Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a
high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated
to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows, which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d> wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a
high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated
to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows,
which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the
browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d> wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a
high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated >>> to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows, >>> which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the
browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that
you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to" and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. Modern programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and
more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse.
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d> wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a >>>> high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated >>>> to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows, >>>> which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the >>>> browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code >> that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and
time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that
you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to" >> and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. Modern
programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and
more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse.
No, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
are all sent to try us.
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d> >>> wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a >>>> high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated >>>> to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows, >>>> which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the >>>> browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code >> that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and
time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that
you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to" >> and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. Modern
programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and
more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse.
No, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
are all sent to try us.
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:25:20 GMT, "TimS" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d>
wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a >>>>> high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated >>>>> to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows, >>>>> which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the >>>>> browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code >>> that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and >>> time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that
you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to" >>> and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. ModernNo, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and >>> more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse. >>
are all sent to try us.
Indeed. But considering to whom I was replying, I thought it better to follow the KISS principle.
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 22:25:20 -0000, TimS <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d> wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a >>>>> high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated >>>>> to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows, >>>>> which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the >>>>> browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code >>> that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and >>> time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that
you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to" >>> and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. ModernNo, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and >>> more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse. >>
are all sent to try us.
Just don't make mistakes. Think at every line you write. Just pretend you're writing code for an automated car or a life support machine in a hospital.
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:25:20 GMT, "TimS" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d>
wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a >>>>> high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated >>>>> to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows, >>>>> which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the >>>>> browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code >>> that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and >>> time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that
you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to" >>> and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. ModernNo, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and >>> more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse. >>
are all sent to try us.
Indeed. But considering to whom I was replying, I thought it better to follow the KISS principle.
John.
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:38:44 GMT, "Commander Kinsey" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 22:25:20 -0000, TimS <[email protected]> wrote: >>
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d> wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a >>>>>> high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated >>>>>> to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows, >>>>>> which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the >>>>>> browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code >>>> that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and >>>> time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that >>>> you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to"
and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. Modern
programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and >>>> more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse.
No, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
are all sent to try us.
Just don't make mistakes. Think at every line you write. Just pretend you're writing code for an automated car or a life support machine in a hospital.
It's not about single lines of code. It's about the entirety of what is going on.
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a
high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated
to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows, which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-p
atched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a
high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated
to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows, which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
On 27/11/2022 09:14, John Hill wrote:
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:25:20 GMT, "TimS" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d>
wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a >>>>>> high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated >>>>>> to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows, >>>>>> which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the >>>>>> browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code >>>> that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and >>>> time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that >>>> you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to"
and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. Modern
programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and >>>> more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse.
No, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
are all sent to try us.
Indeed. But considering to whom I was replying, I thought it better to follow
the KISS principle.
John.
The person to whom you were responding has a good degree in Physics
from Manchester University, the 'proper' one. My late son was awarded
the same degree from the same establishment circa 1991 before he started
his computing career with ICL, now Fujitsu, in Stevenage.
*Never assume* - *CHECK* - that's been my watch-phrase all of my life!
David G. Brooks <[email protected]d> wrote:[....]
On 27/11/2022 09:14, John Hill wrote:
Indeed. But considering to whom I was replying, I thought it better to follow
the KISS principle.
John.
The person to whom you were responding has a good degree in Physics
from Manchester University, the 'proper' one. My late son was awarded
the same degree from the same establishment circa 1991 before he started
his computing career with ICL, now Fujitsu, in Stevenage.
*Never assume* - *CHECK* - that's been my watch-phrase all of my life!
Good for him! And for your son, though I was sad to read "late". I dodged that bullet; my eldest son has just come home after a year in hospital in Canada.
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:38:44 GMT, "Commander Kinsey" <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 22:25:20 -0000, TimS <[email protected]> wrote: >>
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d> wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a >>>>>> high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated >>>>>> to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows, >>>>>> which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the >>>>>> browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code >>>> that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and >>>> time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that >>>> you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to"
and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. Modern
programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and >>>> more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse.
No, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
are all sent to try us.
Just don't make mistakes. Think at every line you write. Just pretend you're writing code for an automated car or a life support machine in a hospital.
It's not about single lines of code. It's about the entirety of what is going on.
On 27/11/2022 16:31, John Hill wrote:
David G. Brooks <[email protected]d> wrote:[....]
On 27/11/2022 09:14, John Hill wrote:
Indeed. But considering to whom I was replying, I thought it better to follow
the KISS principle.
John.
The person to whom you were responding has a good degree in Physics
from Manchester University, the 'proper' one. My late son was awarded
the same degree from the same establishment circa 1991 before he started >>> his computing career with ICL, now Fujitsu, in Stevenage.
*Never assume* - *CHECK* - that's been my watch-phrase all of my life!
Good for him! And for your son, though I was sad to read "late". I dodged
that bullet; my eldest son has just come home after a year in hospital in
Canada.
Thank you. Nick was just 28 when he died in January 1999, so he'd have
been 52 next month. There was nobody for me to blame; no cause for his
death was found. :-(
A year in hospital is such a /very/ long time. My heart goes out both to
him and to you, John. Is he set to recover to 'normal' now, or is that
not to be? Regardless, I send him my very best wishes.
John Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:25:20 GMT, "TimS" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d>
wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a >>>>>> high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated >>>>>> to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows, >>>>>> which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the >>>>>> browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code >>>> that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and >>>> time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that >>>> you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to"
and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. Modern
programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and >>>> more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse.
No, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
are all sent to try us.
Indeed. But considering to whom I was replying, I thought it better to follow
the KISS principle.
These guys who delight in knocking certain applications and their
developers have no idea how difficult it as always been in developing user friendly systems. And then they have the cheek to accuse some of deliberately writing malicious code. Going back to my s/w dev days in the 70’s and 80’s I don’t know how we ever managed to produce useable s/w systems with the crude tools we had available at the time.
David G. Brooks <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 27/11/2022 16:31, John Hill wrote:
David G. Brooks <[email protected]d> wrote:[....]
On 27/11/2022 09:14, John Hill wrote:
Indeed. But considering to whom I was replying, I thought it better to follow
the KISS principle.
John.
The person to whom you were responding has a good degree in Physics
from Manchester University, the 'proper' one. My late son was awarded
the same degree from the same establishment circa 1991 before he started >>>> his computing career with ICL, now Fujitsu, in Stevenage.
*Never assume* - *CHECK* - that's been my watch-phrase all of my life! >>>>
Good for him! And for your son, though I was sad to read "late". I dodged >>> that bullet; my eldest son has just come home after a year in hospital in >>> Canada.
Thank you. Nick was just 28 when he died in January 1999, so he'd have
been 52 next month. There was nobody for me to blame; no cause for his
death was found. :-(
A year in hospital is such a /very/ long time. My heart goes out both to
him and to you, John. Is he set to recover to 'normal' now, or is that
not to be? Regardless, I send him my very best wishes.
He's far from well, I fear, and recovery will take a long time and probably never be complete. But there were at least four occasions when we thought
he we'd lost him. His wife did a excellent job keeping us informed.
Thank you for your wishes.
J.
On 27/11/2022 09:14, John Hill wrote:
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:25:20 GMT, "TimS" <[email protected]> wrote:
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d>
wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a >>>>> high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated
to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows,
which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the >>>>> browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code
that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and >>> time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that >>> you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to"
and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. Modern
programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and >>> more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse.
No, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
are all sent to try us.
Indeed. But considering to whom I was replying, I thought it better to follow
the KISS principle.
John.The person to whom you were responding has a good degree in Physics
from Manchester University, the 'proper' one.
My late son was awarded
the same degree from the same establishment circa 1991 before he started
his computing career with ICL, now Fujitsu, in Stevenage.
*Never assume* - *CHECK* - that's been my watch-phrase all of my life!
