Look this has been thrown back and forth, but the bottom line is that water in liquid form won't get hotter than 100 degrees C, and as far as I know when you make coffee you boil the water up to 100 degrees C, always.
What about software which ends up damaging your hardware? Or software which ends up damaging other software? How is malware defined? Surely this must be related to the topic at hand.
I mean people have burnt themselves on hot coffee and won lawsuits because they weren't notified.
Coffee very rarely comes with a EULA explicitly removing responsibility from the vendor in case the coffee is too hot, or at least it used to. Most software come with EULA's covering exactly the points you've brought forward.
Well that's given, my concern is if the law mentions anything, in which case a EULA, in that sense, wouldn't be effective. You can't put whatever you want within the EULA.
It is unclear how large a threat this is to the end user. However the fact that XP is being loaded on netbooks suggests that Microsoft has a revenue stream that it should protect by writing a patch if it is serious.
Excellent point. I wonder if this could put MS into legal trouble. Does anybody know what software distribution laws say about distributing software with known security issues without the intention of filling them? Are they at least bound to notify the user? I mean people have burnt themselves on hot coffee and won lawsuits because they weren't notified. Surely this should be a more valid suit, as you don't even need to be a complete moron to get affected.
Hmm.. did they forget to thank? It's quite common to cry about this and that... when the only think needed is to shut your mouth and THANK for the little help.
If you're here to build me a bridge, then tell me so and build it. If you're here to bring me a stone, then don't tell me you're here to build me a bridge.
Ever think of just making the uid's on your various machines match?
James
Not always possible...
many times I plug my USB into a machine which is not mine..
... but which you have a user on? You can always do the crazy thing and assing a UID unlikely to be used ever, such as 64329, and ask the admins of the systems on which you have accounts on nicely if they can change your UID to such. If the guy refuses to then it's his choice, not a flaw of the Unix UID.
Does this have the same issue Linux' ntfs-3g has?
-not to be able to mount a partition that hasn't been cleanly dismounted, except by forcing it
-extremely slow performance with large files or fragmented filesystems
-slow performance generally
If so, I wouldn't say OSX has NTFS support. Neither does Linux. Just some experimental hack that works "well enough".
This is outrageous! I thought these were all original features of NTFS!
How does requiring the UID to match prove any more secure than requiring a username match, for a portable drive? If I have the drive in my hand, I can plug it into any computer I want and access it as root anyway.
Well you are right and I completely agree, I was only trying to figure out how the guy was thinking. Is the sole purpose to transfer the permissions from one source to another? If so tar will do that.
So do any of you have a creative solution for this problem?
Isn't the whole point of this "problem" that there shouldn't be a solution to the problem?
That was my thoughts exactly, I don't think the guy understands how security works. If you remove the qualifications to access a file to perseve only -- say -- the need for user name to match, then what the hell kind of nonsense security is that?
They released flash 64 bit on Linux before any other rplatform, so they obviously have an interest.
The video tag makes no mention of which codec to use, so youtube could use a patent encumbered and royalty-requiring one (H.264).
Yes they did, but the 64 bit version was just as worthless as the 32 bit. The Linux community cried for ages before they went from v.7 to v.9 and when 64 bit started to pick up, which happened much -- much faster than on Windows due to the benefit of OSS, there were a few things which kept people back from migrating, and one of these things was flash. People were content because they realised what stance Adobe had. If they chose to do nothing then sooner or later either Flash had to go or 64 bit had to go. So no, they don't have any interest in the Linux community and they've shown this over and over, but they still have a certain "fear" or "respect" or whatever you want to call it. If you piss off a bunch of developers for a longer period they will eventually start making their own solution. Plus Silverlight was rolling out during this time.
And this was not about patents or royalties. If YouTube idiotically choose to go H.264 then it will be their loss, YouTube will always be a free service, which is kind of the whole point. I wonder though if you are using Linux, I doubt it since you seem to not know how horrible Flash is on it.
If we're getting to the point where people are winning cases because they've effectively patented a design pattern, then we're all in trouble.
I mean, "associating a piece of data with multiple categories" -- sounds like every relational database schema on the planet to me.
You're right and that's exactly what everybody should encourage. Patent trolls are the best friends of those who dislike the patent system. I'll explain why. Nobody will care to reform a system which is quasi functional, but everybody, even lobbyists will push for reform on a system which is completely broken. If any Joe can sue the crap out of a major lobbying corporation for some silly patent you can be damn sure that the corporations will do anything to nullify this. And when the law is with Joe, the only thing left to do is to push for legislation change. So you see in a capitalistic world the absolute best way to make a change about anything is to show that the current structure is unprofitable for all major corporations. See it as "lobbying the lobbyists."
