Giving someone a $2 piece of swag with a review copy of a product is OK, but once the value of "gifts" exceeds some amount then it becomes an inducement. Even more insidious is the implicit threat that if a product does not get a good review, more goodies and early access to future products won't be forthcoming.
it's widespread among all industries - which is probably why there are so few reviewers who have anything approaching credibility. (not sure about what it's like in your country) In the UK there is a standard for travel reviewers that they should declare who paid for the trip / accommodation that's being reviewed - maybe it's time any product review carried a qualifier as to what benefits or freebies the reviewer received, too.
As it is the only real indicator of whether a product is worth a dam' is from people who have bought it with their own money. Having someone who had a product dropped in their lap, telling you that it's definitely worth the money (what money?) is so hollow as to be laughable. Hopefully as more bona-fide owners write about their experiences, all these media-tart reviewers will be shown up for what they really are: entertainers.
The real story here is how a remarkable telescoped dubbed Panoramic Survey Telescope & Rapid Response System that went operational in May found its first potential target in our growing impact alert system for Earth."
If you go looking for trouble, you'll probably find it.
So now we'll be alerted about every possible, improbable and potential risk that might occur at some distant time in the future. I can see two stages to this: fear and panic for the first few "alerts" and apathy for all the rest. Then, one day, a really BIG threat will be discovered. One that is imminent and everyone will ignore it since none of the preceding ones amounted to anything. Shortly after that, the one remaining scientist will crawl out from under the rubble and say "I told you so".
Let's save all these announcements until there's a real and present (to use the cliche) danger. One that we can actually take some actions to mitigate, rather than just run around waving our collective hands in the air.
Every time you build a fix you expect it to work. Every time you write some code you assume it will do what you want it to. In short, we expect things to go according to plan - with no unforeseen complications, problems or screwups. (BTW: that's one of the reasons why there are so many security holes to begin with).
We don't expect people to do the unexpected, or for things to fail, or mistakes to be made. Yet these are the most common occurrences in war Any military needs people who fully expect things to be worse than possible - and then to get worse, still. They have no confidence that "this will *definitely* fix it and will always have a plan B.
If geeks were conditioned to presume failure, no code would every be finished or any project ever released, sice there would always be things we'd have to fix, or "what if's" that required handling. When anything did ever make it out into the world, it would probably be the size and cost of a battleship, even if it only said "Hello World\n"
And have them testify as to what the plaintiff had said. You get the same information, but it takes longer, costs more and inconveniences more people (as well as honking off your "friends").
The information will come out, it's just how much extra effort people have to go to, to get it. This seems to me like an efficient way of finding out what the truth (yes, yes I know: what's truth got to do with the law?) is.
p.s. I'm constantly surprised that anyone thinks anything they post anywhere on the internet has, in practice, any degree of privacy or confidentiality - under any circumstances. If you want to keep something confidential DON'T TELL ANYONE.
More than anything else, this is the single best reason for keeping your security tight and your password secret - especially from caretakers, who will have free, unfettered and prolonged access to your work computers after you've gone home..
Your first hurdle is trying to reign in those egos. Once geeks get above a certain level of (in their own minds, at least) elitism they tend to presume that everyone around them is an idiot. Put two of these people together and tantrums are far more common than any actual progress. Next up is the politics. Who works for whom? Does the network geek take orders from the database wizard? Can the storage guy tell the hairy-arsed windows hacker what needs to be done? Even if you can walk the tightrope of keeping everyone calm - there will almost certainly be tears before bedtime when it's time to apportion the recognition (or blame).
Finally, people with bleeding edge skills need to continually push the limits in order to keep those skills sharp. Does your organisation have enough crises happening frequently enough to stop these people getting bored? (If so, please tell me the organisation's name - I'll sell my stock immediately, at any price). Shorthand secretaries used to often leave jobs where they felt their abilities weren't being used - in the fear that they'd get rusty and their speeds would drop. Real geeks tend to be attracted by the next sparkly, shiny opportunity much more than staying put in one single job for long periods of time.
I cant see this sort of team being a practical proposition - except in the movies.
Such is the level of paranoia (and unrestrained power) that our wonderful security services have, I think they would assume any large block of "garbage" would be encrypted data - no matter what you claim or deny. So, once you're bangind up in "holding" on the basis that your PC contains encrypted data, but you're being uncooperative by not supplying the password - what would be your approach?
