|
Joe Woodbury wrote: That's 106 million credit card applications!
That's not so many considering they spanned from 2005 to current. I can't believe they keep that data practically forever. They could have reduced their exposure by keeping the data for fewer years, or transforming the data into classes that are meaningful to the business, but no longer contains the raw personal data.
|
|
|
|
|
If the data is only from applications why keep it all? You either approve or deny them and the approved ones go into your account holder database. It makes no sense to keep the denied applications at all to me. If they apply again, so what?
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Joe Woodbury wrote: but this raises the issue of how do you protect yourself against disaffected IT employees? A good start point could be not being a jerk with them and paying according to knowledge and results
I don't know if that was the reason in this concrete case, but it still is a valid argument for many other situations.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
That's reassuring. I have never applied for a card from them nor do I ever intend to.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Whistleblower said Cisco waited more than 4 years to fix serious flaw. I'm sure that's just how much profit they made from it as well
|
|
|
|
|
While some people might opt for an extra programmable finger or a VR-controlled robotic arm or two, others might be tempted by having a magical, mechanical tail tacked onto their backsides. In case you wanted to get some tail.
What? You were thinking of something else?
|
|
|
|
|
I think I need to take the guys aside for a quiet chat on the meaning of the word "enhance".
Anyone got a cricket bat handy?
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Because “Core i7-1068G7” rolls right off the tongue Mo' faster, mo' better, mo' money
It was either that or, "Ice (lake), ice (lake), baby"
Personally, I think you dodged a bullet there.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, you're as cold as ice. Perhaps you need to skate away on the thin ice of a new day.
|
|
|
|
|
So true. I think it’s time to go find a glass with my name on it. See y’all next week.
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
He also says Microsoft rules the Windows antivirus world, with Defender on over half a billion PCs. Users. We still haven't found a solution to users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quote: Tanmay Ganacharya, general manager of Microsoft ATP security research, told ZDNet there are sound reasons why its defenses are now the primary antivirus on more than half a billion devices.
0) It's free.
1) It's enabled by default on clean installs.
2) Oh BTW you don't have to pay for it.
3) It doesn't harass you to upgrade from the free version to a paid version all the time.
4) It never stops working and demands your credit card on threat of your system being naked to 1337 h4><0rz.
5) It mostly just works and stays out of the way.*
6) Did I mention it's free.
- I have it running on all but one of my PCs. On that one it turned into power virus eating a full core 24/7 and after wasting a few hours trying to troubleshoot and fix the issue I decided buying an Avira subscription was a much better option than wasting even more time reloading the box.
Did you ever see history portrayed as an old man with a wise brow and pulseless heart, weighing 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
|
|
|
|
|
... so... how much is it?
TTFN - Kent
|
|
|
|
|
I don’t run any antivirus
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Are we using Linux?!
"The only place where Success comes before Work is in the dictionary." Vidal Sassoon, 1928 - 2012
|
|
|
|
|
Why, yes. Yes we are.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010 ----- You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010 ----- When you pry the gun from my cold dead hands, be careful - the barrel will be very hot. - JSOP, 2013
|
|
|
|
|
Kent Sharkey wrote: He also says Microsoft rules the Windows antivirus world, with Defender on over half a billion PCs. Time for another antitrust lawsuit, then.
It's foolish relying on ms for security, anyway -- do you rely on them for your music player, video player, web browser, text editor, etc, etc?
Even their OS and their flagship product are becoming less and less stable and reliable, as time moves on -- in fact, the only thing that's "improving" is the amount of "telemetry" they're managing to sneak past everyone (n.b. a huge amount of which is sent to ms by defender itself).
Do I trust the "*Icon Heroes*" to look after my security?
Like Hell I do.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
>WinBuzzer[^]Quote: Microsoft Office applications launched thirty years ago today, but they were available on Mac before Windows. Take a walk down memory lane and learn why Microsoft favored Mac in 1989 and what has happened to Office since.
never heard of that before..
|
|
|
|
|
Poorly researched article. For example:
At the time, Mac was the dominant development platform Hardly.
There’s also no denying that at the time Mac was the leading desktop platform, at least amongst the business customers who would be purchasing Office. Not even close. It was exactly what Gates said--a platform where failure would have no business impact. The other problem was that Windows 2.11 wasn't very good. (Mac System 5 and 6 weren't all that great either and the hardware was horrible, but they were better than Windows 2.)
(On the other hand, the second I saw Windows 3.0 running [in beta] I knew that was the future and immediately bought Petzold's book. I late read the Microsoft Windows SDK three book set from cover to cover. Those ended up being more important the Petzold.)
|
|
|
|
|
As I recall, Windows really didn't take off until v3.1. When networking was integrated in 3.11 it became very popular with businesses.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Windows 3.1 was an incremental, though significant, improvement over Windows 3.0 and sold nearly as many copies in three months that 3.0 sold in a year. Windows 95 was the one which shattered sales records. I think it was mostly about the hardware. (Not just capability, but depreciation schedules.)
(And if all you used was Lotus and WordPerfect, DOS worked.)
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, 95 was very significant. It was the first 32-bit version. The Pentium had been released a little while earlier and with W95 people could finally run 32-bit code and use all that RAM they had been buying. Those two together really drove the computer industry for a while. Then 98 came along and was quite a bit better.
I remember those days very well. I had been using NT instead of 98 because we used it for our business (automation systems software). It was pretty good and then 2000 came along and then XP. We skipped Vista and went to W7. The level of improvement with those was just amazing and then, ...
I'll stop right there and forgo the usual rant that follows.
"They have a consciousness, they have a life, they have a soul! Damn you! Let the rabbits wear glasses! Save our brothers! Can I get an amen?"
|
|
|
|
|
Rick York wrote: Yes, 95 was very significant. It was the first 32-bit version.
Not quite correct; Windows NT 3.1 predated it. However, lack of drivers for common hardware and lack of 32-bit programs crippled it in the marketplace.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
That was the genius of Windows 95 to my mind, by getting the masses on a 32-bit system, it ensured apps were written for that system, allowing for a smooth transition to NT technology with Windows 2000 and XP.
"If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough."
Alan Kay.
|
|
|
|