1) Microsoft makes no promise about encrypting data whatsoever 2) Microsoft encrypts data weakly, keeps code proprietary 3) Microsoft encrypts data strongly, keeps code proprietary 4) Microsoft encrypts data strongly, open sources relevant code so community can validate it
So Microsoft announces they're going from 1 to 3. You're paranoid and saying maybe they're going from 1 to 2. Fine.
But here's the thing: it's still IMPROVEMENT. Maybe it's not as much improvement as you want, but people are posting in this thread as if somehow Microsoft got worse. But they didn't. They got better.
So to answer your question:
If Microsoft told you they were implementing security and it turned out they were using DES with a key hashed from the word 'Scroogled', would you be pleased?
Yes. Because that's better than them making no promise whatsoever about data encryption, which was the situation a week ago. I am pleased. Thanks for asking.
No, they made a conclusion not supported by the data available. What they *should* have done is expanded the study to include more and more diverse test animals to firm-up the conclusion. They could have retracted their study and re-done it while retaining some dignity.
What they did instead is throw a hissy-fit and then blame a new editor, which strikes me as extreme paranoia at best.
1) A lot of times, job listings to the public are a required formality when there's already an internal candidate wanted for the position. In this situation, the job description will be written to fit that specific internal candidate's skills as precisely as possible.
2) Job descriptions are crap anyway. If you think you can do the job, apply. If the company doesn't give you an interview because they asked for 5 years C# experience and you only have 4 years, you don't want to work for them anyway. That kind of hellish determination to strictly follow paperwork never leads to a fun work situation.
Re:Where was this caution with Wii U?
on
Xbox One Released
·
· Score: 1
My experience is that most Nintendo players don't play/try other consoles, and that they really have *no idea* whether other consoles have "fun games with lots of depth". They just say stuff like that to reinforce their myopic viewpoint with other Nintendo fans.
Re:Where was this caution with Wii U?
on
Xbox One Released
·
· Score: 1
Right. You can play Mario. Or Zelda. Or Metroid-- oh wait Other M killed off Metroid for the time-being. Great selection.
But wait! You can also play Rayman Legends!... if you ignore the fact that you can play Rayman Legends on literally every gaming device known to man. So that's a real draw to the Wii-U.
You realize that "undefined" doesn't mean "it crashes the app" or even "it doesn't do what the author expected"?
It just means undefined. That's anything from, "it works exactly like the author intended" to "it causes the soft soap dispenser in the ISS to squirt soap on the spacesuits." It's undefined; it could do literally anything or nothing at all.
TeX doesn't even have a useful GUI yet. It's not even 1/10th the way to "done".
It'll be "done" when you can hand it to a random person on the street and they can quickly and easily figure out how to use it to produce a complicated document. The only reason you think it's "done" is because you've pigeonholed it into a tiny niche.
The Japanese were already slaughtering Chinese for the most petty reasons long before Doolittle engaged their help. (Hell, since 1937-- before WWII technically began!)
I don't think the raiders can be held responsible for that.
I hate that story... no matter how many free energy robots you have, they can't build you a home on Lake Washington if all the lots are already taken. Nor can they arrange 50,000 people to *all* have the front row at a popular concert.
My most recent Firefox experience was finding out that they broke their own Jetpack AddOn API, making it impossible to build an AddOn that works in both Firefox 17 and Firefox 24.
That wouldn't normally be a big deal, but 17 and 24 are both LTS versions-- meaning our client was moving directly from one to the other! And it was impossible for us to make a single.xpi that supported both!
Mozilla's a clown college now, I can only assume any real software engineer with talent has long since moved on.
Even Windows Phone 7 and 8 won't run ActiveX. It's been deprecated by Microsoft for years, and I believe it'll be canned completely when IE7 runs out of support.
Which means either Korea or Microsoft is going to have to do a lot of work in a little time.
Let's apply Occam's Razor. What's more likely: a company that's been the largest online store for years charging wrong taxes, going completely unnoticed since 2006? A company that's been intensely focused on interstate tax issues in the last few years, and have incredible incentive to ensure they tax accurately to avoid giving ammo to their many opponents?
Or some idiot (submitter or Timothy, you can take your choice) misread his own State's laws and decided to puke his unfounded outrage all over this site?
They (I assume the same group) demoed the real-time English/Chinese translation in your own voice last year. It's really impressive, and the results were surprisingly good.
I do wonder how it deals with phonemes that are present in one language but not in another, maybe there's a "training process" you have to do initially to make sure it has enough recorded samples to get full-coverage of the target language.
They did review animes other than Studio Ghibli. I specifically remember their review of the anime Metropolis. (Not to be confused with the 1920s sci-fi film of the same name.)
Your confusion is simply this: They reviewed (most) films that had a theatrical release in Chicago. That was the original purpose of the show. The reason they didn't review your favorite anime movies is because your favorite anime movies didn't have a theatrical release in Chicago. That's all. There's no conspiracy.
That kinda bothers me the first thing I see is Holodeck technology in that vid. In season 1 of TNG, it was described as fairly new tech, of course that got retconned in Voyager as Janeway reminisces about using one as a child.
