Your product line stagnated and your latest effort was seemingly launched to no end of trouble. I said this would come and now it has.
I'm really looking forward to scanners that finally have nice UIs with modern features like GPS built-in, recording, RR db access, and communities developing for them for additional protocol support.
I'd prefer if the cards came with a cert from the carrier on it so your phone could verify it's talking to a real tower, disabling stingrays in the process, and then your phone generated and exchanged keys with the tower. It would periodically generate new ones and expire old ones when you weren't actively exchanging data or on a call, and weren't hopping between towers. The towers would counter-sign them and hand them back. You could then hop towers quickly because each new tower you tried to connect to only has to verify the networks own countersignature.
Exactly. Their explanation is basically, "we did notice a couple of breaches in the outer layer of our network, this was probably that, nothing serious was taken". Meanwhile the NSA is loading firmware-level rootkits into hard drives via numerous exploit techniques that can remote update and survive reformats, etc.
Yeah, buddy. Just because you didn't notice the intrusion did not mean it didn't happen. If the NSA wants in they're getting in, and they're good enough not to get caught in most cases.
Why would the Snowden materials say they got in if they didn't? It's not as if they were leaked intentionally.
Google have been absolutely useless when it comes to marketing Wallet.
It works great. It's been out there for years now.
But have you ever seen an ad on TV for it? Have you seen ads online for it? Have you ever read an article about NFC payments that didn't talk almost exclusively about Apple Pay?
Google seem to think that as long as they put the tech into phones people will just somehow discover it, go through the pain of setting it up without really understanding how it works or the benefits of it, and trust loading it up with cash even though they've never really heard of it.
Seriously Google, your marketing people are failing you really badly here.
While I agree that native parental controls would be great, and as a parent I was also surprised they weren't there, there are apps that you can use to lock down devices quite easily to limit what your kids can access.
The bigger problem is no end of "free" games stuffed full of ads that kids accidentally click all the time. IMO Google needs a policy that says if you are marketing to kids under a certain age you may not have certain types of ads (or any ads) in your app. As a parent, I'll gladly give you a couple of bucks to have a "safe" app for my child to use.
And how are you going to go about recording your stop when the police just took away your camera? What if they don't bring it back when they come back to your car, something serious comes up, and you have no evidence regarding what happened?
AV products will have to kill this dead, because they won't be able to easily detect malware. If it can't be inspected it can't be known to be safe, so I'm going to bet anything using this that isn't whitelisted e.g. by digital signature is going to be DOA.
It's interesting, but I'm curious as to whether the model shows a universe developing with the features we observe. The density of the universe is one thing, the general structure of it is another. There seems to have been a lot of thinking around how the universe was shaped by the big bang including all sorts of models and simulations. It'll be interesting to understand if this new model also fits.
- 5.0 shipping was announced something like a month before I could actually get either an image or an OTA update - The Nexus 5 got the 5.0.1 fixes well after other devices like the various Nexus tablets - The Nexus 5 still hasn't got the 5.0.2 update despite several other devices having it - That's awesome that 5.1 is out! But for nearly all of us who care, it isn't: https://developers.google.com/...
Basically, Google does an awesome job talking the talk, and a shitty job of meeting the expectations they themselves set amongst their most fervent followers.
It will at some point reach the stage where if you aren't on a watch list you aren't being a very active participant in the steering of society: You don't talk about real issues because you either don't care or are too afraid to, you don't exercise your rights and are too afraid to associate with anyone who does, you go out of your way to be part of the status quo and do whatever you're told, your opinions will be handed to you by Fox News, and someone will be checking you share them on your Facebook.
No. It is usually rare that a minor update version that is an official release will fundamentally stop working altogether. Sure, maybe some quirks are introduced, but generally the product has been tested enough that it is 95%+ working and most users either won't encounter or can work around the deficiencies.
On the other hand, official releases of VirtualBox can just flat out break to the point you can't even start some of your VMs, or crashing the entire VM is just the matter of running some common piece of software. The next release can be months away and when it comes, it may fix your original issue and introduce another equally as crippling to your ability to use the product.
NB: This isn't an attack on the VirtualBox authors, who obviously produce a great product used by many with few resources. But the lack of testing or beta releases literally mean I roll back more than I roll forward - not out of personal preference but because I am forced to just to use the product - and that is what I mean when I speak of the upgrade gamble.
