Mobile devices (phones, tablets) are great consumption/reading devices. If you do actual work product on them, as in type serious documents, add tables of numbers, do graphics, you're not going to get much speed or productivity on them. The delay is exaggerated in terms of its effect on the marketplace.
There are tons of iOS and Android (and even handful of BB) apps that do rudimentary "office" work, and do them pretty well. You're not going to get 55wpm with your effing thumbs, however.
And when it finally arrives, Office will probably dominate the storage on your mobile device anyway. There's not a fat demand, IMHO.
Really good administrators may not have exposure to a sufficiently diverse number of products to make observations that are usable. Doesn't mean they're bad administrators, rather, that the depth in administrative software often also disciplines a different workflow than they might be used to, or care for.
If this is Yelp for enterprise software, fine. It'll be just as good and bad as Yelp is, in describing various products and services. For that, it might have some use. But Yelp also is extremely noisy, and the credibility of the reviewers is all over the map. Credentialization helps, but that takes time, and crowdsourced reviewer equity, too. Then reviewers need to worry about autonomy, and also what it means to the company they work for-- in good and bad ways.
I find it embarrassing that there are so many SQL injection links out there. Why? It means that those pages aren't filled with kitty pictures!
After all, it seems that about half of social media posts involve kitties, and if we could just post kitties instead of SQL injection attack links, the world would be so much nicer!
Not so. There may be a contractual relationship allowing this. Otherwise, an unauthorized pentest is a hack attempt. If so, report them to the FBI and do a deny on their IPs.
If there's a contractual relationship with a clause governing over-arching compliance, then an audit better be agreed upon first, otherwise, see first paragraph.
I don't care if the address is across town, or across the seas, they get hammered and reported unless they're 1) covered by contract and 2) give us results. Otherwise, we suspect the worst and go for their lunch. Then we eat it.
Which brings to mind noise shelf elevation, whereby you get a few of these $1500 toys together, and chew up CPU time with lots of fast images, as fast as the capture time rate allows.
Several sets of glasses ought to be able to start overloading the identification processors, chewing up the available CPU until it simply crawls. These insertion losses, increasing the noise, then takes up available cache.
It is the same old stuff in new wrappers. But therein is a statement:
1) In house development and app hosting weren't working. Why? Costs? Pains? Staffing? Budget
2) It's just about as secure to do things internally as on external hosting because if you do the job right, there's truly no secure boundary and people learned that.
3) Vertical market software is getting really good, and SaaS can even be satisfactory for some-- and vastly less than doing it in-house.
4) Less Capex. No huge front-end expense to setup shop/branches. Rent everything.... every IT cost is OpEx rather than CapEx.
5) Stuff moves to quickly to keep up, perhaps. Tough even for us old sages.
Tapping fiber is not so easy, as it's photonic. The cuts would be seen by optical time domain reflectometry on the other side. Doing it underwater is ugly. #1 isn't so easy.
Hiding something, like a service outage while you're about to do something evil is somewhat plausible, save that it's no longer possible to actually shut down ALL of the communications going out of a country, just a large bulk of it. Why would Syria, Israel, or even the Eritreans try to cut the cable? I think #2 is equally implausible.
Weasel words for: not being responsible. I'll continue to complain until you and others do the right thing. You bend the argument to one side, conflate it, and then don't take responsibility for it.
And that makes permanent data storage better? So that we don't eventually extort each other into oblivion? It's better to mandate public opt-in data life.
Everyone is human. Do we need the evidence to drag out decades from now about your indiscretion in Gresham?
You have perhaps the fallacious presumption that someone is watching, which, after having been on slashdot on/off for a long time, does not appear to be the case.
There has been the advent of goatse, GNNA, and many others in the sordid history of Slashdot. My advise: this too, will pass.
Encouraging a discipline of supply-chain adherence wouldn't be a bad idea, although Apple has its own set of responsibilities. Could Foxconn become renewable? Certainly Chinese industry needs energy sustainability.
My implied retort as to the answer to the question posited is: no.
No drones hovering outside a window, looking for a make on a cyber-warrior in an undeclared war. Once a declaration of war is made, then the rules of war apply. I'm hoping also for: no war.
The companies listed aren't going to be champions of anything but shareholder returns, and whatever gets shareholder return will be their cause du jour.
It's the organizations that make up openness, whether the cranky people doing debian, the actual coders at IBM, Mark Shuttleworth's chauffeur, that is to say, actual people and their organizations rather than the corporate bodies that are charged with making money from this stuff.
The folks at Linux.org, various champions of FOSS, maker-peeps, these are the champions of things: open.
Sponsorship? Few of the captionposted companies are actual sponsors, and at least a couple are actual antagonists to open stuff.
Heros? Got plenty. Hero Corporations? Not quite, but close to an oxymoron.
Often, such modifications are on the surface and can be seen or easily detected. A bug in a ROM for a turbocharged car might be disasterous, but undetectable. The engine over-revs, and things break. Should the modified ROM be disclosed to a subsequent purchaser? Or is it caveat emptor?