Crown me king of the dorks but... I gotta correct you on this one.
TNG says the Enterprise holodecks are much better than previous versions. (And they get better still after the Binars work on them in that one episode, which is presumably also where it gets the magical ability to make a super-genius Moriarty due to a misspoken command.) They never say or suggest that the holodeck technology is brand-new in TNG.
I hear this myth perpetuated a lot and it's not really true. Stallman has said on several occasions he believes developers can and should be compensated for their work and he believes this is perfectly feasible within a free software ecosystem.
Right; he says that.
But doesn't the fact that so very few people have managed to make it work mean that it's unworkable? What's his evidence that it works? Where are these successful entrepreneurs following "The Stallman Method"?" It's been decades; surely there should be thousands by now, right?
Well, enforce their own rules for one. Bots that do nothing but revert aren't "Assuming Good Faith", are they? But they're still common. (In fact, why are bots allowed at all, come to think of it?)
I would also suggest:
1) They fix the deletion problem by making it possible for non-admins to view "deleted" pages. Right now, if a user (in good faith) writes a long article that gets deleted, they have no way to even VIEW it, much less CORRECT the problems it was deleted over. That's ridiculous. You've just flushed that user's goodwill down the toilet. You might as well send a email to them reading, "The Wikipedia project says FUCK YOU!".
2) They come up with a more democratic method of selecting admins, one that doesn't involve "being Jimmy Wales' personal friend" or "having lots of tiny edits".
3) When they beg for donations, something that might help is acknowledging the problems and explaining to users how the donations are intended to resolve them.
All I've really seen so far is, "our hosting costs are high". Well ok. But frankly at this point I don't give a shit if you can't pay your hosting-- explain to me how you're making Wikipedia better to earn my money, not just "we need money to do more of the same broken shit we've been doing for the last 5 years".
The solution has to come from top-down, and the top doesn't care.
There's nothing we *can* do except try to convince the top that the problem exists. And if that hasn't happened by now, it ain't ever gonna happen. So complaining about it is pretty much the only avenue left.
Jimmy Wales seems to honestly think that the only problem with Wikipedia is that the editor was too hard to use (admittedly, he's right-- but why didn't he fix that back in 2007 with rich-text editors became common? Laziness? Just doesn't give a shit?) He doesn't recognize the human problem at all. What hope is there of seeing real reform?
Hey if Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, how about... just a thought... how about instead of shitting [citation needed] all over the article you actually get your fat butt to the library and look up some citations your damn self?
Slashdot Mirror
That's the most hideously-designed site I've seen in a long while.
In order of increasing goodness:
1) Microsoft makes no promise about encrypting data whatsoever
2) Microsoft encrypts data weakly, keeps code proprietary
3) Microsoft encrypts data strongly, keeps code proprietary
4) Microsoft encrypts data strongly, open sources relevant code so community can validate it
So Microsoft announces they're going from 1 to 3. You're paranoid and saying maybe they're going from 1 to 2. Fine.
But here's the thing: it's still IMPROVEMENT. Maybe it's not as much improvement as you want, but people are posting in this thread as if somehow Microsoft got worse. But they didn't. They got better.
So to answer your question:
Yes. Because that's better than them making no promise whatsoever about data encryption, which was the situation a week ago. I am pleased. Thanks for asking.
No, they made a conclusion not supported by the data available. What they *should* have done is expanded the study to include more and more diverse test animals to firm-up the conclusion. They could have retracted their study and re-done it while retaining some dignity.
What they did instead is throw a hissy-fit and then blame a new editor, which strikes me as extreme paranoia at best.
1) A lot of times, job listings to the public are a required formality when there's already an internal candidate wanted for the position. In this situation, the job description will be written to fit that specific internal candidate's skills as precisely as possible.
2) Job descriptions are crap anyway. If you think you can do the job, apply. If the company doesn't give you an interview because they asked for 5 years C# experience and you only have 4 years, you don't want to work for them anyway. That kind of hellish determination to strictly follow paperwork never leads to a fun work situation.
My experience is that most Nintendo players don't play/try other consoles, and that they really have *no idea* whether other consoles have "fun games with lots of depth". They just say stuff like that to reinforce their myopic viewpoint with other Nintendo fans.
Right. You can play Mario. Or Zelda. Or Metroid-- oh wait Other M killed off Metroid for the time-being. Great selection.
But wait! You can also play Rayman Legends! ... if you ignore the fact that you can play Rayman Legends on literally every gaming device known to man. So that's a real draw to the Wii-U.
You realize that "undefined" doesn't mean "it crashes the app" or even "it doesn't do what the author expected"?
It just means undefined. That's anything from, "it works exactly like the author intended" to "it causes the soft soap dispenser in the ISS to squirt soap on the spacesuits." It's undefined; it could do literally anything or nothing at all.
And Diablo 3? And Titan Quest or whatever that one was?
I get you need a hook for your article, but maybe not choose a hook that's 100% blatantly false.
After watching the axe body spray + coffee tumbler grenade, all I could think is, "this man badly needs a windsock for his camcorder mic."
TeX doesn't even have a useful GUI yet. It's not even 1/10th the way to "done".
