A cum web developer! How very dare you!
Edit: Forgot to say: I resemble that remark.
A cum web developer! How very dare you!
Edit: Forgot to say: I resemble that remark.
It did a lot for me - I'm a self-taught .Net programmer who talked his way into a job and did all his learning after that fact. I had (and still have, to an extent) Imposter Syndrome in spades. What really helped me out was actually this site - Seeing the submissions of code so blatantly bad that even I would cringe at it told me that I was actually alright.
No, it's the best of both worlds. I keep using normal account, so I don't accidentally screw something up, Also, I am kept aware what the normal users will actually experience, in case I'm doing some Windows dev. For example, you can't open up a port any longer without escalation, which I wouldn't know until deployment if I just went full admin on my PC.On the other hand, when I do decide to elevate a program, I don't need to click through a fucking screen asking me whether I really want to do WHAT I'VE ALREADY DECIDED TO DO WHEN I OPENED THE DAMN PROGRAM.
So, let me get this straight: rather than use UAC, you use an account without admin permissions and have to reenter the administrator password every time you do something that requires elevation (I trust you don't save the credentials!).
Many people regard that as more of a PITA than UAC and that's why a lot of people don't but know that if you do log on routinely as an administrator then having UAC on is probably wise.
Some may call you paranoid and spineless for going to such lengths, if it weren't the other perfectly valid reasons that you gave for doing it that way.
The issue is, where did I ever talk about business use case for UAC?
The worst-case scenario was not a business use case. You call it paranoid later on. I don't (see below). But, businesses aren't just internal networks: working from home is a common thing; having remote access to servers is a common thing. Security of employees' home computers can be as much a concern for a business as security on their own internal devices.
But I wasn't just talking about that. If you don't use your home computer for anything at all important then, ok, but very many people do. I know of multiple people who have lost email accounts because they were hacked. They have no recourse to getting them back. A relatively minor but very common example.
And if even you don't, the worst-case scenario is still the same (worse than losing lots of money)...
My case against UAC is more in the context terms of an individual competent user, on a personal PC.
Mine is for both.
How about anecdotes? How about UAC prevented something bad that wouldn't have been caused by user doing things they shouldn't do?
It's probably happening all the time but you don't hear the prevented viruses and the damage they would have done or the viruses that don't get noticed, only if they are successful and do something that gets them noticed. That makes such anecdotes impossible.
Yeah but once something passes through UAC screen (let's say, through a hacked installer), you're not getting any additional warnings from it.
Indeed. It is just a layer of protection but a useful one.
What's worse than that for a normal user (not business)?
I told you: your computer becomes part of network used for illegal activity: hacking other computers, spreading the worm, hosting files that would be your worst nightmare, etc, etc. I'm very surprised you don't realise this. Malware has moved on a lot since the 20th century. A lot of it is extremely sophisticated.
I've never heard of a fully automated virus/rootkit able to infiltrate your system and steal your money without someone actually investing personal effort into the operation (social engineering etc).
That's what. for one example of many, Zues is. So no, I don't think it is paranoid. I think it's far more likely than getting mugged on the streets and potentially far more damaging (and I bet you do take some precautions against that on occasions).
What does that even mean?
It means that if I'm installing something that isn't from a reputable source (or indeed if something starts installing unexpectedly) then if it asks for elevated permissions then I get a warning. That means that I can chose then not too proceed with the install or if I chose to proceed I can be wary of it and inspect what it has done and maybe then be vigilant about checking processes, etc. Without UAC I don't see how you would know.
I understand your opinion. What you do with your computer is your choice and weighing up the risks is not scientific. But what you said the hazard was (the worst-case scenario) was far short of the truth in my opinion. However small the risks, the worst-case is a living nightmare.
But the fun doesn't end there. If you're using a workstation upon which somebody has done a /savecred using a domain account - say, one with staff-level access rights on your file server - and you log on to a less privileged account - say, one with only student-level access rights on your file server - and the logon script does not explicitly specify the username in any drive mappings it performs: those drive mappings happen using the saved credentials, in preference to those of the user logging on.
