Known shill = untrustworthy source of information. Even a broken clock is right twice a day - that doesn't mean it's ok to start believing it when you want to know what time it is. You ignore it and seek out an unbroken clock.
You're right of course, but your argument isn't particularly insightful, IMHO, because the distinction between people and things are understood by most people. That's why when people want to specifically refer to the ideology/process you label as just "Science" they use the name "Scientific Method". The term "Science" has different meanings, granted, but loosely seems to be shorthand for "scientific research done by scientists" (individually, in aggregate or all scientific activity as a whole). As such, the mention of morality doesn't quite seem out of line, since scientists are part of the blanket term.
I used to think that when I first ran Calibre. It was kind of ugly (no, scratch that - it WAS ugly) to my eyes. It still isn't pretty, but I got over that. Then I stopped looking at it and started using it for its intended purpose: managing ebook libraries and manipulating ebooks. I discovered that the user interface made pretty good sense - I spend a little time learning it, discovered it was quite efficient at what it did, and developed a workflow that fit with what Calibre could do. Now when I sit down and use Calibre, the UI fades away and work gets done. To me that is the hallmark of a good tool - it gets out of your way and lets you get things done.
Calibre may not conform to the "it must look like every other application" model of user interface design, but it is an effective tool nonetheless. It is certainly nowhere near Blender (http://www.blender.org/) in the CUICM (Custom User Interface Confusion Matrix). Give it a chance. It's the best FLOSS tool out there at what it does.
So you think describing in incomprehensible math what boils down to a type of vocabulary attack, and then somehow concluding that our RNG isn't good enough (never mind the elephant in the room that your implementation+policy is vulnerable to such attack) is not FUD?
Yes, I don't think it is FUD. I may not think it is earth-shatteringly profound and proof that the sky is falling and cryptography is now broken forever, but reading the actual paper, they don't either.
"Incomprehensible math"? What? It's a math paper, written by mathematicians, presented at a MATH symposium. It's comprehensible to the authors and the audience at the symposium, regardless of whether non-mathematicians can comprehend it. You act as though this were an attempt by hucksters to confuse by glibly sprinkling math in an article aimed at non-mathematicians to confuse them.
The paper is linked above - you can go read it yourself. Whether or not you comprehend the math, the authors helpfully provided an abstract, introduction and conclusions in English. I just don't see the attempt at spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt that you do - all I see is a typical research paper that shows (with math!) that it's easier to guess a word than a common approximation relying on uniform distribution might suggest, so using that approximation might be ill-advised. That's all. That's not FUD, that's research.
This isn't dismissive hand wave. What they discovered is a marginal concern, especially when dealing with on-the-way-out algorithms (e.g. 3DES).
"Dismissive hand wave" refers to your terse dismissal and accusations of FUD while providing nothing more than personal opinion as evidence. If there is a basis for your assertions, prove it with links to actual proof that this is nothing.
Authors are FUDsters not because what they discovered is false, but because they are making huge deal out of it, and some illiterate CIOs within government circles listened and redirected resources to mitigate this non-issue.
You must be in the field, then, and have inside knowledge. You come across as someone who is offended by the behavior of attention seeking scientific peers and are calling them out. Fine. But the MIT research article and the paper it describes don't support your claims - they appear to be a typical report of interesting research by MIT researchers and a fairly typical scientific paper. They don't seem to be making a huge deal out of anything. So your assertions must be based on additional information that we don't know about. If there is evidence to support your accusation of FUD and 'making a big deal', show us why you believe this is true. Otherwise you're just some/.er throwing out insulting accusations. Back those accusations up with something substantial and we might all learn something useful.
Nice post, but not relevant - TFA (and TFS) was about blocking 3rd party cookies, not ads. Turning off 3rd party cookies by default makes it more difficult to track you across the internet (ostensibly to present you with targeted advertising) - it does nothing to eliminate the advertising itself. That would still have to happen via addons or other means.
