There's another problem I've found with SSDs in addition to their failures occurring with no previous warning signs. That is that the process of obtaining warranty replacements can be terrible.
Perhaps because hard drives were expected to fail, manufacturers put procedures in place (such as "Advance" RMA) to ship a replacement very quickly. This is important when, for example, you have a single-drive failure in a RAID configuration that can only tolerate losing one drive.
My experience with obtaining two warranty replacements on Intel M.2 SSDs has been really poor. In each case the replacement drive took so long to arrive I had to purchase a replacement drive in the meantime.
But really my own pet peeve is Bluetooth. You can add a mobile device currently sharing it's internet settings from the Settings menu, but in order to actually connect to it you need to do it from Devices and Printers.
Just like you can view your VPN connections by clicking on the systray network icon, but to actually connect you're forced to click the VPN connection a second time in Settings > VPN. There used to be a connect option when you clicked on it the first time.
As for connecting / disconnecting Bluetooth stuff, I've never gone any way other than clicking on the systray Bluetooth icon which, oddly, behaves the same way with either a right or a left click.
But never mind all these interface peculiarities, or annoying Windows defaults like hiding file extensions, we're being given new icons!
So you finally embraced a modern and efficient way of using a computer. Congrats.
"Embraced" is too strong a word. And my complaint is not whether or not the method is efficient. It's about the constant imposition of changes for the sake of change. Unlike you I did not find the menu structure of Windows 7 to be a "waste of time". I knew where everything could be found, and could navigate to it in a simple and consistent manner.
Furthermore, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Microsoft could have added your "modern" method of navigation without axing the legacy Start Menu. The real reason they started butchering the user interface after Windows 7 was because they were trying to encompass touch devices like smartphones and tablets, and I think most people agree the attempt was an utter debacle.
To be clear you wanted to change something on WiFi and you had to "Google" that this setting was under: "Settings > Network and Internet > WiFi"?
Maybe computers aren't for you.
Congrats to you, despite your palpable smugness, for knowing where that setting was. But again you're missing my point. My complaint is not where they put the setting, but that network settings as a whole are scattered among various locations, and that Microsoft has a habit of changing the locations arbitrarily.
First don't "resort to searching", do what every terminal user has known all along and go directly the much more efficient keyboard interface to begin with. Leave the mouse out of it entirely. [Windows-key] "some related text"...
That's exactly what I meant by "searching". Start typing and watch the results that appear.
The rest of your advice regarding how to create a useful start menu is also pretty much what I've been doing, but I still resent the fact that if I want a functional start menu I have to build it myself. It's also no help on the dozens of computers I remote into everyday that have only the Microsoft defaults to work with.
For the love of God, who gives a flying f*ck about new icons? Give us back a working Start menu!
I work on multiple versions of Windows and Windows Server every day, and I am constantly hunting for things. Do I right-click or left-click the Start button?
I used to be able to get to anything I needed by drilling down through a menu or two. Now I resort to the search functionality constantly. Not to mention that settings for related things must be accessed in completely different places. Network-related settings are a good example:
Right-click network icon -> Open Network and Sharing Centre
Want to edit network settings for a VPN connection, or authentication details? Two completely different places. I was recently trying to get rid of a remembered WiFi network in Windows 10 and I had to Google how do it!
Locally installed applications are not exposed to this mode of failure. This story is about as interesting as people who complain about breakfast hours at restaurants. Cook your own breakfast any time of day.
Show me the locally installed Multi-Factor Authentication solution that doesn't have any cloud component.
Sure, we could go to five cameras next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, four worked out pretty well, and five is the next number after four. So let's play it safe. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why!
You think it's crazy? It is crazy. But I don't give a shit. From now on, we're the ones who have the edge in the multi-camera game.
I like the added security of two-factor authentication, but the only solutions I've worked with (Duo Security and Azure MFA) rely on third-party/cloud services. Azure MFA Server runs on-premise, but still relies on Azure Active Directory.
Are there any good solutions that are entirely self-hosted?
The new method is not purported to be perfect. It does, however, allow people to measure a kilogram with as much accuracy as the current system without shipping reference weights around the world for comparison.
It may also be worth noting that today's cameras have enough resolution to reveal your fingerprints when you flash a peace sign in a photo, for example.
I have to say that namecheck, press-ganged into a verb, with the mainsail of semantic drift inflated to a D cup, made me throw up a little bit in my mouth.
The guy who wrote that sentence is criticizing people's use of language?
Also of interest is the fact (pun setup) they interchange links with their main domain and with a redirect from my country's TLD subdomain "facts.pt" (pun successful..?)
