It is also very important to note that this is an obfuscation that can be accidentally cracked by somebody who has that option enabled for other [valid] reasons. If somebody cares about security or just doesn't like the annoyance of sites that change the context menus, they have the right to surf that way. You can hardly sue somebody for circumventing a measure they didn't even notice.
When dealing with a complex set of operations (in this case, relatively advanced math) having a user interface that cannot be operated by a layman usually means that the UI is appropriately complex and optimized for what the pros will use it for. HP's RPN calculators are in the same position as emacs and vi: the developers refuse to compromise the usability for pros in order to make it a little easier for somebody who can't be bothered to read a few pages of the manual. This is not a bad thing. It is simply a matter of knowing your market, and ignoring the needs of those not in your target market.
Yes, HP did in fact invent the scientific calculator. The HP-35 was the first pocket calculator with transcendental functions, and it was introduced in 1972, only a few years after desktop calculators moved beyond four functions. As it happens, Bill Hewlett was the person who told the HP engineers to develop a pocket sized calculator, even though marketing studies indicated a complete lack of demand for such a thing. You could have found this out easily by searching the web instead of trying to be pompous.
Speech recognition is obviously not universally usable, but it is useful. I've found that for many mundane tasks, the OS X speech recognition is easier than a keyboard shortcut, and much easier than using the mouse. There are a lot of applications that could be much easier if they included speech recognition for commands. Consider an app that relies heavily on both keyboard and mouse input, such as Blender. A lot of the keyboard shortcuts would be faster and easier to remember as spoken commands, and they could be implemented so as to be quite reliable. Also, most 3d modelers can probably get the privacy to use a verbal interface.
I think the real issue is that speech recognition apps have focused almost exclusively on dictation, which is much harder computationally than picking commands out of a finite, known set. For the latter, speech recognition technology has long been "good enough," and the only challenge it to make effective use of spoken commands in addition to current input methods.
Well, if a large portion of NY citizens are being routinely shafted by Dell, it certainly is simpler for the AG to sue than for the court system to handle hundreds of individual cases. Also, Attorney Generals arepublic servants. It is okay for them to do something nice for their citizens. This is exactly the kind of case that regular people can benefit from. Just because it doesn't involve the mafia or large sums of money doesn't mean that this case is not worth the time.
Either you have horribly abused that Mac and its software configuration, or you are lying. Actually, I think both are probably true. You are probably one of the few Mac users who has managed to install a virus, or else your hard drive is hours away from dying completely.
Also, your comment serves no purpose because it is so obvious that your problems are atypical. If you were to comment on common problems, preferable design flaws, then you would be on topic. I encourage you to elaborate on some of the other problems you claim to have had, so that we can have a productive discussion about a real problem.
Microsoft is in direct competition with IBM in some markets, and pretty much all MS software is competing with open source alternatives that IBM has supported. IBM is not just a company that can stand up to MS, they are a company that can win against MS and they have shown in the past that they are willing to take on big patent trolls, such as in IBM v Amazon, which was pretty much an instance of IBM punishing Amazon for using their one-click shopping patent against third parties. When you consider that IBM's lawyers are extremely well versed in this fighting style because of the SCO case, it looks like IBM has pretty good odds against MS. They are probably just waiting until they can get the SCO case thrown out.
Microsoft so far has just been talking. As soon as they actually file a patent lawsuit involving free software (which they won't), IBM will get involved, just like they did with Amazon. At that point, it is quite possible that the entire DoJ could be bogged down by motions for injunctions against Microsoft.
To put things in perspective: In 2006, MS had their 5,000th US patent awarded. That means they have about 5000 US patents total. In 2005, IBM had 2,974 US patents granted. In that year alone. Their total patent portfolio is astronomical, but they list their "current active portfolio" as 26,000 US patents and they have been granted more than 32,000 US patents since 1993. Even when you consider that software patents probably are a small portion of their portfolio, they still have far more clout than MS.
There are plenty of reasons why MS wouldn't be able to stall as long as SCO, and I'm sure MS knows that. That's why they've been using SCO so far, instead of doing it all directly.
Think about it. If MS were to actually start suing Linux users, it would make the front page of most newspapers in the US. The last time Microsoft was that involved in legal disputes in the US, it took a presidential impeachment to distract the public and the press. Microsoft would be under far more scrutiny than SCO, and the truth about their baseless claims would come out. By the time the dust settled and the judges dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, precedents would have been established that would destroy Microsoft's core business practices. And because of the importance of the case(s), all the Fortune 500 companies would be demanding a speedy trial so that they could get on with running a business.