Given that HTML is now 23 years old and is still rapidly growing in popularity, and that ZIP is even slightly older, and that both are absolutely ubiquitous as technologies go
HTML is rapidly growing in popularity (I presume you are referring to adoption rate amongst developers)? Yet absolutely ubiquitous (implying adoption by developers is 100%)? Make up your mind.:-D
It can change your eBook format from pretty much any format to any other. I buy them, change the to ePub (unencrypted), and I'm good, forever.
Right. At least for the small values of forever in which Kovid Goyal and contributors remain interested in the Calibre project enough to keep it going, after which you have to maintain the code yourself if you want it to keep working. And the small values of forever in which ePub is a supported format on the devices available to you when your old ones stop working.
Calibre is a great piece of software. It is a fairly young piece of software, however, and could stop being a useful tool to you just as rapidly as it appeared.
arth1 is right. NOTHING developed in the ebook world so far can rival the guaranteed longevity of the paper book format. The electronic world is ephemeral compared to the timescale of physical things. The ONLY thing working in your favor is that converting text-only material from the old readable format to the newest readable format will probably be fairly trivial, so you might be good, forever, but you probably won't be reading ePubs. And when you get tired of chasing the latest format, you will always be able to walk across the room, pull a book off the shelf and read it with no further effort.
I didn't explicitly say so, but I was recollecting helpful Amazon reviews when I wrote my comment. They certainly vary in detail - most reviewers don't give a fully detailed review, but they provide something more than "I love it". Often they tell a story about whether a product solved the problem they bought it for (did the pet hair attachment for the vacuum actually work for them and their dog? Did the crockpot burn the food after running all day?). If there are more than a few reviews, different people will touch on different aspects of a product so one can arrive at a good aggregate view of what it's like to use the product.
So in my case at least, it's not the number of positive or negative reviews that influences me the most, but whether there are enough reviews at all to allow me to learn about a potential purchase, whether negative or positive. I'll avoid a product that doesn't have many reviews because there's not enough information to really know anything about it.
For certain products, it's also possible to independently corroborate the veracity of the Amazon reviews elsewhere on the internet. Products that attract enthusiasts (a grill, say) often have at least one forum out, and a quick read through of a few threads can often tell me whether the Amazon reviews are off the mark or generally accurate.
The tl,dr; version: Researching a product well before purchasing is better than blindly trusting the reviews, positive or negative. Thoughtful reviews provide more information than mere opinion - it's information you want when researching a product, not just the rating. Positive reviews can provide as much or more information as negative reviews.
Or maybe they just weren't visible to the moderators until a few upvotes brought them above the viewing threshold. Once visible, comments that happen to be genuinely insightful, informative etc, would get more upvotes because they deserve it. You don't have to invoke bandwagon effects to describe what you observe. Also, when I have moderator points, I tend to upvote good comments that *don't* have a high score because they are worth drawing attention to. Wasting moderator points on a "me too" upvote of a +5 comment is a poor use of the privilege. In my view, the purpose of moderation isn't to "skew" the discussion to reinforce the echo chamber., Rather moderation should improve the overall signal/noise ratio so threshold settings are actually meaningful.
Of course there is. Thoughtful positive comments that describe the hands-on experience of using a product and how well the advertised features are implemented can be extremely useful. There are plenty of product categories where all the top products function well, but have different strengths/weaknesses/usage_patterns/quirks. Detailed positive reviews are quite valuable because they provide details not offered by the advertising/product description - these details help the purchaser choose the product best suited for them.
Negative reviews only provide information on which products to avoid - non-vacuous positive reviews (or balanced critical reviews) provide information on which product is best suited for you.
I agree with point 1, though it is really just stating the obvious, so isn't saying much.
