Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Glenwarner Glen-Cast (Score 1) 175

by StikyPad (#47712213) Attached to: Comcast Training Materials Leaked

Interesting bit of the training material I found:

"Fuck you,"-- that's my name. You know why, mister? You drove a Hyundai to get here. I drove an eighty-thousand dollar BMW. THAT'S my name. And your name is "you're wanting." You can't play in the man's game, you can't close them - go home and tell your wife your troubles. Because only one thing counts in this life: Get them to sign on the line which is dotted. You hear me, assholes? ABC. A, always. B, be. C, closing. Always Be Closing. Always Be Closing!

Comment: Re:So? (Score 2) 48

by plover (#47711519) Attached to: Your Phone Can Be Snooped On Using Its Gyroscope

I'm going to assume most phones already have actual microphones, so how does this add any additional kind of insecurity? I'm going to assume most phones already have actual microphones, so how does this add any additional kind of insecurity?

Apparently the sound from your mic and the echo from your gyroscopes were both parsed by your speech-to-text converter. I guess it works better than we thought!

Comment: Re:not true at all (Score 1) 124

by plover (#47711485) Attached to: FarmBot: an Open Source Automated Farming Machine

When you look at the technical advancements in agriculture, they're composed of small features integrated in to (or bolted on to) existing equipment. You don't need a new tractor, you just need to mount a GPS receiver and a database onto your old one. A processor no bigger than a cell phone can do lots of that. Adding electrically operated valves to an existing fertilizer or pesticide spray system? Again, very small. It doesn't have to auto-steer, it just has to know where it is, and where it's been.

The makers don't have to build the tractors, they just want to improve them.

Comment: Re:Blame them, not Heartbleed (Score 1) 46

by plover (#47711413) Attached to: Heartbleed To Blame For Community Health Systems Breach

I realize reading the article is considered bad form, but if you read it you'd learn they think they were breached sometime between April and June. Heartbleed was announced in April. That's somewhere between zero to two months. Lots of big shops have a monthly patching cycle, and you don't just drop every patch into a mission critical system the day it arrives.

Comment: Re:It's not like they've had 5 months to fix it... (Score 5, Insightful) 46

by plover (#47711369) Attached to: Heartbleed To Blame For Community Health Systems Breach

They said they think they were breached sometime between April and June. Heartbleed was announced in April. The window was zero to two months, not five.

And it's not that data security is a low priority, it's just that it may not be as high a priority as network availability. This is health care, where problems in communication might affect patient outcomes. "Hey, sysadmin, Doctor Green couldn't respond to his page last night, and the patient died as a result." These are the kinds of arguments that are thrown at the IT departments at every health care provider. Whether or not we consider them rational or valid is irrelevant.

So in that backdrop, we might try to understand that they probably don't just slam in every patch that the vendor has to offer, at least not without a giant process circus. I would guess that they have a patch intake process, where they have to run the patch by some engineering team that evaluates the nature of the patch, and devises some kind of testing plan to execute in their lab environment. They then have to pass it to the testing team who will set up and execute the patch process in the lab, document all their findings, and then turn the patch over to the production network team. They'll put it on their list, and they'll have their own manager who says "whoa, why are you security guys rushing to slam this patch in to my border router? Let's slow down and think about this one."

I could easily see it taking a month in a big, regulated corporate environment.

Comment: moving vs. stationary (Score 2) 126

by Tom (#47710335) Attached to: Ballmer Leaves Microsoft Board

"the mobile-first, cloud-first world."

This sums up the core MS issue better than anything else I've ever read. MS has never been innovative, but worse: It has never been a company that likes change. Their world-view is static and stationary. While they acknowledge the world is changing (reality can be quite persuasive), they don't see movement, they see a succession of stationary status quos.

They will now throw everything at becoming the perfect company for the picture of the world they have. And in five years look out the window and see that the world has changed - again.

It's also the reason we all hate MS - due to their still existing stranglehold on computing, they keep much of the rest of the world static with them. The damage done by preventing innovation and progress is easily ten times MS net worth.

All because some people don't understand that life is dynamic.

Comment: Re:Microsoft (Score 1) 551

by HiThere (#47709719) Attached to: Munich Reverses Course, May Ditch Linux For Microsoft

O, as long as it's properly licensed I like it fine. I just don't trust it, and don't need to use it. So I don't.

As for the three examples you gave....
that's the first time I've heard of any of them. If I had heard of them I wouldn't have trusted them, though, so it's no loss to me. (Did they license the use to all patents they may have included in that softtware to any derivitive software? The last time I looked at one of their "open source" projects that had unaccountably failed to do that.)

Neckties strangle clear thinking. -- Lin Yutang

Working...