The more MS stalls, the more solid the case against them will be. If they come up with an excuse, it will be analyzed and probably debunked quickly, leaving them with fewer options. If they don't dig up every technicality they can think of, then they will lose sooner. The only option they have now to avoid inevitable humiliation in court is to stay out of court. Unfortunately for them, their FUD alone might provide enough grounds for somebody else to sue them, thus setting up the showdown they can't afford to have happen.
One thing is certain: once MS gets into court about these issues, they won't get to decide when they leave (just like SCO cannot drop charges and walk away). That makes it a huge risk for them to ever get near a court with their FUD.
And then, there is always the fact that IBM's Nazgul could beat the shit out of Microsoft with their all-encompassing Patent Portfolio. That might actually be the best delaying tactic: get into long fights with IBM, and make sure the real cases can't proceed until they are settled.
Well, at least you tried. I'm not going try to debunk all your claims, because it really doesn't matter. However, I will point out that I own an old issue of PC Mag where the cover story is all about how strikingly similar the Win95 interface is to the earlier OS/2 interface. Even the Free *nix GUIs still bear more resemblance in look and feel to earlier, non-MS GUIS. MS pretty much didn't invent any of the things you listed. They just popularized them.
The idea of playing devil's advocate is good, but your post came off as more of a lame attempt at funny mods.
The software should report if the link is not running at full speed. Windows XP already does this with USB.
The problem seems to be that slashdotters and companies like Linksys don't realize that consumer networking gear falls under the category of "consumer electronics", not "computer equipment". These things should be designed as appliances that just work. Most users of WiFi and ethernet don't and shouldn't need to know what all those lights mean.
Think about the problems that can occur in a home network. First, a router or switch can have a hardware malfunction. This should be indicated by a warning light, preferably blinking, so that the customer can know it is time to replace the hardware. There is no need to have diagnostic codes or anything like that, because that won't help the consumer get it replaced any faster.
Second, a cable can be unplugged or plugged in to the wrong port. This can be handled by software. Windows has long had the ability to report that a cable is unplugged, and (except in the case of wireless) it is usually right. There is no need for a router to try to guess what is wrong with the cabling and try to report it through a blinking light.
Third, there could be a software configuration problem, such as IP address issues. These are totally beyond what a consumer needs to know about. The OS should just get it right on the first try, perhaps with a little help from an installation/configuration disk provided with the router.
Consumer networking equipment does not need to have more than one light. Any more than that, and users will get too confused and decide to call tech support or their ISP or their geek friend. If there is a single light, and only the minimum labeling of various plugs and ports, then users will probably be more inclined to consult the documentation if they can't set it up on their own.
IANAL, but doesn't this strategy leave them open to lawsuits from the customers who are affected by a zero-day exploit? What if one of these "minor" bugs actually enables a DoS? It would seem that the affected customers could sue for damages even if the company had underestimated the severity of the bug.
Go away, and don't come back until you know what SI stands for. Then you will know what France has to do with this topic, and you will sufficiently informed in that respect to justifiably comment here.
The headline is a bit misleading. The article is not about what you seem to think it is about. The company in question, as a standard procedure, does not release patches for many bugs that they have already created fixes for.
Once you have developed a fix, it is completely unethical to wait indefinitely to release the fix. The longest acceptable wait is until the end of the code audit to look for similar holes in other parts of the code base. This should only take a few months.
This is what I thought as well. After all, this is exactly what happened with the.ANI bug. It seems pretty obvious that the company in question does a really bad job of auditing code in response to finding a new class of bugs.
The whole point of the article is that the company in question refrains from releasing a patch, even when they have a fix ready. This is not prioritization.
I really want to know what company the "reader" works for, so I can add them to my shit list. I don't want to support such abhorrent security practices.
And remember: Friends don't let friends buy Microsoft.
Ok, be honest: How many consumers need a light to tell them that their ethernet is running at 100Mbps instead of 10Mbps?
That's right. None. At least, none that are buying new equipment. And yet, pretty much everything that Linksys sells has a "high speed" or "full duplex" light. These things probably add up to several cents per router/switch. A consumer ethernet switch should only have one light: a red one to turn on when something isn't working. A router might need an extra one or two, but they should still be off by default. These days, gadgets are so LED-studded that nobody could notice a warning light.