The scope seems to be all devices. Already people have found interesting ways to mod automotive computers, by "chipping" them. The next owner doesn't necessarily know that the program of their car has been changed, and maybe or maybe not with bad results that might otherwise shorten the life of the vehicle or change its responsiveness in one way or another.
Tampering might not be known. Maybe there's a way, perhaps an icon, or another sign that a device isn't "stock" in some way, so that a purchaser is advised of this fact.
The use of a modified device ought to have some method to limit potential liability, although the state of vendor liability for software gone wrong is laughable today in most jurisdictions.
1) how does an organization mitigate its liability for subsequent services needed to pull users out of a drink that unlocked their stuff, changed something critical, and bricked the unit? Not all people are responsible with settings..... the unwitting, children, etc.
2) if we take ownership, do we also take responsibility for subsequent access? What happens if charges are incurred through the use of an unprotected device, say, a smartphone that gets hijacked and gets a texting malware that runs up charges? What of those charges?
3) can we then sell a device that's unlocked, and be free from subsequent liability incurred by the purchaser? What if they hurt themselves?
I'm not so sure these things are clear, and if people are willing to have the keys. Me, I rooted my phone, and find platforms that aren't open and transportable to be not my choosing. But I can take responsibility, and I'm not sure there's a cultural or legal standard that changes culpability so easily.
Benign anonymity is a right. People that think they need to record their lives: need a life. Who do these people think they are? What gives them the right?
Tor might be an alternative, but the best way to deal with the issue is to attack the privacy problem, head on. The post claims that there is no general public outcry, and that claim is wrong. There's lots of outcry. There's no one bribing politicians-- and that's why every thing you do is tracked, and that tracking is for sale.
Plays by the rules vs doesn't, and has guilt/remorse/love vs doesn't seems to be two different things.
Has-guilt seems to be able to be turned off, but rarely turned back on again, once turned off.
Parroting these emotions that are natively lacked seems to be an adaptation, and fear of punishment motivates both the haves and have-nots. Reputation is fear/embarrassment management, but it doesn't have to do with guilt, necessarily. This is hot-iron that demotivates the sociopath/narcissist/psychotic/manic-over-the-top.
Justice is a delicate balance, with more than one vector, and therefore, more than one fulcrum.
Slashdot Mirror
Mobile devices (phones, tablets) are great consumption/reading devices. If you do actual work product on them, as in type serious documents, add tables of numbers, do graphics, you're not going to get much speed or productivity on them. The delay is exaggerated in terms of its effect on the marketplace.
There are tons of iOS and Android (and even handful of BB) apps that do rudimentary "office" work, and do them pretty well. You're not going to get 55wpm with your effing thumbs, however.
And when it finally arrives, Office will probably dominate the storage on your mobile device anyway. There's not a fat demand, IMHO.
There's some truth to this.
Really good administrators may not have exposure to a sufficiently diverse number of products to make observations that are usable. Doesn't mean they're bad administrators, rather, that the depth in administrative software often also disciplines a different workflow than they might be used to, or care for.
If this is Yelp for enterprise software, fine. It'll be just as good and bad as Yelp is, in describing various products and services. For that, it might have some use. But Yelp also is extremely noisy, and the credibility of the reviewers is all over the map. Credentialization helps, but that takes time, and crowdsourced reviewer equity, too. Then reviewers need to worry about autonomy, and also what it means to the company they work for-- in good and bad ways.
What? Causation != Correlation?
I find it embarrassing that there are so many SQL injection links out there. Why? It means that those pages aren't filled with kitty pictures!
After all, it seems that about half of social media posts involve kitties, and if we could just post kitties instead of SQL injection attack links, the world would be so much nicer!
Not so. There may be a contractual relationship allowing this. Otherwise, an unauthorized pentest is a hack attempt. If so, report them to the FBI and do a deny on their IPs.
If there's a contractual relationship with a clause governing over-arching compliance, then an audit better be agreed upon first, otherwise, see first paragraph.
I don't care if the address is across town, or across the seas, they get hammered and reported unless they're 1) covered by contract and 2) give us results. Otherwise, we suspect the worst and go for their lunch. Then we eat it.
Which brings to mind noise shelf elevation, whereby you get a few of these $1500 toys together, and chew up CPU time with lots of fast images, as fast as the capture time rate allows.
Several sets of glasses ought to be able to start overloading the identification processors, chewing up the available CPU until it simply crawls. These insertion losses, increasing the noise, then takes up available cache.
I like unprecendented growth. It smells of dirt.
I have stuff yet to ever come up.
Do you want some cheese that whine?
It is the same old stuff in new wrappers. But therein is a statement:
1) In house development and app hosting weren't working. Why? Costs? Pains? Staffing? Budget
2) It's just about as secure to do things internally as on external hosting because if you do the job right, there's truly no secure boundary and people learned that.
3) Vertical market software is getting really good, and SaaS can even be satisfactory for some-- and vastly less than doing it in-house.
4) Less Capex. No huge front-end expense to setup shop/branches. Rent everything.... every IT cost is OpEx rather than CapEx.
