Wasn't really caused by printing too much money (especially since a lot of the money was never printed, but just given out on paper). The issue is more that the money loaned out was secured in a way that didn't correctly model the risk of giving out that money. When it was found that the assumptions made were faulty and began to unwind, a whole ton of shit hit the fan. I'm not going to suggest (in this post) who caused the problem, loaners or takers, and if the problem is being best resolved, but the problem wasn't caused by loaning out too much.
I wonder how you can claim that ugly, inconsistent, undocumented code is "secure by design" versus code you can't see. You're asserting that it must be bad because you don't see it and that openssh must be good because you can see it, a logical fallacy (especially considering your comment that it's ugly, not consistent, or documented...how can one vet something like that?).
As for looking at the SMB server source code... not in my area of Windows (I'm in desktop graphics technology), but I suppose I could look at the diff for the patch. One thing I do know is that, by and large, code is a bit ugly, consistent, and documented well here, though.
The comment regarding ssh (a service I consider a necessity on any Linux box) with Debian was because there was a huge problem ( http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/13/1533212 ) introduced into Debian's ssh stream. Secure by design or not, the scheme was broken because of a human mistake. Those kinds of mistakes can happen in OSS or closed source, and I don't think treating one as specially exempt from the problem is an honest view of the world.
I request you don't make special pleading for Linux when not providing sources or even anecdotal evidence. People using a certain OS don't automatically get a free pass as being "more knowledgeable" - especially considering the advocacy of Linux users trying to turn their friends on to the product. The fact you call out the corporate environment shows that there's a huge market that needs/uses file sharing (and the associated network services: print sharing, discovery, etc).
I wasn't stating that all people without a clue use it, but that there are those who do. My parents use it for business, my "friends without a clue" use it so they can break copyright law more easily ("oh, you downloaded ASDF cd? can I get that from your computer?") and share documents between laptop and desktop.
On top of all this, Vista has network separation that doesn't turn some of this stuff on depending on what network you choose This means file sharing isn't on for public networks, but is for home and work, because those cases have been found to be needed by enough home users to justify turning it on.
I suppose, by your logic, that Debian should ship with ssh turned off as well, because it had a hole. Sure, it would be convenient to have on your network, but you never know when the OSS community has been drinking from the cold frosty watercooler of fail. Sounds dumb when it's put that way, doesn't it?
As for the "90% of users wouldn't need it anyway": [citation needed]. Even my parents and friends without a clue often need to use file sharing.
In my defense, I have both facebook and flickr pages. The facebook changes were a necessity once it moved from the simple layout to one where content could be added. Prior to those changes, the place was getting so cluttered that it wasn't even worth trying to put a quick message on the wall or e-stalk a person when you needed to get ahold of them.
Google's changes don't come as the result of new features being added that need their own space to grow. Moreover, their previous model of having boxes that can be dragged where desired was quite useful. Even if new features were added, they could easily fit into the box model used previously. It seems like the changes were for change's sake, not for the betterment of the product. As I said in my initial post, though, only time will tell how I feel about this once I've adapted.
Or that I forgot the script part. I do know the history of Java versus javascript (ECMA), the syntax differences, and I've even used both. Doesn't make me immune from making mistakes, sadly.
Asynchronous Java and XML - so instead of just having http links that one can click, there are javascript callbacks that retrieve updated page content without reloading the whole page. While this is nice when you only intend to browse within the single page, or when there are small bits of page that can be updated without needing an entirely new page, it breaks functionality in cases where you intend to get completely new pages.
To your sibling (vlm): I mean for things like weather (can no longer middle click as it just brings you back to the ig page), gmail (only one email at a time, no more opening a bunch in tabs), calendar (can't open upcoming appointments with middle click), etc. These used to be standard links, but have been replaced with ajax callbacks that load up the respective iGoogle page.
I'd agree for a lot of things (facebook, flickr), but for google the change really blows. Moving the previously optional tabs from the top to the left creates a huge empty gap on the iGoogle page, reducing the amount of space to work in. The new applications hijack your homepage - I can no longer middle click to open things I want to see later into the background, because they've been AJAX'd (the new hijacked?). Some of the apps I used to use are broken by the change, and I'm not given any option of removing the parts I really don't need.