Why would a corporation choose to not release a patch for a known security vulnerability, even if it is minor? Wouldn't it be better PR to always release the patch before the exploit comes out? This sounds totally unethical to me. They are trying to take an ostrich approach to security: the bug doesn't exist unless the customer can see it.
Besides, aren't there liability issues with knowingly shipping a product with undisclosed defects? What if they underestimate the severity of a vulnerability? How can they be so confident that they have judged the severity correctly, when they are the ones who created the bug in the first place? This sounds a lot like brinkmanship to me, and I wouldn't want to be associated with that kind of company.
Telecommuting works outside of the IT department too, you know. In pretty much any corporation, Middle Managers could spend at least a day a week working from home, often much more. For example, I know a project manager for an organization of several thousand employees. She works from home an average of 4 days a week.
I must not have explained things very well. I don't think we disagree as much as you think.
Let me put things this way: For a mathematician, the Wolfram article is a very good reference, and is okay at explaining the concept to a student who is learning it for the first time. The Wikipedia article is a relatively bad reference (partially due to poor organization), and still not good at explaining the concept to a student.
For a lay-person, the Wolfram article is worthless (a necessity of the design). The Wikipedia article, on the other hand, tells the lay-person that Lie Groups matter to mathematicians and physicists, and provides some historical background. Explaining the technical details of Lie Groups to a lay-person is well beyond the scope of that article, and probably beyond the purpose of Wikipedia as well.
So basically, the Wikipedia article is only useful for somebody wanting to learn about the history behind Lie Groups. For anybody else, either the wolfram article is more useful or neither article is useful. I see that as a problem. Wikipedia articles should be useful to lay-people and professionals alike, but in order to be useful to professionals, the Big Words have to be put at the beginning where they might scare off lay-people. Too bad for the lay-people if they won't scroll down to the body text.
The portion of college students that do not own computers is statistically insignificant. A lot of colleges require students to own a laptop or desktop, and scholarships for laptops are easy to get.
Oddly enough, this might make a lot of people start getting their news from the TV again. It seems like most people are used to getting their news from the internet these days, but now they can get the same headlines from the same sources on their TV.
Slashdot Mirror
It is also very important to note that this is an obfuscation that can be accidentally cracked by somebody who has that option enabled for other [valid] reasons. If somebody cares about security or just doesn't like the annoyance of sites that change the context menus, they have the right to surf that way. You can hardly sue somebody for circumventing a measure they didn't even notice.
No, but that will be the first and only use of the displays supported by the Linux driver.
When dealing with a complex set of operations (in this case, relatively advanced math) having a user interface that cannot be operated by a layman usually means that the UI is appropriately complex and optimized for what the pros will use it for. HP's RPN calculators are in the same position as emacs and vi: the developers refuse to compromise the usability for pros in order to make it a little easier for somebody who can't be bothered to read a few pages of the manual. This is not a bad thing. It is simply a matter of knowing your market, and ignoring the needs of those not in your target market.
"Interesting"?!?
Yes, HP did in fact invent the scientific calculator. The HP-35 was the first pocket calculator with transcendental functions, and it was introduced in 1972, only a few years after desktop calculators moved beyond four functions. As it happens, Bill Hewlett was the person who told the HP engineers to develop a pocket sized calculator, even though marketing studies indicated a complete lack of demand for such a thing. You could have found this out easily by searching the web instead of trying to be pompous.
Speech recognition is obviously not universally usable, but it is useful. I've found that for many mundane tasks, the OS X speech recognition is easier than a keyboard shortcut, and much easier than using the mouse. There are a lot of applications that could be much easier if they included speech recognition for commands. Consider an app that relies heavily on both keyboard and mouse input, such as Blender. A lot of the keyboard shortcuts would be faster and easier to remember as spoken commands, and they could be implemented so as to be quite reliable. Also, most 3d modelers can probably get the privacy to use a verbal interface.
I think the real issue is that speech recognition apps have focused almost exclusively on dictation, which is much harder computationally than picking commands out of a finite, known set. For the latter, speech recognition technology has long been "good enough," and the only challenge it to make effective use of spoken commands in addition to current input methods.
Well, if a large portion of NY citizens are being routinely shafted by Dell, it certainly is simpler for the AG to sue than for the court system to handle hundreds of individual cases. Also, Attorney Generals arepublic servants. It is okay for them to do something nice for their citizens. This is exactly the kind of case that regular people can benefit from. Just because it doesn't involve the mafia or large sums of money doesn't mean that this case is not worth the time.