I was skeptical so I thought I'd check. This Technet Article: Cached and Stored Credentials Technical Overview says at the very end:
When the operating system attempts to connect to a new computer on the network, it supplies the current user name and password to the computer. If this is not sufficient to provide access, Credential Manager attempts to supply the necessary user name and password. All stored user names and passwords are examined, from most specific to least specific as appropriate to the resource, and the connection is attempted in the order of those user names and passwords. Because user names and passwords are read and applied in order, from most to least specific, no more than one user name and password can be stored for each individual target or domain.
Combined with credentials being stored for the machine as whole and not an individual store for each user, it is extremely fucked up.
The moral of the story, change important passwords frequently or don't use Windows.
1%
Sometimes, 1% is quite a high percentage. Of course, the risk/hazard analysis is up to you. My original point that your hazard analysis was way out: it's a lot worse then just having to reinstall an OS. The risk analysis is different for everybody.
This is all true in theory.
It's all true in practice too and you did ask "What's the worst that can happen?" and then gave something that wasn't nearly the worst as the answer (a bit pedantic perhaps but not completely). This shit does happen to people.
If there was an epidemic of this going on, you'd have a point.
That depends on your definition of epidemic. Nobody has precise figures but it certainly looks like one to me.
You still need to start editor as Administrator if you want to be able to save.
Or, as FrostCat mentioned, give your specific user account full control.
Which makes me think you UAC people just like the security theater of the UAC warning screens and never actually tried using PC without it.
True but a lot less effort than monitoring processes frequently and more likely to prevent the nasty shit from happening. Monitoring processes is less likely to catch a problem and only after the event when it may be too late.
But see, the problem is UAC doesn't tell you that.
Agreed. It would be much better if it did but others have spoken about the difficulty of doing that.
No slowdowns. No suspicious running processes. No popups jumping up. No one stole my identity or credit card numbers. The usual.
The first three are not likely to appear. A good worm these days does none of those things. If someone had stolen your identity or credit card numbers (or access accounts for public facing servers at work) then it would be too late. And those aren't the worst threats that hackers pose.
The same way you know there's no obsessed stalker following you and watching your every move. Not by building a moat around your property and hiring armed guards, but by just not noticing apparent problems and presuming everything's OK, so you can move with your life. Like a normal person.
I don't agree with that analogy. There's very little similarity. There are millions of people who will try to given a chance and are milliseconds away from you and will not make it known to you that they have until money goes missing and complaints from the public/press/police etc start arriving. That's not true of stalkers. And not turning off UAC is hardly building a moat and hiring armed guards.
Serious questions: how do you know that one of the installers that you gave admin privileges didn't install any of the things you specified? Or that no one has figured out an exploit through one of many holes that NSA had apparently forced Microsoft to leave open?
I'm not too concerned about Microsoft or the NSA. I think I explained clearly who the threat is and what the danger is. I think it's safe to trust Microsoft not to steal my money or to use my computer for hosting child pornography. So, that is is how. I am more careful with installers from less reputable sources.
Then try to edit it No elevation request! It's just a normal read-only file. But here's the thing--you wouldn't have gotten a UAC prompt anyway, just a Save As dialog to change the name, with the default permission.
Thanks FrostCat. So the security group a user is in has full control but that just means they can save over it only if they run the editor elevated but if an individual user account has full control then they can save over it without having to do so. I would never have guessed. (And that is fucked up.)
But it's not a matter of permissions of the user it's a matter of the permissions of the program the user is running.
That's my issue with UAC: there's no granular control - no option to opt specific things out of it: it's all or nothing. If I'm wrong about that and there is a way to tell UAC not to worry about hosts and certain registry keys but keep doing its thing with every other file and registry setting I'd love to hear it.