It used to be that I could aggregate a large amount of relevant information into a small space using iGoogle. Now it's a larger space (due to the extra column of waste) with an interface that's less conducive to picking out those pieces of information I want to expound upon.
I'm sure that I'll eventually get used to it (or move to a different portal), but the change was abrupt and unwelcome, because it broke a fundamental use flow that I'd found quite productive.
The problem with his statement is that you can go look at the code and see if it is/isn't inefficient for what it does. He was trolling with an inflammatory one liner designed to get people arguing over whether it's possible for us MS geeks to actually write decent software.
This is not my experience graduating from a state school (Cal Poly: SLO) with a degree in Computer Engineering. The grad to job placement for that degree (and many of the other engineering degrees) is phenomenal, because the program is known as being good.
If you're applying as a business student, perhaps that's true. However, I think school prestige in engineering applies more towards grad school than to job placement.
Except that you're wrong. One, I work at MS, they don't give out options, but actual stock. Two, they pay dividends, this fiscal quarter there is a 2 cent per share increase in dividends. In 2004, a special dividend was given to the tune of $3 per share. The rebuying of stock is likely because upper management thinks stock price is below actual value, and because it allows them to keep giving out stock to employees without diluting their share.
You make the same mistake that many do: the stock market is not about growth. Long-term, the value in the stock market comes from dividends paid, not growth. Else, the stock market would simply be a game of hot potato where the last person holding the stock loses.
Tech stocks often don't give dividends while they're in the growth phase, as the price is expected to increase and the profits that would otherwise be dividends are needed for funding company growth. However, these stocks must eventually produce dividends, else they have no real value.
Personally, I'm still waiting for Cisco to admit to itself it's no longer a growth-based tech company and to start paying dividends.
More safety features, higher power consumption, more powerful engines, heavier/bigger cars.
Adding in anti-lock brakes, airbags, large crumple zones, heated seats, air conditioning, cd players with built in satellite radio, devices that perform sexually acts on you, power steering, power windows, power adjustable seats, et cetera all increase total power consumption/weight of the car. Accidents have become safer, driving has become more comfortable, but the result is a car that weighs more and needs more power to get from point A to point B.
Largely, this is a result of demand: as consumers became aware of crash tests, safety features, et cetera, they were less likely to purchase (demand) cars that fail to provide adequate safety by modern standards.
It's not some conspiracy, it's simple physics: it takes less energy to move a smaller mass from one point to another.
That dialog has a few things wrong with it. The most damning is the status bar on the bottom (which, admittedly, wasn't on all the fake dialogs), but more obvious would be that your mouse turns into a hand on the dialog/okay button, or that there are minimize/maximize buttons.
The other option is to click the "x" in the top right, and it's something you should do when unexpected windows pop up while web browsing. Even if it's possibly a legit error, there's no harm in hitting "x" instead of "OK".
I don't think your comment about switching GUI schemes and widgets so often is correct, especially since you pointed to a piece of software that had almost no scheme/widget changes for 12 years before getting a complete makeover. The fact is, windows had a very consistent look and feel from 95 through 2000, and xp/vista/W7 (screenshots that have been released, I cannot comment on internal look and feel, as that is always subject to change) only had slight modifications to what is still a relatively consistent GUI.
As for the "one OK button click away" - that depends if the relevant link was simply an ad-farm link or if it used a known exploit to silently install software. If the latter, then a patch should be issued, but it's something that can happen to any piece of sufficiently advanced (read: complex) software.
Slashdot Mirror
"Going to happy at the new school"
Is that anything like "Going to accidentally the whole school"? ;)
I know where the door is. I'll let myself out.
Wasn't really caused by printing too much money (especially since a lot of the money was never printed, but just given out on paper). The issue is more that the money loaned out was secured in a way that didn't correctly model the risk of giving out that money. When it was found that the assumptions made were faulty and began to unwind, a whole ton of shit hit the fan. I'm not going to suggest (in this post) who caused the problem, loaners or takers, and if the problem is being best resolved, but the problem wasn't caused by loaning out too much.
Not necessarily - scale back defense funding and many of those soldiers would be "fired" - those who didn't choose to leave if offered, that is.