Merely saying "it's not an encrypted dataset, it's just random numbers" cuts no ice, simply because Occam's razor kicks in. Which is more likely- some *suspicious" guy has a 100MB encrypted file or he's just created a 100MB of randon noise just for the hell of it?
You will rapidly discover that all this "innocent until proven guilty" nonsense is merely the stuff of TV drama and that in the real world the burden of proof will be in your lap. The reason is that the security people (and any jury, if it came to that) would all assume that the data is encrypted. So you're left with the philosophical knot of proving that your data is not encrypted and the only way to do that is to exhaustively demonstrate that no key will decrypt it.
That could explain why some of the younger generation of politicians make such stoopid political decision.
Oh, hang on - probably the most idiotic decisions of the late 20/early 21st century were made by old guys. Maybe there should be a modifier for senility as well.
"You want to be CEO? Certainly, just put your balls in this guillotine....."
Apart from producing a more successful brand (geld?) of CEO, it will also test just how badly they really want the job. Of course the test can only be carried out once - unless you relieve them of a single testicle first, to see how they get on, with the option of taking the remaining one if they do dumb things...... That, itself might be all the motivation they need.
A handy side-effect would be a reduction in the number of sexual harassment suits against top executives.
Better or worse in a limited set of tests (they didn't talk about security & viruses, why not?) is meaningless. The only thing that matters so far as uptake is concerned is how many of each product are sitting on the shelf in the store, and how many of each product get used.
It doesn't matter if one scores better on test, it only matters what's installed on the shiny new box that Joe Public pulls out of the delivery carton and sits down and starts using. Your average user is simply going to stick with whatever was placed in front of them as either product is good enough to have no incentive to change from.
Linux is still fighting the tick-box / feature wars of the 1990's and until it moves away from that and adopts the marketing approach that we expect from successful mega-corporations, it will always be insignificant on the desktop.
That's because we're socialist, commie basterds who insist on regulating the markets so there's fair pricing for everyone, rather than the capitalist ideals of letting the market define the price and therefore allowing people with less financial clout from being exploited.
When I first got BB I was paying £45 / month for an unlimited 256kbit/s connection. Now I pay £7.50 a month and get 14,400 KBit/s.
So I'm paying one sixth the price and getting over 50 times the speed. That sounds like a pretty good deal to me and makes me think that whoever is bleating on that their broadband price hasn't decreased either has no idea what they're talking about, or should really look around for a better deal, or is living in a country with next to no competition.
But for the vast majority of places, broadband prices have dropped markedly since it's inception - but I don't expect the same degree of reduction in the future, it's a mature market now.
You might learn something from doing things the hard way, but all you'll achieve is a version #1. As we all know (or will learn) version #1 of pretty much everything should be thrown away and should NEVER see the light of a production server. However, timescales being what they are as soon as an application gets close to functional it gets snatched away and put live - no matter how ugly it is. After that, all you ever have time for is to patch the worst parts. Doing a complete rewrite from the ground up, to do it right, is a luxury few of us experience.
Sure, you can do all the superficial stuff with simple point and shoot. But I wish I'd known (before I started?) that to do anything beyond that meant diving deep and dirty into PHP, Javascript, CSS, DOM, and a whole lot more alphabetti spaghetti.
And that's before you get into the really difficult stuff (that very few have managed to master) of getting a website that is easy to navigate and intuitive to use
On the plus side, you will be able to plug USB 3.0 devices and cables into the USB 2.0 ports on your current computer, but you won’t get the speed advantage.
So one place says it won't work in a 2.0 port, then it says it will.... gah! . . . . . I know they mean (at least, I hope they mean) that you won't get USB3 speeds, but contradictions like this doesn't help the article's credibility
You'll need some sort of receiver (lots are linux based), aim for a Dreambox, or equivalent. It's likely yo'll need to replace the LNB and cabling if it's been neglected for any length of time. You should also check to see if the dish is steerable (doubtful for that large size - too hard to stop it moving in the wind) and also get a satellite alignment meter and a compass to point to whichever satellite takes your fancy. Reckon on less than $1000, maybe even less than $500.
is to hire lazy employees. None of the sysadmins here could be arsed to install a backdoor (even if they knew how, which is very unlikely). Plus, anyone who has the foresight to make a hole in the security system, and thinks they would have a reason to use one has probably already stashed all the company secrets on thumb drives and DVDs in an unknown location long before they ever get fired.