I just found this! Even though I know the machine isn't targeted at me the XO-1 design seems horrible, even when ignoring the estetics. But this one seems very interesting! If it turns out this way it is absolutely something I'll consider purchasing! The idea was buy one sponsor one, but who felt they wanted an XO-1? I'll gladly sponsor an XO-2, given that this will be the result, more or less.
Actually no. That's only in Black and White and without backlight, which is unuseable for video.
In color mode and with backlight, it is only 693×520. Not exactly high definition in my book.
It was a really crappy design when released, and it still is today. And expensive, if you look at the full cost including deployment and not counting subsidies.
There seems to be a twist to it. Check out this section. The pixel allignments aren't conventional.
A Philips Research study measured the XO-1 display's perceived color resolution as effectively 984(H)x738(V). A conventional liquid crystal display with the same number of green pixels (green carries most brightness or luminance information for human eyes) as the OLPC XO-1 would be 693x520.
Nah. If you can't be bothered to be clear in your explanations, why should I try to figure out what you meant?
Well I meant exactly as I wrote, which was my point. You chose to interpret it in a very different way. If you read it without that teenage anger of yours you'll see my point rather clearly. I'm not going to answer you properly until you learn to behave. If it's information you want from me then you have to stop trying to put your words into my mouth as that will get you nowhere.:-)
Yeah, you state the the null hypothesis is invalid, thus you accept the alternate hypothesis. Following that, you proceed to explain why you do not accept the alternative hypothesis. When this is pointed out, you proceed to tell the world that you're really just a poor misunderstood tech guy, and not only are you really smart, but you're also rather nice.
Or did I miss something? Because I'm not saying your argument is unclear, I'm saying it's contradictory. I'm now saying that you can't counter my refutation without something more than "No, YOU'RE wrong, not ME".
That's not entirely true. You *can*.. but it doesn't hold much weight. Now seriously, grow a brain or gtfo.
Still not correct though, don't worry, you'll get there eventually. Try reading it again, maybe this time you'll understand.
Well, keep in mind, full screen on the OLPC isn't as big as on other machines. And if their new hardware has a GPU of some sort, some of the decoding and stretching can be offloaded.
If you're referring to the screen resolution it's 1200x900 which is well within notebook class.
I will admit that anybody can make mistakes, and the hypothetical "always right" person doesn't exist, so the hypothesis is rather nonsensical.
And so you agree with me? Because this statement runs counter to the rest of what you've said. So stop contradicting yourself and pull together a decent argument, or gtfo.
You must have read my post incorrectly, try again and reply to what I wrote, thanks.
You actually need to be fairly strong willed at times to properly get your point across! That can be perceived as being a "jerk" by the person on the receiving end at the moment.
No you don't. You need to have a persuasive argument and be speaking with rational people. If you surround yourself with people who are always "right", when life is mostly subjective, you'll be miserable.
Perhaps this explains why the IT crowd is mocked so easily - people who convinced that being 'right' makes them superior are suddenly thrust into the real world, where there are very few 'right' answers. It's easy to see who doesn't fit in, and when those people start complaining that the world should change to accept their brillance... well... the world continues to mock them. Because, lets face it - being right doesn't count for everything, and in a job where being 'right' is subjective (almost everywhere except IT), then niceness matters a lot more than competence. People can always learn and do better next time - but you can't take back the death threats you sent while upset.
Now, I suppose there are life and death situations where being right means survival. But seriously, how many people live in those situations? Not even doctors can choose 'right' or 'wrong'. Doctors choose what is 'best' in their opinion, which is why doctors sometimes differ in treatment recommendations. I have a hard time believing that a) the slashdot crowd works in life/death situations where right is not subjective, and b) that it is impossible to be both 'right' and 'nice'. Seriously, isn't this just creating a false dichotomy?