I user VirtualBox all day every day for fairly complex tasks, and it has performed admirably, yet it is sorely in need of QA help. Major releases happen with auto-update notifications and then you realize that your old snapshots can't be started, using a debugger blows up the VM, sometimes snapshots don't save properly even though it looks like they did, etc. etc. Then you have to dig out the last working version, which came out 6 months back, to get up and running again.
Aside from this "upgrade gamble", which I put squarely on a lack of beta releases, VirtualBox is fantastic. Hardware accelerated graphics with full Aero support, fast virtualization, shared clipboard and files, attaching USB devices - it's everything you need in a friendly UI that anyone can work with.
It'll be a tragedy IMO if it's left to rot.
For anyone interested, I find the last stable version to be 4.3.12 (on Windows).
That's a very valid point, but let's not pretend that you couldn't have the benefits of OnStar without most of the nasty privacy issues. A limit on data retention, clear indication when the device is listening in, and not selling subscriber data to the government would resolve a lot of the criticism.
Obviously posted by someone who doesn't work in software development, or has to deal with the fact the software needs to work in millions of configurations and with interdependencies.
Wrong, and wrong.
Plus, the bugs need to be investigated for the root cause. Patching over the flaw doesn't help things since it leaves the vulnerability open.
Yes, thanks for stating how security fixes are supposed to work, in case we all thought Microsoft was going to slap a bandaid on it and call it good.
See shellshock
No. Why are you referencing a completely different vulnerability not even managed by the company? Because they're both vulnerabilities? Because there's a risk someone didn't fully fix an issue once therefore no-one can in future? Newsflash for you: Microsoft has fixed vulnerabilities with the same root cause multiple times oflver the years.
Like say, shellshock
Do you know of any others?
(which is a design bug and now you have a problem of how to fix it because people are relying on the faulty behavior)
It was not a design bug Do you even know what you're talking about?
As for malfunctioning patches, you'll sing a different tune when you have to go fix dozens of PCs because the patch bluescreens, or you can't install software anymore.
*shrug* I guess I wouldn't roll straight to production...
Either way, millions of PCs get bricked from a bad update just to meet some company's arbitrary timeline.
Their *3 month* timeline.
And I don't know, those 3+ recalled patches were pretty serious if you were one of the affected people.
Google is between a rock and a hard place. Either they disclose and stuff gets fixed, or they don't and *we don't know if it would be fixed when MS said it would or not*.
I am glad Google is sticking to their policies. 3 months is easily enough time to deploy a fix.
As one of Microsoft's end users, I'd much rather be faced with the quantifiable risk of deploying a patch than the unquantifiable risk that every system I own has been compromised, any data on them exfiltrated or encrypted and used to hold me to ransom, and the possibility that my systems have been used to attack others.
For all we know, Microsoft could be playing a PR game by developing patches and then holding them just past Google's 90 day window. Two in a row now? Seems fishy to me.
(Hint: Openly selling data, as the user agreed to when they "signed" the terms of service, is *NOT* the same fucking someone over in a manner that would cause a private user with a different TOS concern.)
"Hint" maybe you should read this: https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/..... and after you read that you can research and consider all the ways that Facebook has changed it's privacy settings over the years that constantly expose a wider assortment of information and allow greater data gathering by default, requiring users to maintain constant vigilance and opt-out, rather than opt-in.... and then when you're done with that you can research how they have set up their "governance" system such that on the face of it they claim to take input from their user base about their major policy changes, but have set it up in such a way that there is virtually no chance that end users can override anything they want to do, despite the programs existence.
You have to be really nuts to be defending Facebook of all companies when it comes to user privacy.
We have a Facebook group. We use it to share pictures of events sometimes, and light humor, and the occasional bit of interesting tech news, and that's all. Nothing sensitive goes there, ever.
I bet Facebook wants business to use them as a primary channel for work because it will force employees to have Facebook accounts and get into the habit of checking them just to do their job well - even if the company just trials it and later abandons it.
There are many, many people who have not joined our Facebook group, and probably never will.
Slashdot Mirror
Your product line stagnated and your latest effort was seemingly launched to no end of trouble. I said this would come and now it has.
I'm really looking forward to scanners that finally have nice UIs with modern features like GPS built-in, recording, RR db access, and communities developing for them for additional protocol support.
I'd prefer if the cards came with a cert from the carrier on it so your phone could verify it's talking to a real tower, disabling stingrays in the process, and then your phone generated and exchanged keys with the tower. It would periodically generate new ones and expire old ones when you weren't actively exchanging data or on a call, and weren't hopping between towers. The towers would counter-sign them and hand them back. You could then hop towers quickly because each new tower you tried to connect to only has to verify the networks own countersignature.