XP had 2000, and didn't just work (remember Blaster, or some of the Win9x only stuff that wasn't compatible?).
W7:Vista::XP:2000
I don't get it. Maybe I'm not supposed to, though, since I'm a Microsoft programmer and I see you mentioned those.
I wonder how you can claim that ugly, inconsistent, undocumented code is "secure by design" versus code you can't see. You're asserting that it must be bad because you don't see it and that openssh must be good because you can see it, a logical fallacy (especially considering your comment that it's ugly, not consistent, or documented...how can one vet something like that?).
As for looking at the SMB server source code... not in my area of Windows (I'm in desktop graphics technology), but I suppose I could look at the diff for the patch. One thing I do know is that, by and large, code is a bit ugly, consistent, and documented well here, though.
The comment regarding ssh (a service I consider a necessity on any Linux box) with Debian was because there was a huge problem ( http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/05/13/1533212 ) introduced into Debian's ssh stream. Secure by design or not, the scheme was broken because of a human mistake. Those kinds of mistakes can happen in OSS or closed source, and I don't think treating one as specially exempt from the problem is an honest view of the world.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html
I request you don't make special pleading for Linux when not providing sources or even anecdotal evidence. People using a certain OS don't automatically get a free pass as being "more knowledgeable" - especially considering the advocacy of Linux users trying to turn their friends on to the product. The fact you call out the corporate environment shows that there's a huge market that needs/uses file sharing (and the associated network services: print sharing, discovery, etc).
I wasn't stating that all people without a clue use it, but that there are those who do. My parents use it for business, my "friends without a clue" use it so they can break copyright law more easily ("oh, you downloaded ASDF cd? can I get that from your computer?") and share documents between laptop and desktop.
On top of all this, Vista has network separation that doesn't turn some of this stuff on depending on what network you choose This means file sharing isn't on for public networks, but is for home and work, because those cases have been found to be needed by enough home users to justify turning it on.
I suppose, by your logic, that Debian should ship with ssh turned off as well, because it had a hole. Sure, it would be convenient to have on your network, but you never know when the OSS community has been drinking from the cold frosty watercooler of fail. Sounds dumb when it's put that way, doesn't it?
As for the "90% of users wouldn't need it anyway": [citation needed]. Even my parents and friends without a clue often need to use file sharing.
In my defense, I have both facebook and flickr pages. The facebook changes were a necessity once it moved from the simple layout to one where content could be added. Prior to those changes, the place was getting so cluttered that it wasn't even worth trying to put a quick message on the wall or e-stalk a person when you needed to get ahold of them.
Google's changes don't come as the result of new features being added that need their own space to grow. Moreover, their previous model of having boxes that can be dragged where desired was quite useful. Even if new features were added, they could easily fit into the box model used previously. It seems like the changes were for change's sake, not for the betterment of the product. As I said in my initial post, though, only time will tell how I feel about this once I've adapted.
Or that I forgot the script part. I do know the history of Java versus javascript (ECMA), the syntax differences, and I've even used both. Doesn't make me immune from making mistakes, sadly.
Asynchronous Java and XML - so instead of just having http links that one can click, there are javascript callbacks that retrieve updated page content without reloading the whole page. While this is nice when you only intend to browse within the single page, or when there are small bits of page that can be updated without needing an entirely new page, it breaks functionality in cases where you intend to get completely new pages.
To your sibling (vlm): I mean for things like weather (can no longer middle click as it just brings you back to the ig page), gmail (only one email at a time, no more opening a bunch in tabs), calendar (can't open upcoming appointments with middle click), etc. These used to be standard links, but have been replaced with ajax callbacks that load up the respective iGoogle page.
I'd agree for a lot of things (facebook, flickr), but for google the change really blows. Moving the previously optional tabs from the top to the left creates a huge empty gap on the iGoogle page, reducing the amount of space to work in. The new applications hijack your homepage - I can no longer middle click to open things I want to see later into the background, because they've been AJAX'd (the new hijacked?). Some of the apps I used to use are broken by the change, and I'm not given any option of removing the parts I really don't need.
It used to be that I could aggregate a large amount of relevant information into a small space using iGoogle. Now it's a larger space (due to the extra column of waste) with an interface that's less conducive to picking out those pieces of information I want to expound upon.