--
Kind regards
David
On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 11:37:40 UTC, David G. Brooks wrote:
On 27/11/2022 09:14, John Hill wrote:
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:25:20 GMT, "TimS" <[email protected]> wrote:The person to whom you were responding has a good degree in Physics
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d>
wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a >>>>>>> high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated
to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows,
which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the >>>>>>> browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code
that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and >>>>> time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that >>>>> you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to"
and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. Modern >>>>> programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and >>>>> more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse.
No, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
are all sent to try us.
Indeed. But considering to whom I was replying, I thought it better to follow
the KISS principle.
John.
from Manchester University, the 'proper' one.
But how relevant is that ?
>My late son was awarded
the same degree from the same establishment circa 1991 before he started
his computing career with ICL, now Fujitsu, in Stevenage.
*Never assume* - *CHECK* - that's been my watch-phrase all of my life!
Did you ever find out how SD's movies got onto you cloud drive. ?
On 27/11/2022 18:28, John Hill wrote:
David G. Brooks <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 27/11/2022 16:31, John Hill wrote:
David G. Brooks <[email protected]d> wrote:[....]
On 27/11/2022 09:14, John Hill wrote:
Indeed. But considering to whom I was replying, I thought it better to follow
the KISS principle.
John.
The person to whom you were responding has a good degree in Physics
from Manchester University, the 'proper' one. My late son was awarded >>>>> the same degree from the same establishment circa 1991 before he started >>>>> his computing career with ICL, now Fujitsu, in Stevenage.
*Never assume* - *CHECK* - that's been my watch-phrase all of my life! >>>>>
Good for him! And for your son, though I was sad to read "late". I dodged >>>> that bullet; my eldest son has just come home after a year in hospital in >>>> Canada.
Thank you. Nick was just 28 when he died in January 1999, so he'd have
been 52 next month. There was nobody for me to blame; no cause for his
death was found. :-(
A year in hospital is such a /very/ long time. My heart goes out both to >>> him and to you, John. Is he set to recover to 'normal' now, or is that
not to be? Regardless, I send him my very best wishes.
He's far from well, I fear, and recovery will take a long time and probably >> never be complete. But there were at least four occasions when we thought
he we'd lost him. His wife did a excellent job keeping us informed.
Thank you for your wishes.
J.
You are welcome. :-)
It's none of my business, I know, John, but I keep wondering. Was your
son badly injured in an accident or is he suffering from a long-term
illness.
Has his wife come with him to your home to help look after him .... and you?!!
D.
On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 11:37:40 UTC, David G. Brooks wrote:
On 27/11/2022 09:14, John Hill wrote:
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:25:20 GMT, "TimS" <[email protected]> wrote:The person to whom you were responding has a good degree in Physics
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote:
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d>
wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a >>>>>>> high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated
to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows,
which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the >>>>>>> browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code
that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and >>>>> time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that >>>>> you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to"
and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. Modern >>>>> programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and >>>>> more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse.
No, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
are all sent to try us.
Indeed. But considering to whom I was replying, I thought it better to follow
the KISS principle.
John.
from Manchester University, the 'proper' one.
But how relevant is that ?
My late son was awarded
the same degree from the same establishment circa 1991 before he started
his computing career with ICL, now Fujitsu, in Stevenage.
*Never assume* - *CHECK* - that's been my watch-phrase all of my life!
Did you ever find out how SD's movies got onto you cloud drive. ?
--
Kind regards
David
whisky-dave <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 11:37:40 UTC, David G. Brooks wrote:
On 27/11/2022 09:14, John Hill wrote:
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:25:20 GMT, "TimS" <[email protected]> wrote:The person to whom you were responding has a good degree in Physics
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d>
wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a
high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated
to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows,
which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the >>>>>>>> browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code
that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and
time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that >>>>>> you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to"
and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. Modern >>>>>> programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and >>>>>> more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse.
No, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
are all sent to try us.
Indeed. But considering to whom I was replying, I thought it better to follow
the KISS principle.
John.
from Manchester University, the 'proper' one.
But how relevant is that ?
I did wonder about that myself. Especially as I too have a degree in
physics, from Oxford.
>My late son was awarded
the same degree from the same establishment circa 1991 before he started >>> his computing career with ICL, now Fujitsu, in Stevenage.