5) Stuff moves to quickly to keep up, perhaps. Tough even for us old sages.
Tapping fiber is not so easy, as it's photonic. The cuts would be seen by optical time domain reflectometry on the other side. Doing it underwater is ugly. #1 isn't so easy.
Hiding something, like a service outage while you're about to do something evil is somewhat plausible, save that it's no longer possible to actually shut down ALL of the communications going out of a country, just a large bulk of it. Why would Syria, Israel, or even the Eritreans try to cut the cable? I think #2 is equally implausible.
Oh! Frack!
Weasel words for: not being responsible. I'll continue to complain until you and others do the right thing. You bend the argument to one side, conflate it, and then don't take responsibility for it.
And that makes permanent data storage better? So that we don't eventually extort each other into oblivion? It's better to mandate public opt-in data life.
Everyone is human. Do we need the evidence to drag out decades from now about your indiscretion in Gresham?
You have perhaps the fallacious presumption that someone is watching, which, after having been on slashdot on/off for a long time, does not appear to be the case.
There has been the advent of goatse, GNNA, and many others in the sordid history of Slashdot. My advise: this too, will pass.
Encouraging a discipline of supply-chain adherence wouldn't be a bad idea, although Apple has its own set of responsibilities. Could Foxconn become renewable? Certainly Chinese industry needs energy sustainability.
My implied retort as to the answer to the question posited is: no.
No drones hovering outside a window, looking for a make on a cyber-warrior in an undeclared war. Once a declaration of war is made, then the rules of war apply. I'm hoping also for: no war.
We don't use bombs. But we do use code designed to disable equipment used to make nuclear weapons.
Much more fruitful, these cyber-attacks. Surgical targeting of those waging war is better than the insanity of drones and bad intelligence.
You think wisely.
The companies listed aren't going to be champions of anything but shareholder returns, and whatever gets shareholder return will be their cause du jour.
It's the organizations that make up openness, whether the cranky people doing debian, the actual coders at IBM, Mark Shuttleworth's chauffeur, that is to say, actual people and their organizations rather than the corporate bodies that are charged with making money from this stuff.
The folks at Linux.org, various champions of FOSS, maker-peeps, these are the champions of things: open.
Sponsorship? Few of the captionposted companies are actual sponsors, and at least a couple are actual antagonists to open stuff.
Heros? Got plenty. Hero Corporations? Not quite, but close to an oxymoron.
Often, such modifications are on the surface and can be seen or easily detected. A bug in a ROM for a turbocharged car might be disasterous, but undetectable. The engine over-revs, and things break. Should the modified ROM be disclosed to a subsequent purchaser? Or is it caveat emptor?
The scope seems to be all devices. Already people have found interesting ways to mod automotive computers, by "chipping" them. The next owner doesn't necessarily know that the program of their car has been changed, and maybe or maybe not with bad results that might otherwise shorten the life of the vehicle or change its responsiveness in one way or another.
Tampering might not be known. Maybe there's a way, perhaps an icon, or another sign that a device isn't "stock" in some way, so that a purchaser is advised of this fact.
The use of a modified device ought to have some method to limit potential liability, although the state of vendor liability for software gone wrong is laughable today in most jurisdictions.
Just some thoughts:
1) how does an organization mitigate its liability for subsequent services needed to pull users out of a drink that unlocked their stuff, changed something critical, and bricked the unit? Not all people are responsible with settings..... the unwitting, children, etc.
2) if we take ownership, do we also take responsibility for subsequent access? What happens if charges are incurred through the use of an unprotected device, say, a smartphone that gets hijacked and gets a texting malware that runs up charges? What of those charges?
3) can we then sell a device that's unlocked, and be free from subsequent liability incurred by the purchaser? What if they hurt themselves?
I'm not so sure these things are clear, and if people are willing to have the keys. Me, I rooted my phone, and find platforms that aren't open and transportable to be not my choosing. But I can take responsibility, and I'm not sure there's a cultural or legal standard that changes culpability so easily.
Ah, the paranoid.
Benign anonymity is a right. People that think they need to record their lives: need a life. Who do these people think they are? What gives them the right?
Eric-- take your marbles and go home.
Uh, no.
Privacy is part of dignity, and despite technology, I'll have my dignity. Now take your marbles and go hom, Eric.
Tor might be an alternative, but the best way to deal with the issue is to attack the privacy problem, head on. The post claims that there is no general public outcry, and that claim is wrong. There's lots of outcry. There's no one bribing politicians-- and that's why every thing you do is tracked, and that tracking is for sale.
Plays by the rules vs doesn't, and has guilt/remorse/love vs doesn't seems to be two different things.
Has-guilt seems to be able to be turned off, but rarely turned back on again, once turned off.
Parroting these emotions that are natively lacked seems to be an adaptation, and fear of punishment motivates both the haves and have-nots. Reputation is fear/embarrassment management, but it doesn't have to do with guilt, necessarily. This is hot-iron that demotivates the sociopath/narcissist/psychotic/manic-over-the-top.
Justice is a delicate balance, with more than one vector, and therefore, more than one fulcrum.