Any job I've worked in "being right" has been a key to success. Being right means less loss and more profit, and I don't know if you're speaking from the perspective of a kindergarden teacher, but in business this is what counts. I will admit that anybody can make mistakes, and the hypothetical "always right" person doesn't exist, so the hypothesis is rather nonsensical. However there are people who shut the hell up when they don't know something instead of spreading useless hearsay that in the end cause problems for everyone. These people who tend to find out, instead of assume, are always my preferred colleagues. It's a matter of trust, and douchebags or not I tend to surround myself with trustworthy people. My friends however are both trustworthy and pleasant, and my colleagues I cannot choose but I value the work they do more than how much they smile. I don't understand how you got modded up for this useless post, but either get over your hate for IT's, probably due to some IT who treated you bad for doing something idiotic, or seek help. For this suppressed anger of yours is not healthy.
Perhaps it's nearly time to upgrade my aging Athlon X2 5600+...
One thing that I find interesting about this is that Intel decided to still call it "i7" when it apparently doesn't fit into the Nehalem-based i7 motherboards. As the article correctly pointed out - why not call it "i6" to prevent consumer confusion?
Well if by choice you mean that I should have not accepted an Acer Aspire 5520EG which was being discontinued and was leaving for the crusher, but which my dear brother, who works at a large electronics franchise, cashed out for 250 EUR, almost half the price it was in the store while being sold, then yes, I did have a choice. I chose sanity over vanity. As I said, I'm no fundamentalist. If opportunities come along I will grab them. But if I have the time and money to be picky, then yes I probably would have chosen otherwise. Oh and it's ok to like OSS and still use proprietary software, but no we won't have any of that Windows, I can assure you of that, except for the office. That I'm rather bound to, or would you consider quitting my job as a reasonable choice?;-)
Fine by me - a completelly valid reason, as long as you're not one of those hypocrites who convinced themselves they need OSS browser on Windows (or when using, say, Nvidia binary blob drivers); especially when talking about software company that plays nice, and is from the area with one of the best business ethics.
Hehehe, no sir, we won't have any of that sillyness. Although I do use the proprietary nvidia drivers, since they work best for my card. Unfortunately the choice between nv and nvidia was never as easy as, say, between Opera and FireFox. I'm no fundamentalist, but when given equivalent choices, there's no doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
Look this has been thrown back and forth, but the bottom line is that water in liquid form won't get hotter than 100 degrees C, and as far as I know when you make coffee you boil the water up to 100 degrees C, always.
What about software which ends up damaging your hardware? Or software which ends up damaging other software? How is malware defined? Surely this must be related to the topic at hand.
I mean people have burnt themselves on hot coffee and won lawsuits because they weren't notified.
Coffee very rarely comes with a EULA explicitly removing responsibility from the vendor in case the coffee is too hot, or at least it used to. Most software come with EULA's covering exactly the points you've brought forward.
Well that's given, my concern is if the law mentions anything, in which case a EULA, in that sense, wouldn't be effective. You can't put whatever you want within the EULA.
It is unclear how large a threat this is to the end user. However the fact that XP is being loaded on netbooks suggests that Microsoft has a revenue stream that it should protect by writing a patch if it is serious.
Excellent point. I wonder if this could put MS into legal trouble. Does anybody know what software distribution laws say about distributing software with known security issues without the intention of filling them? Are they at least bound to notify the user? I mean people have burnt themselves on hot coffee and won lawsuits because they weren't notified. Surely this should be a more valid suit, as you don't even need to be a complete moron to get affected.
Hmm.. did they forget to thank? It's quite common to cry about this and that... when the only think needed is to shut your mouth and THANK for the little help.
If you're here to build me a bridge, then tell me so and build it. If you're here to bring me a stone, then don't tell me you're here to build me a bridge.
Ever think of just making the uid's on your various machines match?
James
Not always possible... many times I plug my USB into a machine which is not mine..
... but which you have a user on? You can always do the crazy thing and assing a UID unlikely to be used ever, such as 64329, and ask the admins of the systems on which you have accounts on nicely if they can change your UID to such. If the guy refuses to then it's his choice, not a flaw of the Unix UID.
Does this have the same issue Linux' ntfs-3g has? -not to be able to mount a partition that hasn't been cleanly dismounted, except by forcing it -extremely slow performance with large files or fragmented filesystems -slow performance generally If so, I wouldn't say OSX has NTFS support. Neither does Linux. Just some experimental hack that works "well enough".
This is outrageous! I thought these were all original features of NTFS!
How does requiring the UID to match prove any more secure than requiring a username match, for a portable drive? If I have the drive in my hand, I can plug it into any computer I want and access it as root anyway.
Well you are right and I completely agree, I was only trying to figure out how the guy was thinking. Is the sole purpose to transfer the permissions from one source to another? If so tar will do that.
