575 posts • joined 14 Nov 2014
Re: Interesting that Oracle worries about "lock-in"
According to Oracle, vendor lock-in is bad, unless the vendor in question happens to be Oracle.
Also: why is Oracle so pissed about not getting this JEDI contract. It's not like they have anything remotely resembling Cloud services.
Hmmmmm, yes. Why wouldn't DOD award their JEDI Contract to the Cloud market's #6 also-ran.
Re: How much do we need?
> I have implemented OneDrive for Business as part of 365 three times
Translation: you clicked "OK" when prompted.
scanning directly into OneDrive via the device’s camera
I absolutely love the suave and understated - I might even say bashful - specification of this giant security hole.
Did anybody actually ask for this?
Re: Unit Testing! :-)
> Why did C++ re-purpose the auto keyword to mean [ ... bla bla bla ... ]
C++ did not do that. But thanks for completely missing the point of C++'s auto.
Re: Here's a PEP
> i propose introducing proper keywords like Begin and End
If you keep going down this path you'll end up writing FORTRAN. :-)
But please make the Begin and End keywords uppercase mandatory:
BEGIN PYTHON PROCEDURE Foo
[ ... ]
END PYTHON PROCEDURE Foo
And yes, the name of the PYTHON PROCEDURE must be repeated in the END clause. What else are parsers for?
Also: the line continuation token can be either a '&' on the preceding line, or a '$' on the succeeding line. Screw regexp. And the succeeding line must be indented by 4 tabs. Because.
Also also: scalar variables must be declared with var, while all other variable types must be declared with dim. For clarity, and complexity reduction.
Re: Futuristic progression of Programming Languages?
> they all seem kind-of C-like
Python is like C in the same way a goat's ass is like an orchid.
reflecting opinions more than best practice
From The Article:
[ ... ] some developers felt PEP 572 was a poor approach that reflected van Rossum’s opinions more than best practice.
The same can be said about the entire Python Language.
Actually, this has already been said about Python. Many times over.
Re: The Truth
> place the purchase of stocks and bonds under sales tax law.
Goldman Sachs is totally not digging this idea.
> Insulting those who raise valid criticisms of the language really helps engage the community.
It doesn't. And that was the point in the first place.
In this case, the community that you refer to is this constant background noise of commentards who are so far off the mark in their so-called valid criticisms they don't even realize they would've been better off keeping quiet.
Kind of like art critics. They can't paint or sing to save their lives, but they know exactly how someone else should paint or sing.
It's Better to Remain Silent and Be Thought a Fool than to Speak and Remove All Doubt.
Re: Design by committee
> I thought the rot in C++ started with navel-gazing over templates, about when it went from C-with-classes to designed-by-committee. But at least STL is kind-of a separate module in the language.
It would be to your advantage if you stopped opining on matters you obviously haven't the first clue about.
To begin with, STL is not a module. It's a blueberry muffin with custard filling.
> C++ has been a Vasa for years. It floats because it's in dry dock.
C++ Rule #1: When you suck at writing C++, you start bashing it on newsgroups and message boards. I've yet to see an exception to that rule.
There's always PHP.
Re: Я невиновен, товарищ!
> And even that will not satisfy you.
And how exactly would you know that? Can you read my thoughts? Are you my personal spokesperson?
The answer to the previous two questions is no.
> This is essentially what Evengy offered to the agencies, but they still declined.
OK, so if the agencies are being boneheads, open source the code for everyone to see. Let the truth be known.
> Moreover, this is a rather difficult task, because one must use the same compiler with the settings on an OS which is configured identically
Indeed. Not so difficult though. We only need to know the exact version + patchlevel of the compiler. Presumably the build system would be included with the open source publication.
> Clearly this is something that you have not had to do.
Actually I do this every single day for a living. But thanks for your efforts.
> Also, why should they open-source their IP and US companies not?
Because US companies haven't been accused of spying for the FSB or GRU.
And because inventing 20,000 excuses for not publishing the source code stinks of guilty as charged.
Re: Я невиновен, товарищ!
> In this case it is impossible to prove innocence.
Really, it's not. Kaspersky really should, and really can, prove their innocence by open-sourcing their stuff.
We'll download the source code, we'll compile it, and we'll compare our resulting binaries with the binaries downloadable from Kaspersky Labs' site. They better be identical.