I think that's how it should work: a tick box on every file, folder and registry key, for setting UAC on/off for that particular object with sensible defaults.
It's a classic put down that is hard to respond to whilst maintaining civility. It includes a superficial back-handed complement that is probably insincere. Similar lines are "You should know better than that", "I expected better of you". Most often committed by adults talking to children. It is usually just a plain insult but also quite a lazy comment from someone who either can't be bothered to explain or can't explain and hopes to conceal that or has tried and failed to explain and wants to put the blame for that on the recipient. From a lecturer, it is probably an indictment of his/her professional abilities.
The court needs a wizard to decide these things.
The knights themselves picking their own quests is ridiculous.
Self-replicating!
Made me think of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt84uBuGKNk
(Self-replicating D N Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na Na)
PS: And another worst case scenario is it just takes the hacker to put one criminal file on a website or your computer (child pornography, how to make a pipe bomb, etc.) and that's the police involved, very seriously involved and suspecting you and everyone you know questioning whether you would actually do such a thing and doubting their trust in you.
Personally, I'd rather just be stabbed, maybe not to death, but at least it's over quickly and, if you survive, you get nothing but sympathy from those around you. Being arrested on suspicion of being a paedophile could ruin your life. That shit would leave a smell you'd never completely shake off.
And what's the worst thing that could happen? Really? What, someone's gonna jump out of the computer and stab you to death? Terrorists are gonna take over? No, maybe you'd have to run Antimalware a bit more often than usual. The worst, EXTREMELY remote case scenario is reinstalling the PC. Big deal.
For some of us the worst thing is a lot worse than that and there's a lot of malware that gives no indication of its presence unless you search very hard for it and why would you? A key logger or similar could give root passwords for lots of servers and other important accounts (email, domain registration, thedailywtf, etc) to very unscrupulous and clever people. A criminal type getting hold of them can produce problems that could bring your business to its knees, do massive damage to its (and your) reputation and take months to put right: can you ever be sure they didn't, with the root access they got, put a backdoor in somewhere so your password changes don't stop them?
So it depends what happens on the computer but I dare say that very few computers never get used for logging in to online accounts that are of some importance to somebody. And I also dare say that most who would say "I would never let a worm in, I know how to spot them" are fooling themselves.
That UAC blocks saving the hosts file is quite annoying. It should give the option of elevating permissions at the point of save and it discovers it might need them not only when the program runs. That's true of installers as well. It does seem to me a very crude bodge of a device with little thought to making it user-friendly or smart in any way.
But installing that safe looking freeware m4a to mp3 converter that you need to do in a hurry and finding it's asking for elevated permissions is a good warning to maybe try another one and not have to run process monitor to be absolutely sure it isn't doing something you might deeply regret (if you ever you find out it was this program and this computer that was the root cause of all the pain).
So when you say you've had zero issues, how do you know? Serious question - not facetious or rhetorical. Do you check periodically and if so how? If not then do you expect issues to make themselves known to you in some way and if so what way?
Playing @blakeyrat's advocate for a moment though: I do think there are situations where breach of contract is morally equivalent to stealing. Such as, agreeing to pay somebody for work and then refusing on some bullshit technicality. There's always an element of, if the civil courts won't rule in their favour then the victim must be at least a bit to blame for not getting a better contract. But if some idiot strolls around South Central LA at 2 in the morning waving a wad of cash around, the mugger that takes it is steal a thief.
However, this scenario being discussed is nothing like that: not morally equivalent to stealing.
Edit: Kind of duplicated @Yamikuronue's post but didn't see it till after.
Listen, some PHP enthusiast on some backwater website distributin' s is no basis for a system of honours. Supreme honorific distinction derives from acknowledgement by the masses, not from some farcical digital ceremony.
BTW, can I be LurkerAbove Must be New Here Esquire?
Kind of like TrueCrypt then but without being free. Hmm.. they are being assholes.
Are the original authors morally wrong to deny this company the use of their software?