Jerry Falwell deserves to be remembered. He definitely does not deserve to be respected, after all the things he did and said.
Either you have horribly abused that Mac and its software configuration, or you are lying. Actually, I think both are probably true. You are probably one of the few Mac users who has managed to install a virus, or else your hard drive is hours away from dying completely.
Also, your comment serves no purpose because it is so obvious that your problems are atypical. If you were to comment on common problems, preferable design flaws, then you would be on topic. I encourage you to elaborate on some of the other problems you claim to have had, so that we can have a productive discussion about a real problem.
Microsoft is in direct competition with IBM in some markets, and pretty much all MS software is competing with open source alternatives that IBM has supported. IBM is not just a company that can stand up to MS, they are a company that can win against MS and they have shown in the past that they are willing to take on big patent trolls, such as in IBM v Amazon, which was pretty much an instance of IBM punishing Amazon for using their one-click shopping patent against third parties. When you consider that IBM's lawyers are extremely well versed in this fighting style because of the SCO case, it looks like IBM has pretty good odds against MS. They are probably just waiting until they can get the SCO case thrown out.
Microsoft so far has just been talking. As soon as they actually file a patent lawsuit involving free software (which they won't), IBM will get involved, just like they did with Amazon. At that point, it is quite possible that the entire DoJ could be bogged down by motions for injunctions against Microsoft.
To put things in perspective: In 2006, MS had their 5,000th US patent awarded. That means they have about 5000 US patents total. In 2005, IBM had 2,974 US patents granted. In that year alone. Their total patent portfolio is astronomical, but they list their "current active portfolio" as 26,000 US patents and they have been granted more than 32,000 US patents since 1993. Even when you consider that software patents probably are a small portion of their portfolio, they still have far more clout than MS.
There are plenty of reasons why MS wouldn't be able to stall as long as SCO, and I'm sure MS knows that. That's why they've been using SCO so far, instead of doing it all directly.
Think about it. If MS were to actually start suing Linux users, it would make the front page of most newspapers in the US. The last time Microsoft was that involved in legal disputes in the US, it took a presidential impeachment to distract the public and the press. Microsoft would be under far more scrutiny than SCO, and the truth about their baseless claims would come out. By the time the dust settled and the judges dotted all the i's and crossed all the t's, precedents would have been established that would destroy Microsoft's core business practices. And because of the importance of the case(s), all the Fortune 500 companies would be demanding a speedy trial so that they could get on with running a business.
The more MS stalls, the more solid the case against them will be. If they come up with an excuse, it will be analyzed and probably debunked quickly, leaving them with fewer options. If they don't dig up every technicality they can think of, then they will lose sooner. The only option they have now to avoid inevitable humiliation in court is to stay out of court. Unfortunately for them, their FUD alone might provide enough grounds for somebody else to sue them, thus setting up the showdown they can't afford to have happen.
One thing is certain: once MS gets into court about these issues, they won't get to decide when they leave (just like SCO cannot drop charges and walk away). That makes it a huge risk for them to ever get near a court with their FUD.
And then, there is always the fact that IBM's Nazgul could beat the shit out of Microsoft with their all-encompassing Patent Portfolio. That might actually be the best delaying tactic: get into long fights with IBM, and make sure the real cases can't proceed until they are settled.
Well, at least you tried. I'm not going try to debunk all your claims, because it really doesn't matter. However, I will point out that I own an old issue of PC Mag where the cover story is all about how strikingly similar the Win95 interface is to the earlier OS/2 interface. Even the Free *nix GUIs still bear more resemblance in look and feel to earlier, non-MS GUIS. MS pretty much didn't invent any of the things you listed. They just popularized them.
The idea of playing devil's advocate is good, but your post came off as more of a lame attempt at funny mods.
The software should report if the link is not running at full speed. Windows XP already does this with USB.
The problem seems to be that slashdotters and companies like Linksys don't realize that consumer networking gear falls under the category of "consumer electronics", not "computer equipment". These things should be designed as appliances that just work. Most users of WiFi and ethernet don't and shouldn't need to know what all those lights mean.
Think about the problems that can occur in a home network. First, a router or switch can have a hardware malfunction. This should be indicated by a warning light, preferably blinking, so that the customer can know it is time to replace the hardware. There is no need to have diagnostic codes or anything like that, because that won't help the consumer get it replaced any faster.
Second, a cable can be unplugged or plugged in to the wrong port. This can be handled by software. Windows has long had the ability to report that a cable is unplugged, and (except in the case of wireless) it is usually right. There is no need for a router to try to guess what is wrong with the cabling and try to report it through a blinking light.