Note: interested parties have collected, over time, a large number of previous, installable versions of Kaspersky AV. So, if they try publishing some open-sauce version of Kaspersky AV source code, with missing little bits of it, here and there, we'll know right away it's not the same with what they've been peddling for all these years.
We'll document every single thing it does during installation. We'll monitor and document every single thing it does during a scan.
So, really, it's quite easy. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Re: Я невиновен, товарищ!
> Why not take no-one's word for it?
Because NSA isn't selling me - or you, or to anyone else - anything.
There is no NSA Anti-Virus software available for download or purchase at nsa.gov.
Another thing NSA is not doing is recommending or advocating not running Anti-Virus software.
Disclaimer: I have no association of any kind with any of the Anti-Virus companies mentioned above, so don't even try.
Malwarebytes is my personal favorite. It's lightweight, fast and accurate. Avast is a bit heavier. Bitdefender is quite a bit heavier - meaning on system resources usage. But they do the job.
So, do your research and take your pick.
What I find very interesting - and entertaining - is this tsunami of outrage expressed almost exclusively by Anonymous Coward commentards.
It's almost as if someone - who shall remain unnamed - had a vested interest in maintaining Kaspersky AV's presence on as many Windows PC's as possible, and in making certain that Windows PC users don't uninstall Kaspersky AV, and replace it with a different - and equally competent - Anti-Virus utility.
Re: "You are free ... to reverse-engineer it ... chance to prove"
Is being completely incoherent your strongest suit?
Please send my very best regards to Glenfiddich.
Also: Malaguez said "probably, but definitely not Tuesday, because the Vietnamese were bypassing it, and Emma had already decided on cabbage."
Re: Я невиновен, товарищ!
What does Microsoft's licensing have to do with Kaspersky spying for the FSB or GRU?
Grasping at straws much?
Re: Я невиновен, товарищ!
> guilty until proven innocence combined with the usual lack of due process is the new US default
When it comes to spyware, that's always been the default.
Lack of due process huh? Putinistan and the FSB giving due process lessons to the US.
Why don't your friends at the
FSB Kaspersky open source Kaspersky AV? Just open source it. Let's all have a look at what that code really does.
Я невиновен, товарищ!
> [ ... ] so that others not in the agencies can make an informed decision
You can make an informed decision. You have been told, just like everyone else, that Kaspersky is not safe to run on Government computers.
Now if you expect NSA to tell you how they came to that conclusion, you will be waiting for a very long time. They don't have to tell you. And you're not entitled to that piece of information.
You are free, of course, to download Kaspersky, reverse-engineer it, analyze what it does, and then publish the results of your research for everyone to read. That is your chance to prove to the world, once and for all, that Kaspersky is innocent and that NSA is blowing this out of proportion, for nefarious reasons.
I am awaiting the publication of your research paper on Kaspersky AV, proving its innocence. Until then, I'll take NSA's word for it.
least complaint-generating Windows ever
That's because everyone downgrades to Win7.
Re: Oracle got there first
> Oracle's common practice was to do this every year.
Still is to this day. Fire people left and right to prop up the stock price.
Let's not forget IBM. They deserve a special mention.
stimulate innovation and increase choice for consumers
No utility to root your phone. If you want to root by building your own kernel, and disabling RIC, must unlock bootloader. If you unlock bootloader, you lose 25% of functionality. Hit the Intertubes and figure out which OEM libraries must be saved before unlocking the bootloader, so you can restore some functionality back.
By default, can't uninstall Facebook Slurp or Amazon Slurp. Can't uninstall OEM bloatware. Need root.
Annoying, idiotic and constant stream of Android Assistant suggestions about where to get coffee or where to buy toothpaste.
Google Maps, Drive, Chrome, Movies &TV, YouTube constantly running in the background for no real reason. Facebook and Amazon too.
300+ Google Services constantly running in the background. No obvious reason why or what for.
Android Assistant deciding that the photos you stored on your memory card - if you're lucky enough to have one - have too high resolution. Proceed to lower the resolution on all your photos, without asking for permission. Make them all look like goat ass.
Industrial-scale slurping. GPS Location Tracking enabled by default, making sure your battery drains before the end of the day. Also: We Know Where You've Been. OEM's love this feature as the batteries aren't replaceable. So you need to buy a new phone every year because the battery won't charge to 100% anymore.