In most places the whole educational establishment is there for the comfort and convenience of the teachers. Any learning that takes place is purely a side-effect of employing teachers, but it's certainly not the reason why they are employed. (Which is why teachers are so vehemently opposed to testing children and assessing how much they know - since this reflects directly on them, not the kids).
It would be nice to hope that this was the first step in recognising that (indirectly) real people pay for and therefore employ teachers. These real people would like to think the primary role of teachers is to impart knowledge, skills and abilities to the children in their charge. If this article leads parents to question schools about why they are employing sub-standard teachers, then it can only be a good thing, that should be extended everywhere.
Well not secrets really, but very few people seem to know them.
1.) Don't change anything. Most of the faults I've ever encountered have been the direct result of someone, somewhere changing something. It might be the user futzing around with things they don't understand - or a technical person doing the same. It could be an upgrade that didn't work properly, or that hadn't been tested properly. it could be patches installed to fix some other probem. Whatever causes changes causes problems. The most reliable systems I've ever encountered were a set of Solaris 6 servers that only the supplier knew the root password for. They never crashed, never got upgraded patched or reconfigured. Of course this presupposes you have an operating system and application that actually works - which hopefully the mass market will attain within the bext 20 years or so.
2.) Get the user out of the loop. The worst thing about trying to support a system is having to deal with the user. they don't have the skills to reliably diagnose a fault. They can't follow instructions, they tell you what they think you want to hear and are so often the cause of the problem, in the first place. The single biggest improvement a company can make to its support operation (apart from #1, above) is to install remote diagnostics and remote take-over of users computers if the diagnostics detect a problem.
OK, three secrets:
If you can keep the users from installing their own stuff - software, tunes, their own hardware AND if you can keep them away from the internet, most company's fault rates would drop by at least 50%.
Do things together, share time, look at things, talk about them. You will remember the important parts of her life without having your memories cluttered by inconsequential or non-core stuff. Have enough media (and the spoken word is often the most powerful reminder, as it comes straight from that person - not affected by the way you held the camera, or zoomed, or the background - just the subject, pure and simple) for your children and their children but I wouldn't go so far as to (metaphorically speaking) build a shrine.
Ultimately you will want the memories you cherish when you're alone - maybe when you're lying in bed. Not when you want to dig out the DVD player and go searching for a specific birthday, or conversation. Therefore they will be the ones that are in your head, not on a piece of media in the back of a cupboard.
Their main innovation is in the marketing department. Really. That and "prettifying" existing tecnologies so that your average consumer won't think it's a nasty technical thing that they won't understand. Now, while that does have some value - especially to their stock price, it's not exactly pushing the boundaries of technology.
It's not even valid to compare the number of patents a company takes out, as a measure of it's innovative measure, since everyone is patenting everything as a marketing ploy to stop other people doing it first.
It's an empty pair of parenthesis. Something usually goes within in them
Depending on the quality of the teacher's writing it could also be interpreted as a numeric zero. There are better ways of writing the expression that have much less scope of misunderstanding or ambiguity. Therefore this example is badly constructed.
Slashdot Mirror
it's widespread among all industries - which is probably why there are so few reviewers who have anything approaching credibility. (not sure about what it's like in your country) In the UK there is a standard for travel reviewers that they should declare who paid for the trip / accommodation that's being reviewed - maybe it's time any product review carried a qualifier as to what benefits or freebies the reviewer received, too.
As it is the only real indicator of whether a product is worth a dam' is from people who have bought it with their own money. Having someone who had a product dropped in their lap, telling you that it's definitely worth the money (what money?) is so hollow as to be laughable. Hopefully as more bona-fide owners write about their experiences, all these media-tart reviewers will be shown up for what they really are: entertainers.
The real story here is how a remarkable telescoped dubbed Panoramic Survey Telescope & Rapid Response System that went operational in May found its first potential target in our growing impact alert system for Earth."
If you go looking for trouble, you'll probably find it.