It does have a bit of a smell of a racket. "Here's some software that you can use for that, thank you for paying for it?" "Oh you want some more licenses for that? Can do but won't. You'll have to buy our new product instead."
Do they make a replacement new version? Would it cost more for all the necessary licenses than was offered for the extra licenses for the old software?
They don't get any sympathy from me for being so intransigent and unhelpful if someone were to exceed their licenses. It's a stupid attitude that throws away future custom. Copyright infringement is damaging to the software industry but so are false economies like that.
Is that the one with [spoiler]slomo and the lock down on a block[/spoiler] ?
I liked that one. It was dark like I imagined the comics to be. A much better Dredd imo than Sylvester.
This (thread to which this is a reply that isn't linking unless I quote
@Arantor said:
analysis paralysis
That all sounds very familiar.
Being your own worst critic is good to a point (the really shit artists and artisans are the ones who aren't) but it can be very debilitating. It is much harder to be a perfectionist than it used to be because the [near] perfection of the masters and the ever so high standards of the oh so many experts is so readily available to us and there's just such a vast and ever-growing quantity of it. It's hard to stay motivated against that backdrop.
Being a perfectionist can cause a situation where the chase is better than the catch when it comes to learning. Learning is fun because there's no pressure to get it right first time: mistakes are fine - you learn by them and you know that; you're chasing the prize of getting good at it. But having learnt, then doing it becomes no fun because every little mistake is an imperfection that makes the end product bad/wrong/embarrassing/etc. The trick is, of course, to keep treating it as learning because, of course, we always are.
Also, a great man once said "Nothing, except a battle lost, can be half so melancholy as a battle won". The battle is fun, the aftermath isn't and it's the aftermath you deliver to the audience (with things like writing). Overcoming that relies on being able to enjoy (or at least appreciate) your own work and not take it too seriously: to not look at it as a critic.
These are things you have to break through if you want to do it seriously. I think the upside is that a perfectionist who can break through (because it never completely goes away) will probably then have the grounding to be really proficient.
Having said all that, some things might be best left as a hobby where they are more fun: having creative outlets that you don't take seriously is very important I think. Perhaps you're dodging a bullet by not having to write a tedious article every month
Disclaimer: I haven't overcome any of this myself so I wouldn't take advice on it from me: only when I'm 100.00% sure I know the cure that works for everyone, then I'll get back to you.
So where on the Dan Brown-to-Shakespeare scale do you think you are? And then where on that scale do you need to be to be good enough at it to do it because you want to?
I think, of all the arts, writing is the hardest to judge your own work so you have to leave that to other people. In this case, for what it's worth, my very inexpert opinion is that there's nothing bad about your style. It is just, like you say, a lack of enthusiasm for the story that comes across to me as a reader. If it were a story you are excited about telling, I expect you would write a good read.
So do I. Truth be told, I prefer all the different entries that I've seen to mine
I think that's natural for any decent person: to not be fans of their own work.
Perhaps this really isn't for me after all. After all... I work best when telling a story I'm invested in - and this one I'm so not.
That seems a shame to me but, to be able to get invested in a story, would be an important ability to have: 'Method story-telling' if that is a thing: believing that the story is your own - that it happened to you - just while you tell it.
Better than me. But nevertheless... I'm going to give it another go.
Yes. I'm afraid so. But this new one is much more like it. The first would be good round a dinner table, this would be good round a campfire and I think it's the latter they're after.
I think I still prefer Macie's though if I'm honest.
Really good story telling style imo: natural, flowing, inviting...
Overqualified?
From a IT community that frequently uses the word "evil" to mean "this code might be hard to maintain 5 years from now"? From a IT community where Java (apparently) is actually capable of sinning?
Oh I see you were calling it 'stealing' for comic effect. I must admit that went totally over my head and I duly apologise.
It's exactly in-line with the other exaggerated shit people in this community say.
