|
Microsoft's second major set of new features for Windows 10, known as 'Redstone 2,' are now a spring 2017 deliverable, meant to coincide with a new wave of Windows 10 hardware, sources say. Now you can hate on Windows 10 for a bit longer before it gets upgraded
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: Now you can hate on Windows 10 for a bit longer before it gets upgraded
To then also upgrade the hate? 
If the brain were so simple we could understand it, we would be so simple we couldn't. — Lyall Watson
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: When I read the Winbeta report, my first thought was Microsoft was delaying Redstone 2 in order to attract more business users to the Windows 10 platform. While Windows fans and many consumers are fine with the idea of receiving regular bundles of new features, some business users aren't as keen, given internal requirements around testing and training.
...
However, according to my contacts, enterprise push-back isn't the reason for the Windows 10 Redstone 2 delay. Instead, it's supposedly the next wave of Windows 10 devices from Microsoft.
Theory 2 sounds a lot more plausible to me too; if this has any impact on the roll out of W10 in the corporate environment I think it'll be to slow it down not accelerate it. If I were an enterprise IT director who was worried about if the new MS update model was going to elephant my network, I'd refuse to do a widespread deployment until (at least) after the first major update was out so I could see what happened with my test systems. The initial update last fall wouldn't count because MS hadn't really got the enterprise picture for W10 in place yet.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
New quantum computer, based on five atoms, factors numbers in a scalable way. Think of what they could do with a mole of them
|
|
|
|
|
It's quite interesting (and 50% incomprehensible) as to what Shor's algorithm[^] does.
I do love this line in the wikipedia writeup:
another way to explain Shor's algorithm is by noting that it is just the quantum phase estimation algorithm in disguise.
"Just".
Pity Stargate Universe was so short-lived.
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sure, bad news for RSA and other cryptos based on factoring large numbers. But newer flavors of cryptograhpy like elliptic curves or AES (used in iPhones) remain at large 
|
|
|
|
|
Well, since the atoms are spaced "a few microns away" (from each other), one can deduce that the square root of Avogadro's number would be the number of atoms on each side of a square chip.
Assuming that the spacing is a single micron, and that the sqrt(Avogadro's constant) = 7.76025E+11, with a mole of them, they could consume a square area of some 776.024 kms on each side. That's rather a large computer!
Naturally, 3d packing would make more sense, so lets take the cube-root of the number of atoms. Doing so, we get a cube with 84446881.4 atoms on each side, for a total size (again with micron spacing) of 'just' 84.4 meters on each side.
Jeebus - that's still an unimaginably large computer. Never mind the engineering challenges of getting a laser-beam to strike the atom in the center!!
Though, geeky silliness aside, I'm rather partial to the idea of simulating all the thoughts someone has had and will have, "12 Monkeys" style.
|
|
|
|
|
SecureWorks researchers offer their homegrown 'honeytoken' detection tool as open-source. It takes a thief^H^H^H^H^HDocker module to catch a thief
|
|
|
|
|
Microsoft eyed Slack as a potential acquisition target for as much as $8 billion, TechCrunch has heard. But an internal campaign around making an offer failed to drum up support. Someone dodged a bullet
|
|
|
|
|
If only they can hire a good freelancer for $8k and ask them to fix the bugs in Skype. They would get a better product, than spending $8bn on something that would still require the same fixtures.
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
Would you want to be paid 50c/bug fix in Skype? 
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
I just like to call my wife-to-be, I'd ask her to install a new communication software that I created, for $1, only, and to make sure our server is up and running. 
The sh*t I complain about
It's like there ain't a cloud in the sky and it's raining out - Eminem
~! Firewall !~
|
|
|
|
|
|
8Bn. That makes my eyes water. That's ludicrous.
That Microsoft even considered acquiring a chat app for 8Bn makes me incredibly sad. Think of what startups with essentially no funding can achieve. Yet here's Microsoft essentially saying "We don't think that 8 Billion dollars, our experience, our pool of talent, and our overwhelming market share will be enough to create something better than Slack". For 8 Billion you hire every top notch developer, architect, and man-bunned marketing dude for a million bucks a year each and get them to build something beyond imagining.
Wow.
(And secondly: they bought Skype. It's shite. Truly awful. Why bother going down that path again?)