So now we'll be alerted about every possible, improbable and potential risk that might occur at some distant time in the future. I can see two stages to this: fear and panic for the first few "alerts" and apathy for all the rest. Then, one day, a really BIG threat will be discovered. One that is imminent and everyone will ignore it since none of the preceding ones amounted to anything. Shortly after that, the one remaining scientist will crawl out from under the rubble and say "I told you so".
Let's save all these announcements until there's a real and present (to use the cliche) danger. One that we can actually take some actions to mitigate, rather than just run around waving our collective hands in the air.
We don't expect people to do the unexpected, or for things to fail, or mistakes to be made. Yet these are the most common occurrences in war Any military needs people who fully expect things to be worse than possible - and then to get worse, still. They have no confidence that "this will *definitely* fix it and will always have a plan B.
If geeks were conditioned to presume failure, no code would every be finished or any project ever released, sice there would always be things we'd have to fix, or "what if's" that required handling. When anything did ever make it out into the world, it would probably be the size and cost of a battleship, even if it only said "Hello World\n"
The information will come out, it's just how much extra effort people have to go to, to get it. This seems to me like an efficient way of finding out what the truth (yes, yes I know: what's truth got to do with the law?) is.
p.s. I'm constantly surprised that anyone thinks anything they post anywhere on the internet has, in practice, any degree of privacy or confidentiality - under any circumstances. If you want to keep something confidential DON'T TELL ANYONE.
More than anything else, this is the single best reason for keeping your security tight and your password secret - especially from caretakers, who will have free, unfettered and prolonged access to your work computers after you've gone home..
Finally, people with bleeding edge skills need to continually push the limits in order to keep those skills sharp. Does your organisation have enough crises happening frequently enough to stop these people getting bored? (If so, please tell me the organisation's name - I'll sell my stock immediately, at any price). Shorthand secretaries used to often leave jobs where they felt their abilities weren't being used - in the fear that they'd get rusty and their speeds would drop. Real geeks tend to be attracted by the next sparkly, shiny opportunity much more than staying put in one single job for long periods of time.
I cant see this sort of team being a practical proposition - except in the movies.
and have the insulators shoot back. Then we'd see just how brave these intrepid hunters really are when placed in a more equal environment.
Merely saying "it's not an encrypted dataset, it's just random numbers" cuts no ice, simply because Occam's razor kicks in. Which is more likely- some *suspicious" guy has a 100MB encrypted file or he's just created a 100MB of randon noise just for the hell of it?
You will rapidly discover that all this "innocent until proven guilty" nonsense is merely the stuff of TV drama and that in the real world the burden of proof will be in your lap. The reason is that the security people (and any jury, if it came to that) would all assume that the data is encrypted. So you're left with the philosophical knot of proving that your data is not encrypted and the only way to do that is to exhaustively demonstrate that no key will decrypt it.
Good luck with that!
Oh, hang on - probably the most idiotic decisions of the late 20/early 21st century were made by old guys. Maybe there should be a modifier for senility as well.
Apart from producing a more successful brand (geld?) of CEO, it will also test just how badly they really want the job. Of course the test can only be carried out once - unless you relieve them of a single testicle first, to see how they get on, with the option of taking the remaining one if they do dumb things. ..... That, itself might be all the motivation they need.
A handy side-effect would be a reduction in the number of sexual harassment suits against top executives.
Better or worse in a limited set of tests (they didn't talk about security & viruses, why not?) is meaningless. The only thing that matters so far as uptake is concerned is how many of each product are sitting on the shelf in the store, and how many of each product get used.
It doesn't matter if one scores better on test, it only matters what's installed on the shiny new box that Joe Public pulls out of the delivery carton and sits down and starts using. Your average user is simply going to stick with whatever was placed in front of them as either product is good enough to have no incentive to change from.
Linux is still fighting the tick-box / feature wars of the 1990's and until it moves away from that and adopts the marketing approach that we expect from successful mega-corporations, it will always be insignificant on the desktop.
Or buy the book and do exactly the opposite to everything it recommends.
That's because we're socialist, commie basterds who insist on regulating the markets so there's fair pricing for everyone, rather than the capitalist ideals of letting the market define the price and therefore allowing people with less financial clout from being exploited.