Exactly. Their explanation is basically, "we did notice a couple of breaches in the outer layer of our network, this was probably that, nothing serious was taken". Meanwhile the NSA is loading firmware-level rootkits into hard drives via numerous exploit techniques that can remote update and survive reformats, etc.
Yeah, buddy. Just because you didn't notice the intrusion did not mean it didn't happen. If the NSA wants in they're getting in, and they're good enough not to get caught in most cases.
Why would the Snowden materials say they got in if they didn't? It's not as if they were leaked intentionally.
Google have been absolutely useless when it comes to marketing Wallet.
It works great. It's been out there for years now.
But have you ever seen an ad on TV for it? Have you seen ads online for it? Have you ever read an article about NFC payments that didn't talk almost exclusively about Apple Pay?
Google seem to think that as long as they put the tech into phones people will just somehow discover it, go through the pain of setting it up without really understanding how it works or the benefits of it, and trust loading it up with cash even though they've never really heard of it.
Seriously Google, your marketing people are failing you really badly here.
While I agree that native parental controls would be great, and as a parent I was also surprised they weren't there, there are apps that you can use to lock down devices quite easily to limit what your kids can access.
Kids Place is a good one:
https://play.google.com/store/...
The bigger problem is no end of "free" games stuffed full of ads that kids accidentally click all the time. IMO Google needs a policy that says if you are marketing to kids under a certain age you may not have certain types of ads (or any ads) in your app. As a parent, I'll gladly give you a couple of bucks to have a "safe" app for my child to use.
How's the systemd C# port coming?
You'll need to be more specific, are we talking about systemd running in C#, systemd running C# code, or the port of systemd in C# that runs C#?
Have we slipped so far down the performance-orientated slide that we are impressed by *how well a dungeon generator runs on an i7 with 16GB of RAM*.
I am genuinely curious. That is an outrageously high spec for a dungeon generator.
And how are you going to go about recording your stop when the police just took away your camera? What if they don't bring it back when they come back to your car, something serious comes up, and you have no evidence regarding what happened?
AV products will have to kill this dead, because they won't be able to easily detect malware. If it can't be inspected it can't be known to be safe, so I'm going to bet anything using this that isn't whitelisted e.g. by digital signature is going to be DOA.
... to a more extreme version:
"I don't always test my code, but when I do it's via live patching the kernel on production"
It's interesting, but I'm curious as to whether the model shows a universe developing with the features we observe. The density of the universe is one thing, the general structure of it is another. There seems to have been a lot of thinking around how the universe was shaped by the big bang including all sorts of models and simulations. It'll be interesting to understand if this new model also fits.
On a Nexus 5 here.
- 5.0 shipping was announced something like a month before I could actually get either an image or an OTA update
- The Nexus 5 got the 5.0.1 fixes well after other devices like the various Nexus tablets
- The Nexus 5 still hasn't got the 5.0.2 update despite several other devices having it
- That's awesome that 5.1 is out! But for nearly all of us who care, it isn't: https://developers.google.com/...
Basically, Google does an awesome job talking the talk, and a shitty job of meeting the expectations they themselves set amongst their most fervent followers.
It will at some point reach the stage where if you aren't on a watch list you aren't being a very active participant in the steering of society: You don't talk about real issues because you either don't care or are too afraid to, you don't exercise your rights and are too afraid to associate with anyone who does, you go out of your way to be part of the status quo and do whatever you're told, your opinions will be handed to you by Fox News, and someone will be checking you share them on your Facebook.
every software upgrade is a gamble
No. It is usually rare that a minor update version that is an official release will fundamentally stop working altogether. Sure, maybe some quirks are introduced, but generally the product has been tested enough that it is 95%+ working and most users either won't encounter or can work around the deficiencies.
On the other hand, official releases of VirtualBox can just flat out break to the point you can't even start some of your VMs, or crashing the entire VM is just the matter of running some common piece of software. The next release can be months away and when it comes, it may fix your original issue and introduce another equally as crippling to your ability to use the product.
NB: This isn't an attack on the VirtualBox authors, who obviously produce a great product used by many with few resources. But the lack of testing or beta releases literally mean I roll back more than I roll forward - not out of personal preference but because I am forced to just to use the product - and that is what I mean when I speak of the upgrade gamble.