I'm sure that I'll eventually get used to it (or move to a different portal), but the change was abrupt and unwelcome, because it broke a fundamental use flow that I'd found quite productive.
http://www.codeplex.com/touchless/SourceControl/DirectoryView.aspx?SourcePath=&changeSetId=25142
That was very hard. I had to spend a whole 10 seconds searching the internet.
Now, burden of proof is on you: what is wrong with the source code, available there? Isn't this the basis of the OSS "many eyes" theory?
The problem with his statement is that you can go look at the code and see if it is/isn't inefficient for what it does. He was trolling with an inflammatory one liner designed to get people arguing over whether it's possible for us MS geeks to actually write decent software.
Hint: the answer is 'yes'.
This is not my experience graduating from a state school (Cal Poly: SLO) with a degree in Computer Engineering. The grad to job placement for that degree (and many of the other engineering degrees) is phenomenal, because the program is known as being good.
If you're applying as a business student, perhaps that's true. However, I think school prestige in engineering applies more towards grad school than to job placement.
Except that you're wrong. One, I work at MS, they don't give out options, but actual stock. Two, they pay dividends, this fiscal quarter there is a 2 cent per share increase in dividends. In 2004, a special dividend was given to the tune of $3 per share. The rebuying of stock is likely because upper management thinks stock price is below actual value, and because it allows them to keep giving out stock to employees without diluting their share.
You make the same mistake that many do: the stock market is not about growth. Long-term, the value in the stock market comes from dividends paid, not growth. Else, the stock market would simply be a game of hot potato where the last person holding the stock loses.
Tech stocks often don't give dividends while they're in the growth phase, as the price is expected to increase and the profits that would otherwise be dividends are needed for funding company growth. However, these stocks must eventually produce dividends, else they have no real value.
Personally, I'm still waiting for Cisco to admit to itself it's no longer a growth-based tech company and to start paying dividends.
Quake 2 and Half Life both had excellent soundtracks to listen to independent of the game.
More safety features, higher power consumption, more powerful engines, heavier/bigger cars.
Adding in anti-lock brakes, airbags, large crumple zones, heated seats, air conditioning, cd players with built in satellite radio, devices that perform sexually acts on you, power steering, power windows, power adjustable seats, et cetera all increase total power consumption/weight of the car. Accidents have become safer, driving has become more comfortable, but the result is a car that weighs more and needs more power to get from point A to point B.
Largely, this is a result of demand: as consumers became aware of crash tests, safety features, et cetera, they were less likely to purchase (demand) cars that fail to provide adequate safety by modern standards.
It's not some conspiracy, it's simple physics: it takes less energy to move a smaller mass from one point to another.
Well crafted. He uses a number of common mistakes in one sig (intensive, begs the question, who vs whom, ect (that's intentional ;) )).
The WHOLE THING?! Geez man, how dare you accidentally a whole patty?
Secretly, that project was an internal code for "impromptu office party." We let the press think what they want ;).
I mean, really, why would we name our product after a fruity (okay, mediciny) alcohol?
Er...money followed by *card*.
Epic fail on my part, please be gentle oh mods of destiny.
Almost every machine I've ever used gives money followed by cash.
That dialog has a few things wrong with it. The most damning is the status bar on the bottom (which, admittedly, wasn't on all the fake dialogs), but more obvious would be that your mouse turns into a hand on the dialog/okay button, or that there are minimize/maximize buttons.
The other option is to click the "x" in the top right, and it's something you should do when unexpected windows pop up while web browsing. Even if it's possibly a legit error, there's no harm in hitting "x" instead of "OK".
I don't think your comment about switching GUI schemes and widgets so often is correct, especially since you pointed to a piece of software that had almost no scheme/widget changes for 12 years before getting a complete makeover. The fact is, windows had a very consistent look and feel from 95 through 2000, and xp/vista/W7 (screenshots that have been released, I cannot comment on internal look and feel, as that is always subject to change) only had slight modifications to what is still a relatively consistent GUI.
As for the "one OK button click away" - that depends if the relevant link was simply an ad-farm link or if it used a known exploit to silently install software. If the latter, then a patch should be issued, but it's something that can happen to any piece of sufficiently advanced (read: complex) software.