I really, truly feel that my choices as a consumer have been vastly expanded. Not.
It took me 2 months of work to get my Sony phone working the way I want it to work. Slurp-O-Rama gone. One battery charge now lasts 2 days. Sorry, Sony. No new phone this year, or next.
VS Code [ ... ] the most popular dev environment [ ... ]
On which planet?
I happen to like the current GitHub Web Interface patch/diff formatting. And their simple markup editor.
Note to Satnad: code writing isn't done in GitHub.
I don't want some idiotic Microsoft bloatware editor with helpful pop-ups, a trending news feed, and suggestions to connect to other Microsoft GitHub users on LinkedIn. Or Skype. None of which I will be able to disable.
Sigh. It was only a matter of time before something useful, well-designed and well-implemented was going to be borged and subsequently destroyed by Microsoft.
When you haven't come up with a single interesting idea for more than a decade, that's what you do. You turn into Oracle, you acquire companies and you create opportunities.
> IBM was chosen as the contractor to deliver a system based on Oracle's PeopleSoft system.
This explains everything. It was doomed from Day One.
Re: Problem is ...
> That way, any Facebook user would be able to view any job ad.
They can easily advertise jobs on LinkedIn. Or Facebook, but without age target restrictions. Or Indeed.com. Or Glassdoor.com.
Or they can create an email subscription to their job openings feed where everyone and anyone can subscribe regardless of age.
My assumption being that, in this day and age, most techies get their job openings info online, and don't read the jobs section in printed copies of newspapers. :-)
Problem is ...
Advertising for shampoo or makeup in a teen mag isn't a potential minefield for age discrimination, as there can be no rational claim to shampoo - or makeup - discrimination.
Job adverts in a magazine that is explicitly age-targeted, on the other hand ... not good.
Amazon, Facebook, etc. can easily publish their job adverts on web sites that aren't explicitly age-targeted.
> Thune is right.
Thune has absolutely no intention, or interest, in seeing net neutrality rules being written into law.
His only interest is in making sure that these net neutrality rules never become law. Which is why he keeps yammering about this mythical bi-partisan compromise bill that no-one has ever seen.
Has Thune ever proposed or sponsored any bi-partisan Net Neutrality legislation in the US Senate? Has he ever authored or co-sponsored a bill to this effect?
The only thing he's done, and continues to do, is to opine about what he would support - hypothetically and in theory - if such a law was ever written and brought up for debate. Which will never happen.
And when Thune is asked this very question - why haven't you written a bill and brought it up for debate?, he retreats to the good-ol' excuse it's the Democrats' fault why I haven't written a bill. They're mean and they aren't sharing. I'm telling Mom.
Re: Well, it's just about FEAR
> "transparently engineered crap that would make Stalin wince in embarrassement"
And you know that based on your extensive, real-life experience of living under Stalin's regime.
Re: RISC-V is the future
> Perhaps the downvoters could explain to us just why RISC-V is not the future?
Before we talk about the future, let's focus on the present.
Can you provide a reference to a RISC-V server board available for purchase now?
Is there any compiler support for RISC-V that is more than a toy/experimental hobbyist project?
Is there a RISC-V Linux port?
Without a working board, without a working compiler, and without a working OS, it seems kinda premature to declare that RISC-V is the future.
> you shift the argument from LGBTQ to race
The argument is about under-represented minorities. That includes LGBTQ as well as under-represented ethnic groups.
What makes you uncomfortable about the Black/African-American analogy is the sense of discomfort you experience when facing race-based discrimination. You seem much more comfortable with discrimination based on sexual orientation. The fact that both kinds of discrimination are equally unacceptable and evil eludes you.
> Your argument also struggles because its not the majority that are asking for quotas but the minority groups.
Ummmm, no. I did not make the assertion that LGBTQ groups are over-represented in Silicon Valley, without providing a single supporting reference. That assertion was most likely made by a heterosexual white male.
> [ ...] reverse discrimination [ ... ] can it still be justified when the group(s) it was setup to benefit has exceeded the desired result of equality?
I don't see how reverse discrimination has exceeded the desired result of equality when African-Americans are still grossly under-represented in the Facebook example.
I also do not see that there was any reverse discrimination applied in the first place, as white caucasians are still the dominant ethnic group both at Facebook, and in the US population demographics.