*Never assume* - *CHECK* - that's been my watch-phrase all of my life!
Did you ever find out how SD's movies got onto you cloud drive. ?
--
Kind regards
David
David G. Brooks <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 29/11/2022 13:22, whisky-dave wrote:
On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 11:37:40 UTC, David G. Brooks wrote:
On 27/11/2022 09:14, John Hill wrote:
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:25:20 GMT, "TimS" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>The person to whom you were responding has a good degree in Physics
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d>
wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a
high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated
to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows,
which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the
browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code
that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and
time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that >>>>>>> you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to"
and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. Modern >>>>>>> programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and
more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse.
No, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
are all sent to try us.
Indeed. But considering to whom I was replying, I thought it better to follow
the KISS principle.
John.
from Manchester University, the 'proper' one.
But how relevant is that ?
VERY!
When John said this - "But then, no doubt you are an experienced
programmer and know all this?" he was, in my opinion, being facetious.
Correct.
My late son was awarded
the same degree from the same establishment circa 1991 before he started >>>> his computing career with ICL, now Fujitsu, in Stevenage.
*Never assume* - *CHECK* - that's been my watch-phrase all of my life!
Did you ever find out how SD's movies got onto you cloud drive. ?
No, I never did. :-(
On 29/11/2022 16:55, John Hill wrote:
whisky-dave <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 11:37:40 UTC, David G. Brooks wrote:
On 27/11/2022 09:14, John Hill wrote:
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:25:20 GMT, "TimS" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>The person to whom you were responding has a good degree in Physics
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d>
wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a
high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild.
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated
to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows,
which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the
browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code
that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and
time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that >>>>>>> you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to"
and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. Modern >>>>>>> programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and
more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse.
No, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
are all sent to try us.
Indeed. But considering to whom I was replying, I thought it better to follow
the KISS principle.
John.
from Manchester University, the 'proper' one.
But how relevant is that ?
I did wonder about that myself. Especially as I too have a degree in
physics, from Oxford.
I just KNEW that you are more clever than most folk posting here! ;-)
Yet have you no clue about what transpired here?
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254352620?answerId=258162085022#258162085022
My late son was awarded
the same degree from the same establishment circa 1991 before he started >>>> his computing career with ICL, now Fujitsu, in Stevenage.
*Never assume* - *CHECK* - that's been my watch-phrase all of my life!
Did you ever find out how SD's movies got onto you cloud drive. ?
--
Kind regards
David
David G. Brooks <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 29/11/2022 16:55, John Hill wrote:
whisky-dave <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 11:37:40 UTC, David G. Brooks wrote:
On 27/11/2022 09:14, John Hill wrote:
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:25:20 GMT, "TimS" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>The person to whom you were responding has a good degree in Physics
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d>
wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a
high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild. >>>>>>>>>>
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated
to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows,
which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the
browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are >>>>>>>>> programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code
that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and
time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that >>>>>>>> you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to"
and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. Modern >>>>>>>> programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and
more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse.
No, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
are all sent to try us.
Indeed. But considering to whom I was replying, I thought it better to follow
the KISS principle.
John.
from Manchester University, the 'proper' one.
But how relevant is that ?
I did wonder about that myself. Especially as I too have a degree in
physics, from Oxford.
I just KNEW that you are more clever than most folk posting here! ;-)
Yet have you no clue about what transpired here?
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254352620?answerId=258162085022#258162085022
My late son was awardedDid you ever find out how SD's movies got onto you cloud drive. ?
the same degree from the same establishment circa 1991 before he started >>>>> his computing career with ICL, now Fujitsu, in Stevenage.
*Never assume* - *CHECK* - that's been my watch-phrase all of my life! >>>>
--
Kind regards
David
Come off it, David. It's not all that relevant. And it's a very long time ago, anyway.
And as for the link, no.
John.
David G. Brooks <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 29/11/2022 16:55, John Hill wrote:
whisky-dave <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 11:37:40 UTC, David G. Brooks wrote:
On 27/11/2022 09:14, John Hill wrote:
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:25:20 GMT, "TimS" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d>
wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a
high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild. >>>>>>>>>>
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated
to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows,
which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the
browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
The person to whom you were responding has a good degree in Physicsdo programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code
that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and
time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that >>>>>>>> you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to"
and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. Modern >>>>>>>> programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and
more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse.
No, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
are all sent to try us.
Indeed. But considering to whom I was replying, I thought it better to follow
the KISS principle.
John.
from Manchester University, the 'proper' one.
But how relevant is that ?
I did wonder about that myself. Especially as I too have a degree in
physics, from Oxford.
I just KNEW that you are more clever than most folk posting here! ;-)
Yet have you no clue about what transpired here?
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254352620?answerId=258162085022#258162085022
late son was awardedDid you ever find out how SD's movies got onto you cloud drive. ?
the same degree from the same establishment circa 1991 before he started >>>>> his computing career with ICL, now Fujitsu, in Stevenage.
*Never assume* - *CHECK* - that's been my watch-phrase all of my life! >>>>
--
Kind regards
David
Come off it, David. It's not all that relevant. And it's a very long time ago, anyway.
And as for the link, no.
John.
On 2022-11-29 18:51:14 +0000, John Hill <[email protected]> said:
David G. Brooks <[email protected]d> wrote:
On 29/11/2022 16:55, John Hill wrote:
whisky-dave <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sunday, 27 November 2022 at 11:37:40 UTC, David G. Brooks wrote: >>>>>> On 27/11/2022 09:14, John Hill wrote:
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:25:20 GMT, "TimS" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>
On 26 Nov 2022 at 22:13:22 GMT, John Hill <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>>>
Commander Kinsey <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Nov 2022 11:53:52 -0000, David G. Brooks <[email protected]d>
wrote:
Google has released a security update for the Chrome browser to patch a
high severity vulnerability that's being used in the wild. >>>>>>>>>>>
Chrome's Stable channel, the home of official releases, has been updated
to 107.0.5304.121 for Mac and Linux and 107.0.5304.121/.122 for Windows,
which will roll out over the coming days/weeks.
Mitigation
Chrome users should ensure they are running the latest versions of the
browser.
https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/news/2022/11/chrome-zero-day-vulnerability-patched-that-was-used-in-the-wild
Why
The person to whom you were responding has a good degree in Physics >>>>>> from Manchester University, the 'proper' one.do programmers let these holes in in the first place? Are
programmers really this thick?
As a one-writer of software, I know just how difficult it is to write code
that hasn't gone any holes in it. It can be extraordinarily difficult and
time-consuming to check every line to be sure that, for instance, that
you've got the correct choice of "greater than", "greater than or equal to"
and "not less than". And that is in quite simple modules.
Off-by-one is perhaps more of a problem.
It's over thirty years ago now when things were much simpler. Modern >>>>>>>>> programming must be a nightmare! And of course, as things get bigger and
more complicated and more people get involved, it gets exponentially worse.
No, things were complicated then too. Sequencing, race conditions, interrupts,
are all sent to try us.
Indeed. But considering to whom I was replying, I thought it better to follow
the KISS principle.
John.
But how relevant is that ?
I did wonder about that myself. Especially as I too have a degree in
physics, from Oxford.
I just KNEW that you are more clever than most folk posting here! ;-)
Yet have you no clue about what transpired here?
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/254352620?answerId=258162085022#258162085022
My
late son was awardedDid you ever find out how SD's movies got onto you cloud drive. ?
the same degree from the same establishment circa 1991 before he started >>>>>> his computing career with ICL, now Fujitsu, in Stevenage.
*Never assume* - *CHECK* - that's been my watch-phrase all of my life! >>>>>
--
Kind regards
David
Come off it, David. It's not all that relevant. And it's a very long time
ago, anyway.
And as for the link, no.
John.
"not all that relevant" is his forte (along with trolling & cross-posting)
Mark <[email protected]> wrote:
"not all that relevant" is his forte (along with trolling & cross-posting)
David or me?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 02:11:17 |
| Calls: | 12,098 |
| Calls today: | 6 |
| Files: | 15,003 |
| Messages: | 6,517,869 |