It sounds to me like the destruction was remotely triggered moments after the sale. Thus the artwork did not destroy itself. A person destroyed it via remote control.
I'd like to hear about mitigation. Would simply not configuring an IP address on the BMC be enough?
I generally configure whatever kind of BMC I have available on a server (such as HPE iLO or Dell iDRAC) because I like the idea of low-level remote access, but in truth I can't recall ever having used it to solve a problem.
So it's not enough that Google tracks you via web browsing, Android phones, search queries, gmail, etc. Now they want you to use their DNS so they can track EVERY connection you make over the Internet, regardless of whether it originates from one of their products.
You think touchscreens are maddening? Back when Windows 8 first came out, I was obliged to deal with it, and decided that some degree of touch capability would make it easier to navigate. Lacking a touchscreen, I opted to try a couple of mice with touch - one from Microsoft, and one from Logitech. It was simply infuriating to be halfway through filling out a form or posting something online, only to have the mouse interpret some imperceptible movement of your thumb as a "back" gesture.
But what kind of retarded sadist would open themselves up to Microsoft's chicanery on a Mac?
The same moron who insists on bringing a Mac to work in a company with a Windows-based infrastructure.
As a single example, I support a number of travel agencies in Canada. The software used for booking airline reservations requires Windows. I'm not saying this is good or bad, it is simply a fact. Agents who insist on using a Mac are forced to run an emulated instance of Windows.
In their report, Scholze and Stix argue that a line of reasoning near the end of the proof of "Corollary 3.12" in Mochizuki's third of four papers is fundamentally flawed.
I am definitely incapable of reading Mochzuki's proof, but it would have been interesting if the article had cited the line in question.
So, if I'm following your explanation, entanglement results in a "consistent universe" for particles that interact. Although I don't profess to understand it deeply, your explanation seems reasonable to me. Which again leads me to wonder, why is this described as "shocking"?
Slashdot Mirror
There's another problem I've found with SSDs in addition to their failures occurring with no previous warning signs. That is that the process of obtaining warranty replacements can be terrible.
Perhaps because hard drives were expected to fail, manufacturers put procedures in place (such as "Advance" RMA) to ship a replacement very quickly. This is important when, for example, you have a single-drive failure in a RAID configuration that can only tolerate losing one drive.
My experience with obtaining two warranty replacements on Intel M.2 SSDs has been really poor. In each case the replacement drive took so long to arrive I had to purchase a replacement drive in the meantime.
But really my own pet peeve is Bluetooth. You can add a mobile device currently sharing it's internet settings from the Settings menu, but in order to actually connect to it you need to do it from Devices and Printers.
Just like you can view your VPN connections by clicking on the systray network icon, but to actually connect you're forced to click the VPN connection a second time in Settings > VPN. There used to be a connect option when you clicked on it the first time.
As for connecting / disconnecting Bluetooth stuff, I've never gone any way other than clicking on the systray Bluetooth icon which, oddly, behaves the same way with either a right or a left click.
But never mind all these interface peculiarities, or annoying Windows defaults like hiding file extensions, we're being given new icons!
So you finally embraced a modern and efficient way of using a computer. Congrats.
"Embraced" is too strong a word. And my complaint is not whether or not the method is efficient. It's about the constant imposition of changes for the sake of change. Unlike you I did not find the menu structure of Windows 7 to be a "waste of time". I knew where everything could be found, and could navigate to it in a simple and consistent manner.
Furthermore, the two approaches are not mutually exclusive. Microsoft could have added your "modern" method of navigation without axing the legacy Start Menu. The real reason they started butchering the user interface after Windows 7 was because they were trying to encompass touch devices like smartphones and tablets, and I think most people agree the attempt was an utter debacle.
To be clear you wanted to change something on WiFi and you had to "Google" that this setting was under: "Settings > Network and Internet > WiFi"? Maybe computers aren't for you.
Congrats to you, despite your palpable smugness, for knowing where that setting was. But again you're missing my point. My complaint is not where they put the setting, but that network settings as a whole are scattered among various locations, and that Microsoft has a habit of changing the locations arbitrarily.
First don't "resort to searching", do what every terminal user has known all along and go directly the much more efficient keyboard interface to begin with. Leave the mouse out of it entirely. [Windows-key] "some related text"...
That's exactly what I meant by "searching". Start typing and watch the results that appear.
The rest of your advice regarding how to create a useful start menu is also pretty much what I've been doing, but I still resent the fact that if I want a functional start menu I have to build it myself. It's also no help on the dozens of computers I remote into everyday that have only the Microsoft defaults to work with.
Windows is also getting its own icon changes...
For the love of God, who gives a flying f*ck about new icons? Give us back a working Start menu!