So I'm paying one sixth the price and getting over 50 times the speed. That sounds like a pretty good deal to me and makes me think that whoever is bleating on that their broadband price hasn't decreased either has no idea what they're talking about, or should really look around for a better deal, or is living in a country with next to no competition.
But for the vast majority of places, broadband prices have dropped markedly since it's inception - but I don't expect the same degree of reduction in the future, it's a mature market now.
You might learn something from doing things the hard way, but all you'll achieve is a version #1. As we all know (or will learn) version #1 of pretty much everything should be thrown away and should NEVER see the light of a production server. However, timescales being what they are as soon as an application gets close to functional it gets snatched away and put live - no matter how ugly it is. After that, all you ever have time for is to patch the worst parts. Doing a complete rewrite from the ground up, to do it right, is a luxury few of us experience.
And that's before you get into the really difficult stuff (that very few have managed to master) of getting a website that is easy to navigate and intuitive to use
you might "walk in" to see something you didn't want to. Or even worse, one of the "home team" might catch something from your (remote) end!
On the plus side, you will be able to plug USB 3.0 devices and cables into the USB 2.0 ports on your current computer, but you won’t get the speed advantage.
So one place says it won't work in a 2.0 port, then it says it will .... gah! . . . . . I know they mean (at least, I hope they mean) that you won't get USB3 speeds, but contradictions like this doesn't help the article's credibility
http://www.lyngsat.com/
You'll need some sort of receiver (lots are linux based), aim for a Dreambox, or equivalent. It's likely yo'll need to replace the LNB and cabling if it's been neglected for any length of time. You should also check to see if the dish is steerable (doubtful for that large size - too hard to stop it moving in the wind) and also get a satellite alignment meter and a compass to point to whichever satellite takes your fancy. Reckon on less than $1000, maybe even less than $500.
is to hire lazy employees. None of the sysadmins here could be arsed to install a backdoor (even if they knew how, which is very unlikely). Plus, anyone who has the foresight to make a hole in the security system, and thinks they would have a reason to use one has probably already stashed all the company secrets on thumb drives and DVDs in an unknown location long before they ever get fired.
It would be nice to hope that this was the first step in recognising that (indirectly) real people pay for and therefore employ teachers. These real people would like to think the primary role of teachers is to impart knowledge, skills and abilities to the children in their charge. If this article leads parents to question schools about why they are employing sub-standard teachers, then it can only be a good thing, that should be extended everywhere.
1.) Don't change anything. Most of the faults I've ever encountered have been the direct result of someone, somewhere changing something. It might be the user futzing around with things they don't understand - or a technical person doing the same. It could be an upgrade that didn't work properly, or that hadn't been tested properly. it could be patches installed to fix some other probem. Whatever causes changes causes problems. The most reliable systems I've ever encountered were a set of Solaris 6 servers that only the supplier knew the root password for. They never crashed, never got upgraded patched or reconfigured. Of course this presupposes you have an operating system and application that actually works - which hopefully the mass market will attain within the bext 20 years or so.
2.) Get the user out of the loop. The worst thing about trying to support a system is having to deal with the user. they don't have the skills to reliably diagnose a fault. They can't follow instructions, they tell you what they think you want to hear and are so often the cause of the problem, in the first place. The single biggest improvement a company can make to its support operation (apart from #1, above) is to install remote diagnostics and remote take-over of users computers if the diagnostics detect a problem.
OK, three secrets:
If you can keep the users from installing their own stuff - software, tunes, their own hardware AND if you can keep them away from the internet, most company's fault rates would drop by at least 50%.
Ultimately you will want the memories you cherish when you're alone - maybe when you're lying in bed. Not when you want to dig out the DVD player and go searching for a specific birthday, or conversation. Therefore they will be the ones that are in your head, not on a piece of media in the back of a cupboard.
It's not even valid to compare the number of patents a company takes out, as a measure of it's innovative measure, since everyone is patenting everything as a marketing ploy to stop other people doing it first.
It's an empty pair of parenthesis. Something usually goes within in them
Depending on the quality of the teacher's writing it could also be interpreted as a numeric zero. There are better ways of writing the expression that have much less scope of misunderstanding or ambiguity. Therefore this example is badly constructed.