You can't be white, representing 61% of the population, and claim reverse discrimination.
In the US, LGBTQ demographics vary greatly by state.
By the same metric, and playing the same percentages game: 13.3% of US population identifies itself as being of Black/African-American descent: US Census Bureau Population Demographics.
While at Facebook only 3% of employees are of Black/African-American descent.
So, according to your theory, Facebook should: (1) fire 50% of its LGBTQ empoyees. (2) fire 20% of its white employees. (3) hire more Black/African-American candidates unti they reach the 13% percentage. But they have to be very careful when hiring African-Americans: they can't hire too many LGBTQ African-Americans. Which, of course, can't be done without asking questions about the candidate's sexual orientation on the job application form. And that's illegal.
See, that's the problem with being a self-centered bigoted white male and crying foul while playing these stupid percentages game: no matter how you look at the numbers, white still is the dominant ethnicity in the US, at 61.3%. Kind of difficult to claim white male discrimination.
> LGBTQ* are extremely overrepresented in tech
Care to provide a reference in support of the above assertion?
> That's a fact
How so? Just because you made an assertion, that automatically makes it a fact?
Re: @ST The problem probably wasn't the software...
> [ ... ] although you will have to recreate/port the old very specific libraries used to work on the data
Yeah. There's that. Porting N number of old FORTRAN libaries from DEC FORTRAN to ... Intel X86_64 I guess? How long would that take?
Then there's validation. Making sure that the numbers coming out of the VAX libraries are exactly the same as the numbers coming out of Intel. Which, at a minimum, means running the libraries' test harness both on the VAX and on Intel, and then comparing the results.
Chances are the numbers won't match 100%. IEEE rounding, flush-to-zero, denormals.
Next step: if the test harness result numbers don't match, now what? Where's the error? Do you debug on the VAX or do you debug on Intel? Probably on both if you really want to track down the error.
Some people here make it sound like it's just a matter of ftp'ing the data sets, then just a simple recompile, then everything just works. Speaking from experience: it never works that way in real life.
Have you ever seen DEC FORTRAN code from the late '80's? I have, 20 years ago. I'm still trying to unsee it.
Re: The problem probably wasn't the software...
> Fortran is a well defined language with widespread compiler support.
Not really. FORTRAN written in 1989 is likely a sludgy mixture of what the F77 Standard said it should be plus a collection of vendor-specific FORTRAN extensions that are unportable from one FORTRAN compiler vendor to another.
Back then, the notion of code portability between compilers wasn't on anyone's mind. Vendor-specific non-portable extensions were considered cool.
FORTRAN in all caps because that's the correct spelling of the official name of the language.
Microsoft, end your pain
Sell yourself to Oracle. It's a win-win deal.
Oracle will finaly get some kind of Cloud and you won't be in the Clusterfuck Of The Day headlines anymore.
Plus, Oracle customers are used to stuff not working and bugs never being fixed.
Re: "an opportunity to invest even more heavily in privacy."
> I don't have a FaceBook account
I don't either. For obvious reasons. I have Google. That's enough slurping for me.
My question is: how many current Facebook users are willing to delete their Facebook account, delete all the cookies Facebook stored on their computer and forget it exists?
Facebook will not change because its users complain about its practices. The only thing that might change - from time to time - is their PR bullshit.
So, cut off the money spigot. Delete your Facebook account.
Yeah. Security advice from Microsoft
> Katie Moussouris [ ... ] veteran infosec researcher who created Microsoft's bug bounty programme
I don't take security advice from anyone who is now, or has ever been, employed at Microsoft. Period. Their track record on security speaks for itself.
Instead of lecturing the world about IoT, Katie Moussouris should have stayed at Microsoft and should have found some security bugs in Microsoft's products. There are plenty of them to be found.
'Our way or the highway' warranty scams shot down by US watchdog: It's OK to use unofficial parts to repair your gear
> My first phone had a screen made of gorillas
Was it hairy when you swiped?
Re: "they genuinely are starting to challenge DSLRs"
> That's... impressively elitist, and possibly even trollish.
No, it's not.
> and the delta between the two is shinking, whether you want to admit it or not
Again, no, it's not.