I user VirtualBox all day every day for fairly complex tasks, and it has performed admirably, yet it is sorely in need of QA help. Major releases happen with auto-update notifications and then you realize that your old snapshots can't be started, using a debugger blows up the VM, sometimes snapshots don't save properly even though it looks like they did, etc. etc. Then you have to dig out the last working version, which came out 6 months back, to get up and running again.
Aside from this "upgrade gamble", which I put squarely on a lack of beta releases, VirtualBox is fantastic. Hardware accelerated graphics with full Aero support, fast virtualization, shared clipboard and files, attaching USB devices - it's everything you need in a friendly UI that anyone can work with.
It'll be a tragedy IMO if it's left to rot.
For anyone interested, I find the last stable version to be 4.3.12 (on Windows).
No, just further and further away from your original universe.
Next you'll be telling me you can create operating systems in less than 15GB!
That's a very valid point, but let's not pretend that you couldn't have the benefits of OnStar without most of the nasty privacy issues. A limit on data retention, clear indication when the device is listening in, and not selling subscriber data to the government would resolve a lot of the criticism.
I wonder if it was "only" metadata due to actual intended restraint or mainly technology limitations at the time.
Hang on while we all switch to encryption you can have a back door to. Once again you've proven yourself trustworthy!
Is big gov most eager to turn into our worst enemy or their own? It's hard to tell.
Obviously posted by someone who doesn't work in software development, or has to deal with the fact the software needs to work in millions of configurations and with interdependencies.
Wrong, and wrong.
Plus, the bugs need to be investigated for the root cause. Patching over the flaw doesn't help things since it leaves the vulnerability open.
Yes, thanks for stating how security fixes are supposed to work, in case we all thought Microsoft was going to slap a bandaid on it and call it good.
See shellshock
No. Why are you referencing a completely different vulnerability not even managed by the company? Because they're both vulnerabilities? Because there's a risk someone didn't fully fix an issue once therefore no-one can in future? Newsflash for you: Microsoft has fixed vulnerabilities with the same root cause multiple times oflver the years.
Like say, shellshock
Do you know of any others?
(which is a design bug and now you have a problem of how to fix it because people are relying on the faulty behavior)
It was not a design bug Do you even know what you're talking about?
As for malfunctioning patches, you'll sing a different tune when you have to go fix dozens of PCs because the patch bluescreens, or you can't install software anymore.
*shrug* I guess I wouldn't roll straight to production...
Either way, millions of PCs get bricked from a bad update just to meet some company's arbitrary timeline.
Their *3 month* timeline.
And I don't know, those 3+ recalled patches were pretty serious if you were one of the affected people.
Google is between a rock and a hard place. Either they disclose and stuff gets fixed, or they don't and *we don't know if it would be fixed when MS said it would or not*.
I am glad Google is sticking to their policies. 3 months is easily enough time to deploy a fix.
As one of Microsoft's end users, I'd much rather be faced with the quantifiable risk of deploying a patch than the unquantifiable risk that every system I own has been compromised, any data on them exfiltrated or encrypted and used to hold me to ransom, and the possibility that my systems have been used to attack others.
For all we know, Microsoft could be playing a PR game by developing patches and then holding them just past Google's 90 day window. Two in a row now? Seems fishy to me.
You pretty much never hear of data being accidentally exposed
That's because it's intentionally exposed.
and I've never heard of Facebook being hacked.
Do you like to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la!". Top result:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/19/...
and why do you think they have this?
https://www.facebook.com/white...
(Hint: Openly selling data, as the user agreed to when they "signed" the terms of service, is *NOT* the same fucking someone over in a manner that would cause a private user with a different TOS concern.)
"Hint" maybe you should read this: .. and after you read that you can research and consider all the ways that Facebook has changed it's privacy settings over the years that constantly expose a wider assortment of information and allow greater data gathering by default, requiring users to maintain constant vigilance and opt-out, rather than opt-in. ... and then when you're done with that you can research how they have set up their "governance" system such that on the face of it they claim to take input from their user base about their major policy changes, but have set it up in such a way that there is virtually no chance that end users can override anything they want to do, despite the programs existence.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/...
You have to be really nuts to be defending Facebook of all companies when it comes to user privacy.
We have a Facebook group. We use it to share pictures of events sometimes, and light humor, and the occasional bit of interesting tech news, and that's all. Nothing sensitive goes there, ever.
I bet Facebook wants business to use them as a primary channel for work because it will force employees to have Facebook accounts and get into the habit of checking them just to do their job well - even if the company just trials it and later abandons it.
There are many, many people who have not joined our Facebook group, and probably never will.
Then you might have a badly managed workplace?