I work on multiple versions of Windows and Windows Server every day, and I am constantly hunting for things. Do I right-click or left-click the Start button?
I used to be able to get to anything I needed by drilling down through a menu or two. Now I resort to the search functionality constantly. Not to mention that settings for related things must be accessed in completely different places. Network-related settings are a good example:
Want to edit network settings for a VPN connection, or authentication details? Two completely different places. I was recently trying to get rid of a remembered WiFi network in Windows 10 and I had to Google how do it!
It's a complete mess.
"Engineers are currently in the process of cycling backend services responsible for processing MFA requests."
So, they're turning it off and back on again.
Exactly. And they're been staring at this for the last 90 minutes:
"Windows is installing updates. Please do not power off or unplug your machine".
Locally installed applications are not exposed to this mode of failure. This story is about as interesting as people who complain about breakfast hours at restaurants. Cook your own breakfast any time of day.
Show me the locally installed Multi-Factor Authentication solution that doesn't have any cloud component.
Sure, we could go to five cameras next, like the competition. That seems like the logical thing to do. After all, four worked out pretty well, and five is the next number after four. So let's play it safe. Why innovate when we can follow? Oh, I know why: Because we're a business, that's why!
You think it's crazy? It is crazy. But I don't give a shit. From now on, we're the ones who have the edge in the multi-camera game.
I like the added security of two-factor authentication, but the only solutions I've worked with (Duo Security and Azure MFA) rely on third-party/cloud services. Azure MFA Server runs on-premise, but still relies on Azure Active Directory.
Are there any good solutions that are entirely self-hosted?
...no system is perfect.
The new method is not purported to be perfect. It does, however, allow people to measure a kilogram with as much accuracy as the current system without shipping reference weights around the world for comparison.
It may also be worth noting that today's cameras have enough resolution to reveal your fingerprints when you flash a peace sign in a photo, for example.
Can we get a few more Samsung stories in the front page please?
I have to say that namecheck, press-ganged into a verb, with the mainsail of semantic drift inflated to a D cup, made me throw up a little bit in my mouth.
The guy who wrote that sentence is criticizing people's use of language?
The Compensating Legacy Artists for their Songs, Service, & Important Contributions to Society (CLASSICS) Act for pre-1972 recordings.
Hopefully they put as much thought into the legislation as they put into devising a clever acronym.
Also of interest is the fact (pun setup) they interchange links with their main domain and with a redirect from my country's TLD subdomain "facts.pt" (pun successful..?)
Nope.
It sounds to me like the destruction was remotely triggered moments after the sale. Thus the artwork did not destroy itself. A person destroyed it via remote control.
1. Installs and enables RAT (Remote Access Trojan) by default...
What are you talking about?
I'd like to hear about mitigation. Would simply not configuring an IP address on the BMC be enough?
I generally configure whatever kind of BMC I have available on a server (such as HPE iLO or Dell iDRAC) because I like the idea of low-level remote access, but in truth I can't recall ever having used it to solve a problem.
Just because they allow you to opt out doesn't mean they don't use it for tracking if you DO use their servers.
Yep. Possibly the greatest article The Onion ever published.
Particularly since it predated the actual introduction of 5-blade razors.
So it's not enough that Google tracks you via web browsing, Android phones, search queries, gmail, etc. Now they want you to use their DNS so they can track EVERY connection you make over the Internet, regardless of whether it originates from one of their products.
I find touchscreens to be maddening devices.
You think touchscreens are maddening? Back when Windows 8 first came out, I was obliged to deal with it, and decided that some degree of touch capability would make it easier to navigate. Lacking a touchscreen, I opted to try a couple of mice with touch - one from Microsoft, and one from Logitech. It was simply infuriating to be halfway through filling out a form or posting something online, only to have the mouse interpret some imperceptible movement of your thumb as a "back" gesture.
But what kind of retarded sadist would open themselves up to Microsoft's chicanery on a Mac?
The same moron who insists on bringing a Mac to work in a company with a Windows-based infrastructure.
As a single example, I support a number of travel agencies in Canada. The software used for booking airline reservations requires Windows. I'm not saying this is good or bad, it is simply a fact. Agents who insist on using a Mac are forced to run an emulated instance of Windows.
In their report, Scholze and Stix argue that a line of reasoning near the end of the proof of "Corollary 3.12" in Mochizuki's third of four papers is fundamentally flawed.
I am definitely incapable of reading Mochzuki's proof, but it would have been interesting if the article had cited the line in question.
So, if I'm following your explanation, entanglement results in a "consistent universe" for particles that interact. Although I don't profess to understand it deeply, your explanation seems reasonable to me. Which again leads me to wonder, why is this described as "shocking"?