Maybe you are comparing your smartphone photos with photos coming out from a USD $250 Samsung Point-And-Shoot. Yeah, the ones that come in pink, pastel green, paster purple and pastel rust. In that case, probably true, considering that the $250 Samsung camera has the same exact optics and image processor as a smartphone.
For anyone that knows a thing or two about photography, smartphone pictures are generally crap. Different levels of crap, depending on phone brand, and cost, but still crap. There are objective reasons why that is, and no amount of marketing bullshit will compensate for physics.
I'm not talking about ridiculous pixel-peeping here - which is stupid in and of itself. I am talking about basics like color depth, saturation, range, blotching, perspective distortion, i.e. basics.
If you firmly believe that the photos coming out of your smartphone are the very best you can get, or that they match the quality and optics of a DSLR, great. Works for you.
But, consider the possibility that what you happen to believe isn't necessarily a match for factual and observable reality. Or physics.
Re: Smartphones are SOOOO over
> A nonsensical comparison and factually incorrect...
Let me explain the Andromeda sentence so that even someone like you can understand it:
We are as close to the Andromeda Galaxy as it is possible for us to be. That's because we know that the Milky Way and Andromeda have been on a collision course, and because we are closer to Andromeda today than we were yesterday.
Whether tomorrow, or the day after, we will be closer to it, or not, is completely irrelevant. We don't know. As of right now, at time T, we know we are as close to it as we can possibly be. That's because right now, at time T, we are closer to it than we were at time T - 1 in the past. Based on direct observation.
However, neither you nor I know if at an undetermined time T + N in the future we will be closer to it than we were at time T + (N - 1), also in the future. That's because we can't observe the future.
Even so, being as close to Andromeda a we can possibly be at this time, we still have another 4 billion years to get even closer to it. Assuming the two galaxies maintain their current collision course. Which means the as close as we can possibly be statement is meaningless.
Bueller? Understand the difference between a meaningless approximation - as close as we can possibly be - and a direct measurement observation - we are closer to it today than we were yesterday?
Re: Smartphones are SOOOO over
> We don't give a shit. Thank you.
That's exactly my point.
Let's stop pretending that the camera is the smartphone's differentiating feature, or that it has any relevance to anything.
But then, if we stopped the pretense bullshit, this wouldn't be the Internet, would it?
Re: Smartphones are SOOOO over
> Battling the laws of physics to make a lens <5mm thick perform as close as possible to as a dedicated camera.
Nobody cares how thick or thin the smartphone camera lens is.
Please tell me that whenever you buy a new smartphone your purchasing decision is based on the thickness of the camera lens.
[ ... ] perform as close as possible to a dedicated camera
Have you seen a photograph produced by a recent DSLR or Mirrorless with a high-quality professional lens such as SIGMA or Zeiss?
As close as possible is a funny expression. We - of planet Earth - are as close as possible to the Andromeda Galaxy. Not close enough, though.
Smartphones are SOOOO over
Seriously. It's 2018.
How amazing can an Android smartphone be at this point?
in a deranged way it's kinda funny
watching two pathological liars (CA and Facebook) accusing each other of lying.
> [ ... ] the day they start making vacuum cleaners
Microsoft's vacuum cleaner: they can call it Microsoft Enterprise PowerSuck 6000.
Don't worry, they'll fuck this up too. It will unexpectedly switch from suck to blow with no warning.
> Decentralized, encrypted, anonymous, metadataless - that's the only way to roll.
And how exactly does one accomplish that?
Make my day. Please say Blockchain.
Re: When is an Autopilot not an Autopilot?
> "Autopilot" facility is exactly as described, it requires the driver to keep their hands on the wheel at all times.
Thanks for the self-serving damage-control bullshit.
Good luck in Court.
When is an Autopilot not an Autopilot?
The system is designed to be able to conduct short and long distance trips with no action required by the person in the driver's seat. [ ... ] All you will need to do is get in and tell your car where to go.
Where does "but keep your hands on the wheel at all times and drive your car manually just like a Chevy" figure into Tesla's assertion about their Autopilot's capabilities?
Either it's an Autopilot that can drive the car with no action required by the person in the driver's seat -- Tesla's own words -- or it isn't.
They can't have it both ways.
It's an Autopilot if you don't crash and die. If you crash and/or die, then it's not an Autopilot. You should have kept your hands on the wheel. Because we beeped you.