I'd have to disagree with point 2. It could, perhaps, apply to products whose enjoyment is primarily a matter of taste or the response they elicit from other people, such as fashionable clothing. I can imagine situations where a poorly researched impulse purchase of an expensive item like an automobile could lead to self-deluding rationalization to justify the purchase. I'll grant you that. For more functional items (eg. a phone/tablet case, a vacuum cleaner, an umbrella), though, I would expect the frustration of a product that doesn't work as advertised would outweigh the perceived loss of face caused by a bad purchase. From what I've observed, people are quite willing to submit critical reviews for any number of reasons, from warning off potential buyers, 'punishing' the manufacturer/vendor for poor product or service, contradicting other reviewers or just indulging in a nit-picky dissection of the product. There doesn't seem to be much evidence they are ashamed of a bad choice.
As an aside, Konrad reminds me a lot of Ghost Dog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Dog:_The_Way_of_the_Samurai). Ironic that this film and All Tomorrow's Parties came out the same year. Must be the Zeitgeist's doing.
For the non-target audience who he was could have been explained in the summary. Ah well, this is probably the sign of another aging slashdotter bitching about the apparent decline of quality in the headlines/summaries. Time to go make some "Get off my lawn!" signs:-)
Heh. Just borrow some of mine - this aging/.er has an ample supply. No need to make your own.
As for the "apparent decline of quality in headlines/summaries" and what to explain in the summary, that's a tricky business. In my estimation, the story wasn't about Steve "cyanogen" Kondik (there you go - irritation abated), or even which currently-need-root activities could be added to the standard Android toolkit, rather it was about the growing tension between the interests of the owners of a general computing device, the interests of the various actors who define the platform and want to build business models on top of it by limiting what the owner can do and the engineering challenges in reconciling these various interests. As it turned out, accurately summarizing what Kondik said without plagiarizing him (or the source that drew my attention to his post) *and* planting the thought provoking seed about the wider implications of this kind of thinking without writing an essay was more challenging than I anticipated. If you have any experience in public speaking (mine is in the present-your-data-to-your-peers science world), you know that it's more difficult to put together a 10 minute talk (plus 5 for questions) than it is to put together the standard 45 minutes (plus 10 for questions) talk. Blaise Pascal was right: "I made this [letter] very long, because I did not have the leisure to make it shorter." In my case the dearth of leisure was caused by the pets wanting to be fed and my spouse asking me to step away from the computer and help with dinner. Wracked with the throes of "hurry the hell up" and my own irritation at recent/. summaries that didn't adequately explain to the reader what the hell the story was about, I threw in "CyanogenMod", fussed with the summary I was really worried about a bit more and clicked submit.
Submitting a story that aspires to live up to higher quality standards is an interesting and humbling exercise. I recommend that all aging/.ers who are worried about the decline in quality of the headlines/summaries submit a story themselves when the urge to grumble strikes them. Who knows? Maybe you'll stimulate the very change you were hoping for. And the critics who point out where you fell short will make you better (many thanks, SixGunMojo).
Thank you for the entertainment. Why settle for a concise argument on the topic at hand when a flurry of semi-relevant sentences will do. You, sir, are the master of trolls. Or lawyers. Blessed be you and your kin. I must leave you now. Good night.
Oh, Slashdot, how many years I have read thee... How many poignant articles I have digested!
Not very many, based on your ginormous UID, n00b.:-)
Thanks for that last reply of nonsense - ranks right up there with the theory.:^)
You're quite welcome. This place is too much fun to take seriously. But you're still borderline incoherent. You need to elevate your troll-fu. Or ease up on the ethanol a bit, clever lad. Your trolling will be much more effective if you can simulate a serious commentor. Your babbling is much less clever than you realize. But kudos for hanging in there and giving it the old college try.
If you were actually serious in your original posts...*shakes head*. I'm sorry, my good fellow. There are people than can help you.
Effective communication is the responsibility of the presenter, not the audience. Apart from the very rare instance where the audience is forced to attend, they are indulging the presenter. If the presenter doesn't deliver, the audience goes away. Telling the audience they didn't work hard enough will only make them go away faster.
You must be quite the hit at parties and social gatherings:
"Hey baby, I can light your fire better than Ivar Kreuger. Wanna light *my* matchstick? What? Who is Ivar Kreuger? Look it up, you airhead or I'm not for you and you shouldn't be at this bar to begin with! Wait! Where are you going? Awww. Alone again. Why? Why must I always be alone?"