It'll be "done" when you can hand it to a random person on the street and they can quickly and easily figure out how to use it to produce a complicated document. The only reason you think it's "done" is because you've pigeonholed it into a tiny niche.
Perception is reality.
The Japanese were already slaughtering Chinese for the most petty reasons long before Doolittle engaged their help. (Hell, since 1937-- before WWII technically began!)
I don't think the raiders can be held responsible for that.
I hate that story... no matter how many free energy robots you have, they can't build you a home on Lake Washington if all the lots are already taken. Nor can they arrange 50,000 people to *all* have the front row at a popular concert.
The economics of it make no sense.
My most recent Firefox experience was finding out that they broke their own Jetpack AddOn API, making it impossible to build an AddOn that works in both Firefox 17 and Firefox 24.
That wouldn't normally be a big deal, but 17 and 24 are both LTS versions-- meaning our client was moving directly from one to the other! And it was impossible for us to make a single .xpi that supported both!
Mozilla's a clown college now, I can only assume any real software engineer with talent has long since moved on.
Even Windows Phone 7 and 8 won't run ActiveX. It's been deprecated by Microsoft for years, and I believe it'll be canned completely when IE7 runs out of support.
Which means either Korea or Microsoft is going to have to do a lot of work in a little time.
Let's apply Occam's Razor. What's more likely: a company that's been the largest online store for years charging wrong taxes, going completely unnoticed since 2006? A company that's been intensely focused on interstate tax issues in the last few years, and have incredible incentive to ensure they tax accurately to avoid giving ammo to their many opponents?
Or some idiot (submitter or Timothy, you can take your choice) misread his own State's laws and decided to puke his unfounded outrage all over this site?
I'm taking option B.
They (I assume the same group) demoed the real-time English/Chinese translation in your own voice last year. It's really impressive, and the results were surprisingly good.
I do wonder how it deals with phonemes that are present in one language but not in another, maybe there's a "training process" you have to do initially to make sure it has enough recorded samples to get full-coverage of the target language.
They did review animes other than Studio Ghibli. I specifically remember their review of the anime Metropolis. (Not to be confused with the 1920s sci-fi film of the same name.)
Your confusion is simply this: They reviewed (most) films that had a theatrical release in Chicago. That was the original purpose of the show. The reason they didn't review your favorite anime movies is because your favorite anime movies didn't have a theatrical release in Chicago. That's all. There's no conspiracy.
Crown me king of the dorks but... I gotta correct you on this one.
TNG says the Enterprise holodecks are much better than previous versions. (And they get better still after the Binars work on them in that one episode, which is presumably also where it gets the magical ability to make a super-genius Moriarty due to a misspoken command.) They never say or suggest that the holodeck technology is brand-new in TNG.
Right; he says that.
But doesn't the fact that so very few people have managed to make it work mean that it's unworkable? What's his evidence that it works? Where are these successful entrepreneurs following "The Stallman Method"?" It's been decades; surely there should be thousands by now, right?
Paint.NET may not have as many features as GIMP, but it's equally free and not even close to as painful to use.
Visual Studio has had a no-strings-attached free version since, what, 2003? Retire the obsolete FUD please.
Well, enforce their own rules for one. Bots that do nothing but revert aren't "Assuming Good Faith", are they? But they're still common. (In fact, why are bots allowed at all, come to think of it?)
I would also suggest:
1) They fix the deletion problem by making it possible for non-admins to view "deleted" pages. Right now, if a user (in good faith) writes a long article that gets deleted, they have no way to even VIEW it, much less CORRECT the problems it was deleted over. That's ridiculous. You've just flushed that user's goodwill down the toilet. You might as well send a email to them reading, "The Wikipedia project says FUCK YOU!".
2) They come up with a more democratic method of selecting admins, one that doesn't involve "being Jimmy Wales' personal friend" or "having lots of tiny edits".
3) When they beg for donations, something that might help is acknowledging the problems and explaining to users how the donations are intended to resolve them.
All I've really seen so far is, "our hosting costs are high". Well ok. But frankly at this point I don't give a shit if you can't pay your hosting-- explain to me how you're making Wikipedia better to earn my money, not just "we need money to do more of the same broken shit we've been doing for the last 5 years".
The solution has to come from top-down, and the top doesn't care.
There's nothing we *can* do except try to convince the top that the problem exists. And if that hasn't happened by now, it ain't ever gonna happen. So complaining about it is pretty much the only avenue left.
Jimmy Wales seems to honestly think that the only problem with Wikipedia is that the editor was too hard to use (admittedly, he's right-- but why didn't he fix that back in 2007 with rich-text editors became common? Laziness? Just doesn't give a shit?) He doesn't recognize the human problem at all. What hope is there of seeing real reform?
Not to mention the laziness.
Hey if Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, how about... just a thought... how about instead of shitting [citation needed] all over the article you actually get your fat butt to the library and look up some citations your damn self?
Oh... because that takes actual effort? Right.
This is Slashdot. Just be glad he didn't say "the ribbon caused Hitler".
"Bitching about Microsoft technologies you obviously haven't even used" is basically the default post here.