But you're the one exaggerating 'breach of contract' to 'stealing'. So, are you one of those shit people in this community to which you refer? If not, I'm confused.
the most morally bankrupt motherfuckers on Earth.
They would be hypocrites first and foremost right?
I'M USING THE WORD STEAL GET OVER YOURSELF SLASHDOTTERS
But it isn't stealing! Not legally, not morally. It is a breach of contract. How amoral that is depends on the parties involved and the contract. What about other breaches of contract? E.g. you create two accounts on a web service that expressly forbids doing so (as many people do) is that stealing in your mind? If not, where do you draw the stealing line on the breach of contract curve?
You are devaluing the word steal. Why not go the whole-hog and call it raping your mother and murdering your children? It's not those things either but if you don't care whether the thing really is what you call it then - heh - why not go nuts?
Calling it stealing is wrong. The SIIA throw that word around and it is not appropriate. Firstly, it is not depriving anybody of property. Secondly, it is not actually what the crime is called: In the US, the crime is unauthorised duplication of software for commercial gain.
But in any case that's not what is being suggested here. All that is being suggested is breaching the terms of the license (modifying the software and exceeding the allowed number of users). That's a breach of contract (the EULA) and a civil matter not a criminal offense surely. Or is breach of contract a criminal offense in the US?
That's certainly an improvement on kibi and gibi but I prefer the K's because I'm biased.
However, it might be better to take the opportunity to work towards yodabytes before it's too late.
Geekibyte would be better 'cos only geeks would ever use it. Amiright?
1024 would be Kikabyte, which is a b*****m of a lot better than kibi.
1048576 would be Mekabyte, which is like Mecha, which is cool as any fule no.
And 10995... would be Tekabyte, which is like Tech, which is like apt and shit.
Then pekabyte, ekabyte, zeka, yoka. It's all good and nobody would have to feel like a prick saying it.
This is entirely @boomzilla's fault for reminding me of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQqCC24NasM
And a variable you have to be a little bit careful with how you use it lest you make the function recursive without meaning to.
Is there any other language where you can accidentally make a function recursive?
American TV is renowned for killing good comedy either by cutting it short: Police Squad definitely was excellent and was killed off because it was too funny; or by running it to death: Simpsons and Futurama were good, very good, but they should have ended years ago: they're now just the wacky adventures of... If Fawlty Towers had been American they would be churning out series 38 to this day and it would be embarrassingly bad (or it would have been deemed too funny and never aired). Archer looks to be going the same way.
Southpark is the only exception to that imo.
However, that there's only one Graham Linehan and one Armando Iannucci (and one Chris Morris and one Steve Coogan and one Stewart Lee etc.) is nobody's fault, not even the Americans'. We can fight for their right to have good comedy. It's symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Or like Gnome
but then it sounds racist
So I'm going to assume that they have actually made some important breakthroughs, which is great
It is great if true but I'm going to assume they receive wads of federal cash for this and guess that there's some sort of spending review round the corner.
musically it's just not quite the same.
Yeah, something tells me that wasn't one of Eric Idle's compositions.
i need to rewatch flying circus it seems.i don't remember that sketch
I envy you. Oh to forget them all and be able watch them as if for the first time.
It was series 4, which is probably the least memorable of them because of no John Cleese but still damn good imo.
It is an inspired choice of soundtrack
I was tempted to post
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4vn-XLr6ic
instead but thought better of it
15/10/2014: P. G. Wodehouse's birthday and 50 years to the day since Cole Porter died so this seems appropriate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEbYfzhYQo4
I remember seeing that and it's a monster of a WTF table. This is but a baby kobold in comparison.
The rows in this had to be updated each year too: the field in the other table should not allow future years so, obviously, the best way to do that is to restrict it to selecting from a table that doesn't have future years.
I'm completely suprised you didn't pick computer as the comparison
my friend Red pronounces "commute" like "commune", emphasis on the first syllable. Anyone have any idea what region that comes from?
Communist countries? He/she is called Red after all - probably not a coincidence.