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
When companies start throwing around that kind of dosh for tech acquisitions, it's not because they want the software or the developers. It's because they're buying the users. It's so the day after the acquisition, Microsoft can send out a Press Release saying that "Microsoft is now has xyz million users of our online collaboration tools" or some other equally fuzzy marketing speak.
|
|
|
|
|
Totally. My point is that Microsoft can get that many users automatically by "bundling" it with the OS (not that they would bundle it because they'd get into trouble again, but, y'know, "encourage it's use" n' stuff).
For 8B you could get pretty creative and persuasive.
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote:
For 8B you could get pretty creative and persuasive.
I can get incredibly creative and persuasive for 10% that!
|
|
|
|
|
My bid is 9%
cheers
Chris Maunder
|
|
|
|
|
Only hire the best. The quality of the people that work at your company will be one of the biggest factors in your success – or failure. "Naega jeil jal naga"
Because everyone needs a little K-Pop in their lives now and then, don't they?
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: … but the one thing I keep coming back to, that I believe has enduring value in almost all situations, is the audition project:
Quote: The most significant shift we’ve made is requiring every final candidate to work with us for three to eight weeks on a contract basis. Candidates do real tasks alongside the people they would actually be working with if they had the job. They can work at night or on weekends, so they don’t have to leave their current jobs; most spend 10 to 20 hours a week working with Automattic, although that’s flexible. (Some people take a week’s vacation in order to focus on the tryout, which is another viable option.) The goal is not to have them finish a product or do a set amount of work; it’s to allow us to quickly and efficiently assess whether this would be a mutually beneficial relationship. They can size up Automattic while we evaluate them.
Were I unemployed and looking for a job I might go for something like that (It'd be short term cashflow if nothing else); but if I were looking for a new job while at my current employer it'd be a total non-starter. Not for time management reasons (burning a week of leave or doing stuff on weekends would be annoying but manageable); but because I have to vet any outside work through my employer - both for ethics/conflict of interest reasons and so they can (at least in theory) choose to bid on the work themselves (although given overhead rates I find it hard to believe they'd find any takers for something that is small enough to be doable after hours "we'll put Dan on it too but will charge you 2 or 3 times as much per hour") - and if I said I was working on something like that they'd probably offer to "help" me out by firing me so I could concentrate on my new project full time instead. 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
I'm with you - if I needed the cash ($25/hour is a pittance for any engineering work) then yes, I would go for it. I could see a small weekend-long project but 3-8 weeks? That's crazy.
I could easily see potential conflicts with your existing job, let along IP issues. I would rather spend that time working on a side project and use that to get interviews. Although that would be "free" I would at least have a portfolio to show off as opposed to something that would be effectively owned by them and probably under some sort of NDA.
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."
-- Marcus Brigstocke, British Comedian
|
|
|
|
|
I'd guess the high end's probably people trying to spread the load out as much as possible to minimize the impact on their day job; 3 weeks minimum and some people taking one week off to concentrate on it (but no mention of taking more than that), suggests a 50-60 hour sized task to me. A main lump that fits into a week, and a non-farcical hours on either side. Still not something that'd really appeal unless I was sold on the company already (or really hurting for rent money); and unless the bulk of their attrition occurs early in the cycle lot of time to put in without a guarantee at the end.
OTOH quitting your current job, working for a week or two and then getting sacked for not meeting expectations would suck even worse. 
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, waging all things in the balance of reason?
Is not rather the genius of history like an eternal, imploring maiden, full of fire, with a burning heart and flaming soul, humanly warm and humanly beautiful?
--Zachris Topelius
Training a telescope on one’s own belly button will only reveal lint. You like that? You go right on staring at it. I prefer looking at galaxies.
-- Sarah Hoyt
|
|
|
|
|
Research into compulsory password changes found that they didn't necessarily improve security, according to the FTC's Chief Technologist, Lorrie Cranor Post-It! notes deemed insecure
|
|
|
|
|
Completely agree with these words:
Quote: Rather than forcing password changes, then, it's probably better to make people use longer (generally stronger) passwords, and to enforce the use of some non-alphabetic characters. As a way of increasing password security over the long term, education probably beats compulsion.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
