disable writing. If this issue causes problems in enough court cases, it wouldn't surprise me if governments tried to make such a switch mandatory.
Splintering DNS forks the Internet so that Internet users might never know where to go to get domains, or what they might get.
Which is worse: Injecting forged data into the DNS, or eliminating data that you don't like?
Kashpureff was guilty of the former. Now the US government is doing the latter - seizing domain names on behalf of commercial interests.
My first experiences with speech recognition began back around 1990. A computer company I worked for was experimenting with voice control. After being misinterpreted repeatedly, the person trying to use it would inevitably adopt a tone that was either (A) pleading, or (B) infuriated. It was always entertaining to listen to, and my favourite joke of yelling "FORMAT C COLON! YES! YES!" over the cubicle wall never lost its hilarity for me.
Then there was the submarine simulation game I purchased, which taught me that, contrary to my expectations, short utterances were more frequently misinterpreted than longer phrases. I recall giving the succinct command to "DIVE", to which the game responded "We don't have a periscope sir".
I was impressed when dictation products like "Naturally Speaking" came along, but ultimately decided that even 98% accuracy wasn't good enough. Correcting two percent of things that are recognized incorrectly is tiresome, and negates any time saving you would have gained.
Today I use voice dialing on a number of so-called "smart phones", and the frustration is about the same as it was 20 years ago. I need to deliberately mispronounce my own surname when trying to call family members, and mimicking the phone's own mispronunciation of my name doesn't help.
I think were still a long ways away from having any meaningful (non-aggravating) chats with our computers
.
Generally, good administrators tend to disable service that aren't wanted or needed in their systems. Who's to say that there's not going to be a vulnerability for the service discovered down the road...
Can't argue with that. It's just that on my own network, I get to choose my own balance of laziness vs. paranoia.
You'll notice I said "on my network". I'm not advocating this stance for everyone.