So you're saying that homeopathy is like.. Tinkerbell?
So you're saying that homeopathy is like.. Tinkerbell?
The original post from Kapersky doensn't make the unhackable claim.
Then again, it doesn't miss the mark by much...
. I also hope itâ(TM)s clear that itâ(TM)s better â" no matter how difficult â" to build IoT/infrastructure devices from the very beginning in such a way that hacking them is practically impossible
The risk isn't just about your data. If a device is roped into a botnet, at the time it's supposed to be delivering a carefully calibrated and timed dosage it's instead DOSing some system for all that it's worth. These devices are surely never tested under "extreme load" scenarios because they're not intended to be used that way.
Well, that's of paramount importance!
It kind of is, actually - since that's the entirety of what their application does.
Because, for example, you hear the song on the radio. Or it's playing during a commercial on TV. Or in any of various other situations where the audio is originating from a place that the device isn't connected to.
While I wasn't at ChefConf this year, I know several people who attended this discussion. By selective quoting, the 'reporter' has completely misrepresented the statement.
The contextually mangled quote used in the article: "“t’s definitely possible,” Russinovich says. “It’s a new Microsoft.”
THe actual quote as far as I can determine: "You never know, it's definitely possible. Crazy stuff happens."
No OSS was harmed in the making of this post.
How much of this is really from his mind, vs just being paid sufficient sums to allow his name to be stamped on it?
So you're suggesting what, a minimum dollar amount of charity before such a thing can be considered worthwhile? Anything less than 10% and you might as well not bother?
I never get tired of this game, and I still go through month long stretches of time where wheneve rI have spare time, I start playing it.
Lately I've discovered nethack 4 - it's an unofficially blessed fork of nethack and some fo the same core developers are contributing to it. The game mechanics and strategies are the same, but the user interface (still all character based by default) is a lot nicer. It also is a complete architectural change to a client-server model - and one fo the benefits of that is that save files have gotten a lot more robust & streamlined.
I'm not sure that I'd call permadeath 'controvertial'. It's a turn-off for a large portion of the gaming population, so they won't play that style of game. No controversy, though...
So we're stuck with either "impossible object" or "ten pounds of shit in a five pound bag".
Naming is hard, but it's not *that* hard.
"At home we have 2 Linux workstations (3, if you count my old development box I normally keep powered down), 2 Linux laptops, 2 Android phones, an Apple desktop, and an iPhone - for 2 adults and a teenager. Note no Microsoft boxen."
Well, I guess MS should fold up their business and go home. Because nobody anywhere is still using them on the desktop...
Actually, Seattle has a lot of local tech people that are employeed by MS and Amazon. Not so many highly qualified . (The company I work for opened up to remote working specifically because it was so hard to find top-tier talent due to MS and Amazon brain-drain, and it's worked out very well for us. )
From my point of view, it seems that a lot of parents often forget that children can be very different, even at the same age. It's easy to say "yes, of course the same thing won't work with every child!", but it seems that often people will stop right there, and not consider the reason that some children are different and that the answer "just try Y instead of X" isn't always an option
This is true to an extent. There are a lot of differences among children, and anything you do has to be tailored to the nature and personality of your child.. However, there are also a lot of similarities. Children respond well overall to limts being set and enforced. So set limits. Explain the limits.Enforce them. Explain again (after they're enforced). Because if you don't enforce them, you teach that your limits aren't really limts at all, and they keep pushing them further out. It doesn't mean they won't push them anyway but a consistent response means they know how far they *can* push and what's ok.
When I was a kid (I'm 35), TV time was very limited, especially during the day when there were other things we could do. When we finally got a computer, time on it was limited as well. I even remember wanting to be outside with my Dad over watching daytime cartoons or whatever. It's not choosing the great outdoors over technology, and I hope you realize this.
Of course I do, and that is a valid point. My son is an active boy, but even so I understand that were the choice different - for example, TV with Dad vs outside with Dad - the answer might be different as well. Because when it's "with Dad" in either case, it boils down to whatever the child prefers to do. But my point was that to encourage time outside, I don't give the choice of TV with Dad in most cases. Instead it's time [by himself] using electronics, or time [with me] outside doing stuff.  And to a three year old in that's no choice at all - no matter how much he loves watching Bob the Builder.
 - most children will push limits. hell mine thinks it's awesome to start sticking appendages into a room I've told him he can't be in. The intent is clear: "you told me I can't be in the kitchen right now, but I'm not - I'm exactly on the threshold and my *hand* is in the kitchen".
 -. The answer to this (again in my experience and in my observations) is not to make every limit an absolute thing, except in areas of safety where failure can mean serious injury [2.1]. Set the limit. Know *in advance* how far you will let them push it, and the reasoning behind it (because they will ask and you should have an answer -- after they listen, or else it turns into a negotiation.)
[2.1] No he may never run away from me in the parking lot. Ever. Immediate response to any attempt to do so. On the other hand: I will warn you against the consequences of standing on that stool on the carpeted floor -- but I will not stop you from doing it. Nor will anybody comfort you when you fall down and get hurt. I'll warn you of that, too.
 - I say unequivocably enforce limits. This doesn't mean demand instant obedience, but rather know the limit you want to set, know how far you will allow the child to push that limit - and be consistent.
 Giving choices - even rigged, loaded choices - is a really important part of parenting, I think. (Perhaps especially the rigged, loaded questions) It took me a while to learn that. Longer still to learn that even very young kids can understand reasoning and choices fairly well. Much better to say, "You can stay here and watch TV while I work in the yard, or you can come outside with me and help." As opposed to either a) not giving the choice because it would much easier for my life to get the yardwork done alone, or b) simply dictating "thou must exit the house fortwith and accompany me now - so sayeth the Lord Dad Thy Father"
"355/113 -- Not the famous irrational number PI, but an incredible simulation!"