Very insightful. You've hit the nail on the head. Brilliant and concise.
Anyone else have something intelligent to add to this? We're dealing with a security model developed long ago in a context where it no longer applies, but we're forced to deal with it because a big corporation decided to cut corners by exploiting an existing system to save time rather than expending the effort to develop their own solution. So now we have cognitive dissonance.
So what is a better security model for computing systems that gives full power to the device owner but allows things like the "app store", OEM applications and DRM to coexist?
Seems like it is time to design something better than what we have rather than layering cruft atop something that works just fine.
lesuth? Oh, you troll, is that you, you forked tongued devil? I applaud your efforts. I fed you once - are you still hungry? Sorry, other than this small treat, I have no more because your comments are devoid of meaningful content, and I require meaningful content to justify fetching you more treats. Dorothy and Toto would undoubtedly agree with me. Toto totally wants your treats. He'll be coming around to collect them when he's finished traveling to 1984 in his time machine to deal with Big Brother and his burgeoning Galactic Empire. Please heed my advice if you personally go there - don't take a bite of the Apple. You will fall into a sleep indistinguishable from death. Kind of like a zombie.
Sorry, but you're not making much sense and don't quite seem to understand how operating systems work. If this mythical "totally safe because it limits root privileges but not really limited because you can do all the same things as you used to do with root" API you describe existed, it would be functionally the same as what currently exists. Wrapping the system in an API that allows you to do officially sanctioned 'useful' things (things that have been designed into the API) but protects you from all the unsanctioned 'bad' things (everything that isn't explicitly defined by the API) is limiting. By definition.
Slashdot Mirror
Known shill = untrustworthy source of information. Even a broken clock is right twice a day - that doesn't mean it's ok to start believing it when you want to know what time it is. You ignore it and seek out an unbroken clock.
You're right of course, but your argument isn't particularly insightful, IMHO, because the distinction between people and things are understood by most people. That's why when people want to specifically refer to the ideology/process you label as just "Science" they use the name "Scientific Method". The term "Science" has different meanings, granted, but loosely seems to be shorthand for "scientific research done by scientists" (individually, in aggregate or all scientific activity as a whole). As such, the mention of morality doesn't quite seem out of line, since scientists are part of the blanket term.
I suspect berashith knows that, and was engaging in humor too subtle for you, SirGarlon.
My UID is lower, and this is indeed the lowest of the low.
Thirded. No clue what this is actually about.
We are now happily married and looking forward to L4D3 :)
That's a terrible name to burden a child with. At least pick something pronounceable.
I used to think that when I first ran Calibre. It was kind of ugly (no, scratch that - it WAS ugly) to my eyes. It still isn't pretty, but I got over that. Then I stopped looking at it and started using it for its intended purpose: managing ebook libraries and manipulating ebooks. I discovered that the user interface made pretty good sense - I spend a little time learning it, discovered it was quite efficient at what it did, and developed a workflow that fit with what Calibre could do. Now when I sit down and use Calibre, the UI fades away and work gets done. To me that is the hallmark of a good tool - it gets out of your way and lets you get things done.
Calibre may not conform to the "it must look like every other application" model of user interface design, but it is an effective tool nonetheless. It is certainly nowhere near Blender (http://www.blender.org/) in the CUICM (Custom User Interface Confusion Matrix). Give it a chance. It's the best FLOSS tool out there at what it does.
So you think describing in incomprehensible math what boils down to a type of vocabulary attack, and then somehow concluding that our RNG isn't good enough (never mind the elephant in the room that your implementation+policy is vulnerable to such attack) is not FUD?
Yes, I don't think it is FUD. I may not think it is earth-shatteringly profound and proof that the sky is falling and cryptography is now broken forever, but reading the actual paper, they don't either.