So do any of you have a creative solution for this problem?
Isn't the whole point of this "problem" that there shouldn't be a solution to the problem?
That was my thoughts exactly, I don't think the guy understands how security works. If you remove the qualifications to access a file to perseve only -- say -- the need for user name to match, then what the hell kind of nonsense security is that?
use DVD's, you'll still lose all of the security on the files, but they can be read by everything.
So your solution to a problem is to give up? How does that tend to work out for you?
They released flash 64 bit on Linux before any other rplatform, so they obviously have an interest. The video tag makes no mention of which codec to use, so youtube could use a patent encumbered and royalty-requiring one (H.264).
Yes they did, but the 64 bit version was just as worthless as the 32 bit. The Linux community cried for ages before they went from v.7 to v.9 and when 64 bit started to pick up, which happened much -- much faster than on Windows due to the benefit of OSS, there were a few things which kept people back from migrating, and one of these things was flash. People were content because they realised what stance Adobe had. If they chose to do nothing then sooner or later either Flash had to go or 64 bit had to go. So no, they don't have any interest in the Linux community and they've shown this over and over, but they still have a certain "fear" or "respect" or whatever you want to call it. If you piss off a bunch of developers for a longer period they will eventually start making their own solution. Plus Silverlight was rolling out during this time.
And this was not about patents or royalties. If YouTube idiotically choose to go H.264 then it will be their loss, YouTube will always be a free service, which is kind of the whole point. I wonder though if you are using Linux, I doubt it since you seem to not know how horrible Flash is on it.
If we're getting to the point where people are winning cases because they've effectively patented a design pattern, then we're all in trouble.
I mean, "associating a piece of data with multiple categories" -- sounds like every relational database schema on the planet to me.
You're right and that's exactly what everybody should encourage. Patent trolls are the best friends of those who dislike the patent system. I'll explain why. Nobody will care to reform a system which is quasi functional, but everybody, even lobbyists will push for reform on a system which is completely broken. If any Joe can sue the crap out of a major lobbying corporation for some silly patent you can be damn sure that the corporations will do anything to nullify this. And when the law is with Joe, the only thing left to do is to push for legislation change. So you see in a capitalistic world the absolute best way to make a change about anything is to show that the current structure is unprofitable for all major corporations. See it as "lobbying the lobbyists."
I just found this! Even though I know the machine isn't targeted at me the XO-1 design seems horrible, even when ignoring the estetics. But this one seems very interesting! If it turns out this way it is absolutely something I'll consider purchasing! The idea was buy one sponsor one, but who felt they wanted an XO-1? I'll gladly sponsor an XO-2, given that this will be the result, more or less.
Actually no. That's only in Black and White and without backlight, which is unuseable for video. In color mode and with backlight, it is only 693×520. Not exactly high definition in my book. It was a really crappy design when released, and it still is today. And expensive, if you look at the full cost including deployment and not counting subsidies.
There seems to be a twist to it. Check out this section. The pixel allignments aren't conventional.
A Philips Research study measured the XO-1 display's perceived color resolution as effectively 984(H)x738(V). A conventional liquid crystal display with the same number of green pixels (green carries most brightness or luminance information for human eyes) as the OLPC XO-1 would be 693x520.
Much reading, to believe this I have done: Worse than religion, your rhetoric is.
How is writing in riddles going to help your case? Listen, kid, this is getting nowhere so let's just leave at that.
Nah. If you can't be bothered to be clear in your explanations, why should I try to figure out what you meant?
Well I meant exactly as I wrote, which was my point. You chose to interpret it in a very different way. If you read it without that teenage anger of yours you'll see my point rather clearly. I'm not going to answer you properly until you learn to behave. If it's information you want from me then you have to stop trying to put your words into my mouth as that will get you nowhere. :-)
Yeah, you state the the null hypothesis is invalid, thus you accept the alternate hypothesis. Following that, you proceed to explain why you do not accept the alternative hypothesis. When this is pointed out, you proceed to tell the world that you're really just a poor misunderstood tech guy, and not only are you really smart, but you're also rather nice. Or did I miss something? Because I'm not saying your argument is unclear, I'm saying it's contradictory. I'm now saying that you can't counter my refutation without something more than "No, YOU'RE wrong, not ME". That's not entirely true. You *can* .. but it doesn't hold much weight. Now seriously, grow a brain or gtfo.
Still not correct though, don't worry, you'll get there eventually. Try reading it again, maybe this time you'll understand.
