Miscellaneous Tech News
-
Saw a new firmware announcement for UFiber 3.0 today. I doubt a whole lot of people are using them, but the features included in this release look to be great things for any network using them.
-
If you're running a hybrid Exchange/Office 365 system you need to make sure that you're ready for when Microsoft drops support for versions of TLS older than 1.2: https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/exchange/2018/01/26/exchange-server-tls-guidance-part-1-getting-ready-for-tls-1-2/.
-
-
Microsoft adds support for Google Gmail IDs to Azure Active Directory:
Surprise - Microsoft is enabling Gmail users to collaborate with others using Azure Active Directory B2B without requiring them to have a Microsoft account.
https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-adds-support-for-google-gmail-ids-to-azure-active-directory/ -
-
Some bad reporting here...
Author tries to make it sound like Windows 95 was SO important, that it bridged the gap between DOS and NT, between 16 bit and 32bit. However, Windows 95 was not an OS, it was a GUI on top of 16 bit DOS. And NT predated it by a year, already being fully 32bit, and based on OS/2 which was five years older still. Windows 95 was indeed important, but mostly for shocases a GUI that died off around 2010. Windows 95 gave us the Start button. That was its big thing, not technical advancements.
-
-
New EdgeRouter firmware
https://community.ubnt.com/t5/EdgeMAX-Updates-Blog/EdgeMAX-
EdgeRouter-software-release-v1-10-6/ba-p/2466640 -
This post is deleted! -
-
Notes is updated, as well.
-
Updating to 13.0.6 now.
-
Three production systems updated to 13.0.6.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Three production systems updated to 13.0.6.
Updated via CLI or Web?
-
@black3dynamite said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
Three production systems updated to 13.0.6.
Updated via CLI or Web?
Normally web.
-
McAfee thinks his wallet product is unhackable. If there is one thing thing guy knows nothing about, it's security.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
McAfee thinks his wallet product is unhackable. If there is one thing thing guy knows nothing about, it's security.
Nobody was able to get the coins... which was the whole point.
But unhackable is a dumb term to use.
-
@obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
McAfee thinks his wallet product is unhackable. If there is one thing thing guy knows nothing about, it's security.
Nobody was able to get the coins... which was the whole point.
No one knows that that is the case. No one GOT the coins, so he claims. His claim that no one took coins is in no way suggestive that no one COULD have taken them.
I've left cash by the register at the gas station and had the person chase my down the road to give it back to me. According to John McAfee, that guy could not have kept the money, because he didn't.
That's not how "could have" works.
-
We also don't actually know that coins weren't taken. We only get one raving lunatic that we already know is a liar claiming that they didn't. If someone was able to take them money, why expose themselves for a bounty, when they could stay quiet, force John to keep claiming that it is unhackable, and steal from lots of other people?
John's own logic of what "has to happen" when one can do something, would extend to doing more with that knowledge.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@obsolesce said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
@scottalanmiller said in Miscellaneous Tech News:
McAfee thinks his wallet product is unhackable. If there is one thing thing guy knows nothing about, it's security.
Nobody was able to get the coins... which was the whole point.
No one knows that that is the case. No one GOT the coins, so he claims. His claim that no one took coins is in no way suggestive that no one COULD have taken them.
I've left cash by the register at the gas station and had the person chase my down the road to give it back to me. According to John McAfee, that guy could not have kept the money, because he didn't.
That's not how "could have" works.
Nobody took the coins. That's what the point of it was. The fact that nobody did, means it's all just "claims". You don't know, I don't know. Could have they? Some claim yes, some claim no. But it's unknown.
All we have to go by is that the coins were not touched. Going by that, it's leaning towards it wasn't possible to take them. That's what we DO know. I haven't seen anything showing it was possible to take the coins.