"Incomprehensible math"? What? It's a math paper, written by mathematicians, presented at a MATH symposium. It's comprehensible to the authors and the audience at the symposium, regardless of whether non-mathematicians can comprehend it. You act as though this were an attempt by hucksters to confuse by glibly sprinkling math in an article aimed at non-mathematicians to confuse them.
The paper is linked above - you can go read it yourself. Whether or not you comprehend the math, the authors helpfully provided an abstract, introduction and conclusions in English. I just don't see the attempt at spreading Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt that you do - all I see is a typical research paper that shows (with math!) that it's easier to guess a word than a common approximation relying on uniform distribution might suggest, so using that approximation might be ill-advised. That's all. That's not FUD, that's research.
This isn't dismissive hand wave. What they discovered is a marginal concern, especially when dealing with on-the-way-out algorithms (e.g. 3DES).
"Dismissive hand wave" refers to your terse dismissal and accusations of FUD while providing nothing more than personal opinion as evidence. If there is a basis for your assertions, prove it with links to actual proof that this is nothing.
Authors are FUDsters not because what they discovered is false, but because they are making huge deal out of it, and some illiterate CIOs within government circles listened and redirected resources to mitigate this non-issue.
You must be in the field, then, and have inside knowledge. You come across as someone who is offended by the behavior of attention seeking scientific peers and are calling them out. Fine. But the MIT research article and the paper it describes don't support your claims - they appear to be a typical report of interesting research by MIT researchers and a fairly typical scientific paper. They don't seem to be making a huge deal out of anything. So your assertions must be based on additional information that we don't know about. If there is evidence to support your accusation of FUD and 'making a big deal', show us why you believe this is true. Otherwise you're just some /.er throwing out insulting accusations. Back those accusations up with something substantial and we might all learn something useful.
Nice post, but not relevant - TFA (and TFS) was about blocking 3rd party cookies, not ads. Turning off 3rd party cookies by default makes it more difficult to track you across the internet (ostensibly to present you with targeted advertising) - it does nothing to eliminate the advertising itself. That would still have to happen via addons or other means.
Given that HTML is now 23 years old and is still rapidly growing in popularity, and that ZIP is even slightly older, and that both are absolutely ubiquitous as technologies go
HTML is rapidly growing in popularity (I presume you are referring to adoption rate amongst developers)? Yet absolutely ubiquitous (implying adoption by developers is 100%)? Make up your mind. :-D
Calibre.
It can change your eBook format from pretty much any format to any other. I buy them, change the to ePub (unencrypted), and I'm good, forever.
Right. At least for the small values of forever in which Kovid Goyal and contributors remain interested in the Calibre project enough to keep it going, after which you have to maintain the code yourself if you want it to keep working. And the small values of forever in which ePub is a supported format on the devices available to you when your old ones stop working.
Calibre is a great piece of software. It is a fairly young piece of software, however, and could stop being a useful tool to you just as rapidly as it appeared.
arth1 is right. NOTHING developed in the ebook world so far can rival the guaranteed longevity of the paper book format. The electronic world is ephemeral compared to the timescale of physical things. The ONLY thing working in your favor is that converting text-only material from the old readable format to the newest readable format will probably be fairly trivial, so you might be good, forever, but you probably won't be reading ePubs. And when you get tired of chasing the latest format, you will always be able to walk across the room, pull a book off the shelf and read it with no further effort.
I didn't explicitly say so, but I was recollecting helpful Amazon reviews when I wrote my comment. They certainly vary in detail - most reviewers don't give a fully detailed review, but they provide something more than "I love it". Often they tell a story about whether a product solved the problem they bought it for (did the pet hair attachment for the vacuum actually work for them and their dog? Did the crockpot burn the food after running all day?). If there are more than a few reviews, different people will touch on different aspects of a product so one can arrive at a good aggregate view of what it's like to use the product.
So in my case at least, it's not the number of positive or negative reviews that influences me the most, but whether there are enough reviews at all to allow me to learn about a potential purchase, whether negative or positive. I'll avoid a product that doesn't have many reviews because there's not enough information to really know anything about it.