Well, keep in mind, full screen on the OLPC isn't as big as on other machines. And if their new hardware has a GPU of some sort, some of the decoding and stretching can be offloaded.
If you're referring to the screen resolution it's 1200x900 which is well within notebook class.
Must not be using adobe's linux flash player then. Not even my 2ghz machine can do full screen without the jitters.
Adobe clearly has no interest in the Linux community. Hopefully YouTube will start using the HTML5 tags.
I will admit that anybody can make mistakes, and the hypothetical "always right" person doesn't exist, so the hypothesis is rather nonsensical.
And so you agree with me? Because this statement runs counter to the rest of what you've said. So stop contradicting yourself and pull together a decent argument, or gtfo.
You must have read my post incorrectly, try again and reply to what I wrote, thanks.
You actually need to be fairly strong willed at times to properly get your point across! That can be perceived as being a "jerk" by the person on the receiving end at the moment.
No you don't. You need to have a persuasive argument and be speaking with rational people. If you surround yourself with people who are always "right", when life is mostly subjective, you'll be miserable. Perhaps this explains why the IT crowd is mocked so easily - people who convinced that being 'right' makes them superior are suddenly thrust into the real world, where there are very few 'right' answers. It's easy to see who doesn't fit in, and when those people start complaining that the world should change to accept their brillance ... well ... the world continues to mock them. Because, lets face it - being right doesn't count for everything, and in a job where being 'right' is subjective (almost everywhere except IT), then niceness matters a lot more than competence. People can always learn and do better next time - but you can't take back the death threats you sent while upset.
Now, I suppose there are life and death situations where being right means survival. But seriously, how many people live in those situations? Not even doctors can choose 'right' or 'wrong'. Doctors choose what is 'best' in their opinion, which is why doctors sometimes differ in treatment recommendations. I have a hard time believing that a) the slashdot crowd works in life/death situations where right is not subjective, and b) that it is impossible to be both 'right' and 'nice'. Seriously, isn't this just creating a false dichotomy?
Any job I've worked in "being right" has been a key to success. Being right means less loss and more profit, and I don't know if you're speaking from the perspective of a kindergarden teacher, but in business this is what counts. I will admit that anybody can make mistakes, and the hypothetical "always right" person doesn't exist, so the hypothesis is rather nonsensical. However there are people who shut the hell up when they don't know something instead of spreading useless hearsay that in the end cause problems for everyone. These people who tend to find out, instead of assume, are always my preferred colleagues. It's a matter of trust, and douchebags or not I tend to surround myself with trustworthy people. My friends however are both trustworthy and pleasant, and my colleagues I cannot choose but I value the work they do more than how much they smile. I don't understand how you got modded up for this useless post, but either get over your hate for IT's, probably due to some IT who treated you bad for doing something idiotic, or seek help. For this suppressed anger of yours is not healthy.
Perhaps it's nearly time to upgrade my aging Athlon X2 5600+... One thing that I find interesting about this is that Intel decided to still call it "i7" when it apparently doesn't fit into the Nehalem-based i7 motherboards. As the article correctly pointed out - why not call it "i6" to prevent consumer confusion?
My processor goes to i11.
"I... have... Windows" that I have a problem with...
Fixed that for you. ;-)
Well if by choice you mean that I should have not accepted an Acer Aspire 5520EG which was being discontinued and was leaving for the crusher, but which my dear brother, who works at a large electronics franchise, cashed out for 250 EUR, almost half the price it was in the store while being sold, then yes, I did have a choice. I chose sanity over vanity. As I said, I'm no fundamentalist. If opportunities come along I will grab them. But if I have the time and money to be picky, then yes I probably would have chosen otherwise. Oh and it's ok to like OSS and still use proprietary software, but no we won't have any of that Windows, I can assure you of that, except for the office. That I'm rather bound to, or would you consider quitting my job as a reasonable choice? ;-)
Fine by me - a completelly valid reason, as long as you're not one of those hypocrites who convinced themselves they need OSS browser on Windows (or when using, say, Nvidia binary blob drivers); especially when talking about software company that plays nice, and is from the area with one of the best business ethics.
Hehehe, no sir, we won't have any of that sillyness. Although I do use the proprietary nvidia drivers, since they work best for my card. Unfortunately the choice between nv and nvidia was never as easy as, say, between Opera and FireFox. I'm no fundamentalist, but when given equivalent choices, there's no doubt.