Third, there could be a software configuration problem, such as IP address issues. These are totally beyond what a consumer needs to know about. The OS should just get it right on the first try, perhaps with a little help from an installation/configuration disk provided with the router.
Consumer networking equipment does not need to have more than one light. Any more than that, and users will get too confused and decide to call tech support or their ISP or their geek friend. If there is a single light, and only the minimum labeling of various plugs and ports, then users will probably be more inclined to consult the documentation if they can't set it up on their own.
IANAL, but doesn't this strategy leave them open to lawsuits from the customers who are affected by a zero-day exploit? What if one of these "minor" bugs actually enables a DoS? It would seem that the affected customers could sue for damages even if the company had underestimated the severity of the bug.
Go away, and don't come back until you know what SI stands for. Then you will know what France has to do with this topic, and you will sufficiently informed in that respect to justifiably comment here.
The headline is a bit misleading. The article is not about what you seem to think it is about. The company in question, as a standard procedure, does not release patches for many bugs that they have already created fixes for.
Once you have developed a fix, it is completely unethical to wait indefinitely to release the fix. The longest acceptable wait is until the end of the code audit to look for similar holes in other parts of the code base. This should only take a few months.
This is what I thought as well. After all, this is exactly what happened with the .ANI bug. It seems pretty obvious that the company in question does a really bad job of auditing code in response to finding a new class of bugs.
The whole point of the article is that the company in question refrains from releasing a patch, even when they have a fix ready. This is not prioritization.
...doesn't mean it is the key to success.
I really want to know what company the "reader" works for, so I can add them to my shit list. I don't want to support such abhorrent security practices.
And remember: Friends don't let friends buy Microsoft.
Ok, be honest: How many consumers need a light to tell them that their ethernet is running at 100Mbps instead of 10Mbps?
That's right. None. At least, none that are buying new equipment. And yet, pretty much everything that Linksys sells has a "high speed" or "full duplex" light. These things probably add up to several cents per router/switch. A consumer ethernet switch should only have one light: a red one to turn on when something isn't working. A router might need an extra one or two, but they should still be off by default. These days, gadgets are so LED-studded that nobody could notice a warning light.
Why would a corporation choose to not release a patch for a known security vulnerability, even if it is minor? Wouldn't it be better PR to always release the patch before the exploit comes out? This sounds totally unethical to me. They are trying to take an ostrich approach to security: the bug doesn't exist unless the customer can see it.
Besides, aren't there liability issues with knowingly shipping a product with undisclosed defects? What if they underestimate the severity of a vulnerability? How can they be so confident that they have judged the severity correctly, when they are the ones who created the bug in the first place? This sounds a lot like brinkmanship to me, and I wouldn't want to be associated with that kind of company.
Telecommuting works outside of the IT department too, you know. In pretty much any corporation, Middle Managers could spend at least a day a week working from home, often much more. For example, I know a project manager for an organization of several thousand employees. She works from home an average of 4 days a week.
I must not have explained things very well. I don't think we disagree as much as you think.
Let me put things this way:
For a mathematician, the Wolfram article is a very good reference, and is okay at explaining the concept to a student who is learning it for the first time.
The Wikipedia article is a relatively bad reference (partially due to poor organization), and still not good at explaining the concept to a student.
For a lay-person, the Wolfram article is worthless (a necessity of the design). The Wikipedia article, on the other hand, tells the lay-person that Lie Groups matter to mathematicians and physicists, and provides some historical background. Explaining the technical details of Lie Groups to a lay-person is well beyond the scope of that article, and probably beyond the purpose of Wikipedia as well.
So basically, the Wikipedia article is only useful for somebody wanting to learn about the history behind Lie Groups. For anybody else, either the wolfram article is more useful or neither article is useful. I see that as a problem. Wikipedia articles should be useful to lay-people and professionals alike, but in order to be useful to professionals, the Big Words have to be put at the beginning where they might scare off lay-people. Too bad for the lay-people if they won't scroll down to the body text.
The portion of college students that do not own computers is statistically insignificant. A lot of colleges require students to own a laptop or desktop, and scholarships for laptops are easy to get.
Oddly enough, this might make a lot of people start getting their news from the TV again. It seems like most people are used to getting their news from the internet these days, but now they can get the same headlines from the same sources on their TV.
Google Reader is a feed reader, ie. RSS and Atom. It has nothing to do with ebooks.