For certain products, it's also possible to independently corroborate the veracity of the Amazon reviews elsewhere on the internet. Products that attract enthusiasts (a grill, say) often have at least one forum out, and a quick read through of a few threads can often tell me whether the Amazon reviews are off the mark or generally accurate.
The tl,dr; version: Researching a product well before purchasing is better than blindly trusting the reviews, positive or negative. Thoughtful reviews provide more information than mere opinion - it's information you want when researching a product, not just the rating. Positive reviews can provide as much or more information as negative reviews.
Or maybe they just weren't visible to the moderators until a few upvotes brought them above the viewing threshold. Once visible, comments that happen to be genuinely insightful, informative etc, would get more upvotes because they deserve it. You don't have to invoke bandwagon effects to describe what you observe. Also, when I have moderator points, I tend to upvote good comments that *don't* have a high score because they are worth drawing attention to. Wasting moderator points on a "me too" upvote of a +5 comment is a poor use of the privilege. In my view, the purpose of moderation isn't to "skew" the discussion to reinforce the echo chamber., Rather moderation should improve the overall signal/noise ratio so threshold settings are actually meaningful.
There is no value in positive comments
Of course there is. Thoughtful positive comments that describe the hands-on experience of using a product and how well the advertised features are implemented can be extremely useful. There are plenty of product categories where all the top products function well, but have different strengths/weaknesses/usage_patterns/quirks. Detailed positive reviews are quite valuable because they provide details not offered by the advertising/product description - these details help the purchaser choose the product best suited for them.
Negative reviews only provide information on which products to avoid - non-vacuous positive reviews (or balanced critical reviews) provide information on which product is best suited for you.
I agree with point 1, though it is really just stating the obvious, so isn't saying much.
I'd have to disagree with point 2. It could, perhaps, apply to products whose enjoyment is primarily a matter of taste or the response they elicit from other people, such as fashionable clothing. I can imagine situations where a poorly researched impulse purchase of an expensive item like an automobile could lead to self-deluding rationalization to justify the purchase. I'll grant you that. For more functional items (eg. a phone/tablet case, a vacuum cleaner, an umbrella), though, I would expect the frustration of a product that doesn't work as advertised would outweigh the perceived loss of face caused by a bad purchase. From what I've observed, people are quite willing to submit critical reviews for any number of reasons, from warning off potential buyers, 'punishing' the manufacturer/vendor for poor product or service, contradicting other reviewers or just indulging in a nit-picky dissection of the product. There doesn't seem to be much evidence they are ashamed of a bad choice.
As an aside, Konrad reminds me a lot of Ghost Dog (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_Dog:_The_Way_of_the_Samurai). Ironic that this film and All Tomorrow's Parties came out the same year. Must be the Zeitgeist's doing.
Thanks! I like me some Gibson, but haven't read that particular work yet. I will now.
For the non-target audience who he was could have been explained in the summary. Ah well, this is probably the sign of another aging slashdotter bitching about the apparent decline of quality in the headlines/summaries. Time to go make some "Get off my lawn!" signs :-)
Heh. Just borrow some of mine - this aging /.er has an ample supply. No need to make your own.
As for the "apparent decline of quality in headlines/summaries" and what to explain in the summary, that's a tricky business. In my estimation, the story wasn't about Steve "cyanogen" Kondik (there you go - irritation abated), or even which currently-need-root activities could be added to the standard Android toolkit, rather it was about the growing tension between the interests of the owners of a general computing device, the interests of the various actors who define the platform and want to build business models on top of it by limiting what the owner can do and the engineering challenges in reconciling these various interests. As it turned out, accurately summarizing what Kondik said without plagiarizing him (or the source that drew my attention to his post) *and* planting the thought provoking seed about the wider implications of this kind of thinking without writing an essay was more challenging than I anticipated. If you have any experience in public speaking (mine is in the present-your-data-to-your-peers science world), you know that it's more difficult to put together a 10 minute talk (plus 5 for questions) than it is to put together the standard 45 minutes (plus 10 for questions) talk. Blaise Pascal was right: "I made this [letter] very long, because I did not have the leisure to make it shorter." In my case the dearth of leisure was caused by the pets wanting to be fed and my spouse asking me to step away from the computer and help with dinner. Wracked with the throes of "hurry the hell up" and my own irritation at recent /. summaries that didn't adequately explain to the reader what the hell the story was about, I threw in "CyanogenMod", fussed with the summary I was really worried about a bit more and clicked submit.
Submitting a story that aspires to live up to higher quality standards is an interesting and humbling exercise. I recommend that all aging /.ers who are worried about the decline in quality of the headlines/summaries submit a story themselves when the urge to grumble strikes them. Who knows? Maybe you'll stimulate the very change you were hoping for. And the critics who point out where you fell short will make you better (many thanks, SixGunMojo).
Thank you for the entertainment. Why settle for a concise argument on the topic at hand when a flurry of semi-relevant sentences will do. You, sir, are the master of trolls. Or lawyers. Blessed be you and your kin.
I must leave you now. Good night.
Dude (or Dudette), you are so much fun!
Oh, Slashdot, how many years I have read thee... How many poignant articles I have digested!
Not very many, based on your ginormous UID, n00b. :-)
Thanks for that last reply of nonsense - ranks right up there with the theory. :^)
You're quite welcome. This place is too much fun to take seriously. But you're still borderline incoherent. You need to elevate your troll-fu. Or ease up on the ethanol a bit, clever lad. Your trolling will be much more effective if you can simulate a serious commentor. Your babbling is much less clever than you realize. But kudos for hanging in there and giving it the old college try.
If you were actually serious in your original posts...*shakes head*. I'm sorry, my good fellow. There are people than can help you.
Nonsense, segin.
Effective communication is the responsibility of the presenter, not the audience. Apart from the very rare instance where the audience is forced to attend, they are indulging the presenter. If the presenter doesn't deliver, the audience goes away. Telling the audience they didn't work hard enough will only make them go away faster.
You must be quite the hit at parties and social gatherings:
"Hey baby, I can light your fire better than Ivar Kreuger. Wanna light *my* matchstick? What? Who is Ivar Kreuger? Look it up, you airhead or I'm not for you and you shouldn't be at this bar to begin with! Wait! Where are you going? Awww. Alone again. Why? Why must I always be alone?"
Very insightful. You've hit the nail on the head. Brilliant and concise.
Anyone else have something intelligent to add to this? We're dealing with a security model developed long ago in a context where it no longer applies, but we're forced to deal with it because a big corporation decided to cut corners by exploiting an existing system to save time rather than expending the effort to develop their own solution. So now we have cognitive dissonance.
So what is a better security model for computing systems that gives full power to the device owner but allows things like the "app store", OEM applications and DRM to coexist?
Seems like it is time to design something better than what we have rather than layering cruft atop something that works just fine.
lesuth? Oh, you troll, is that you, you forked tongued devil? I applaud your efforts. I fed you once - are you still hungry? Sorry, other than this small treat, I have no more because your comments are devoid of meaningful content, and I require meaningful content to justify fetching you more treats. Dorothy and Toto would undoubtedly agree with me. Toto totally wants your treats. He'll be coming around to collect them when he's finished traveling to 1984 in his time machine to deal with Big Brother and his burgeoning Galactic Empire. Please heed my advice if you personally go there - don't take a bite of the Apple. You will fall into a sleep indistinguishable from death. Kind of like a zombie.
Sorry, but you're not making much sense and don't quite seem to understand how operating systems work. If this mythical "totally safe because it limits root privileges but not really limited because you can do all the same things as you used to do with root" API you describe existed, it would be functionally the same as what currently exists. Wrapping the system in an API that allows you to do officially sanctioned 'useful' things (things that have been designed into the API) but protects you from all the unsanctioned 'bad' things (everything that isn't explicitly defined by the API) is limiting. By definition.