I would argue that it is the first in-car computer system that was marketed separately from the model of car that had it to take off. Cars have had computers in them for a very long time now.
Actually, XP SP2 did not do anything other that sandbox IE into a low-priviledge process. If the user is in the Administrators group, he is running as Admin all the time. The problem was merging the 9X branch and NT branch of Windows together (in Windows XP) while maintaining backwards compatibility. If they forced the default user to have to provide an additional password (or even worse, log in to another account, or runas) whenever anything needed to be installed, people would have been screaming in frustration - not to mention the problems with poorly written software assuing it can party on the entire partition and registry. In fact, we saw a mini version of that in Vista with all the brouhaha over UAC and application compatibility.
And before Win98, there really was not as much pressing need for "security features" in the 9x branch simply due to the fact that generally it was already "completely secure" since it was not connected to anything - for the most part. Folks doing the planning were more concerned with feature lists - that was the big issue. *NIX was luckier and savvier in that regard since it came about from multi-tennant systems and had to deal with security from the beginning. In fact, XP SP2 was essentially a big "mea culpa" out of MS - they stopped developing their new operating system (Longhorn) to refocus efforts on making WinXP more secure.
The architecture of NT actually supported everything you needed to not run the average user as Admin. Claiming it to be an architecture problem is disingenuous. Usability and compatibility is what got in the way of delivering "secure by default"; until users were hit in the face with malware and social engineering attacks, how many of the average consumer would have understood the need for split-priviledge security, and how many would have been willing to put up with it?
Microsoft gives out all their software for free for startups for I believe several years through BizSpark. So you can get around the licensing costs initially - and if you are at all successful in those three years, the licensing costs generally are not going to kill you afterwards.
I am not entirely sure how ASP.NET... which is an HTML templating language with custom tags and embeddable code that compiles to a Page is significantly different from a JSP page... which is an HTML templating language with custom tags and embeddable code that compiles to a Servlet. Yes, the architecture has subtle differences, but the top-level concepts are similar enough. Lifetime of different objects is treated differently, but your JSP developer would have the same problem moving to ASP. I would actually argue that.NET encourages better structuring of code due to the concept of codebehind files as opposed to forcing code embedding (except when creating reusable components).
To be fair though, being the "CEO" of a startup is not particulary difficult. Getting uptake is the more difficult bit. But getting some angel investment if you have a reasonable sounding idea and a half-way decent prototype? Just go out and make the pitch - that involves no programming or development skills, or any such skills as would give credibility to the statements the CEO made.
In essence, TFA is arguing that Google, by sharing Marketplace revenue with the device manufacturers, on top of providing stock Android "free," is providing Android for "less than free." I am not entirely convinced by the argument; I remember hearing or reading somewhere that in order for the company to install the Google suite of applications or to be able to the the phone as "Powered by Google" they had to license something. Never very clear. So The free part might be susepct. As well, it is not very clear that the revenues from the Marketplace are significant.
In any case, it is interesting to read about the way even "free" Android is disrupting the market of mobile operating systems.
Actually, given that CSS generally fails in its goal in separating layout from content (you end up having to insert extra divs to stick formatting information on, rather than for semantic reasons), I would argue that HTML5 with CSS is not in stunningly better form.
Then again, I am just hapring on my pet peeve: no way to, in a reasonable manner, center a box of indefinite size on the page. That a technology claims to be a "full-featured" presentation technology without support for such a simple request of it is somewhat annoying. The worst part is - doing it the "bad" way, with tables not only works correctly in/all/ the browsers, but is significantly faster, and much easier to read. Something is wrong here.
16-bit also had the annoyances involved with stepping out of protected mode on top of the bitness switch, which is why it was so easy to bring down the operating system form inside a poorly behaving program or shim driver.
You are being pedantic. He clearly means any sensical message of the same length. Which makes one time pads more secure as the message length increases (provided the key size is still longer than the message).
The problem with this argument is that you can counter-argue that all software operating on top of a CPU is in fact moving around electrical charges in specific ways and thereby performing a physical transformation. From there you build up "accepted" norms - create an abstract architecture with particular inputs and outputs which are defined as a collection of electrical charges in particular order. Using these norms you can describe any piece of software in standard language (reads user input, does processing in a novel way, outputs to screen in novel way, etc.) and have it reduce to a physical manipulation of the real world. If device drivers are patentable because they manipulate the physical world, so is any piece of software.
Which specific parts are they talking about? I somehow doubt that they are using a stock.NET component which is broken - given that FTP is a fairly straightforward client-server protocol and can be implemented using nothing but Sockets. And even if for some reason.NET sockets are broken, you can always P/Invoke and use the platform socket stack. Or maybe they should blame the Windows IP stack?
I am a bit confused - what "any sort of work" are you doing that requires C++?
I can understand that certain things are easier in C++ due to the ability to more easily manipulate memory sections directly, but situations which absolutely require this are few and far between.
As well,.NET can invoke all parts of the Windows API via P/Invoke, as well as consume and surface COM interface implementations.
Moderators, please remember that Troll != I disagree. While his anecdote may have or not have merit, there is nothing trolling about the comment above.
Actually you can mount volumes into directories on an already mounted volume. Please check before you assume that the easiest user-facing surface is the only available functionality.
The directory separator issue is a non-starter. If you are writing for multiple systems, you should be using a constant which is set on a per-system basis for the separator. Even if you do not, how hard is it, really, to type '\\'?
Powershell is a perfectly good shell. The fact that it interfaces into.NET gives the powershell scripter a lot more power than a Bash scripter, out of the box. However, at the end of the day, both can be used to accomplish pretty much any task a script would have to accomplish. They are simply a different languages. Maybe we should argue whether vi or EMACS is better?
I could go on and on, but the argument that a *NIX system is "intrinsically easier" is completely subjective. You acquired familiarity with Linux, beginning 1995, and so you feel it is "intrinscially easier" to use - due to that familiarity. Similarly, people might be significantly more familiar with Windows. They would consider the other "intrinscially easier," again, due to familiarity. Saying that familiarity is only a convenience for home computers is wrong, in this case.
Except consider that they could be using a neural network to generate the classifier and power it. There is no way to tell the underlying mechanism by which they do this. Or they could use linear or non-linear optimization techniques against a trained dictionary. Or they could use a combination of the two to generate input vectors into yet another computation. Who knows.
Aside: maybe they use the distance matrix as an edge detection algorithm against the visible picture which is then used to create a heirarchical cluster of vision regions and use MPEG-style motion vector generation (in 3d thanks to the distance matrix) to determine motion.
My point is, there is nothing in the article described that allows you to "guarantee" that Natal is using or not using any one technique.
Which reminds me, one thing I'd like to see abolished is this bullshit with contracts.
You have an out for that - pay the full price (rather than the lowered "introductory" price) and you will not be locked into a contract. It is your choice which to do.
If you write a solid paper, with proper research and good references, I should certainly hope so. It does not matter what your degree is, and where you got it. The quality of your work stands on its own merit.
Yes, but even if they buy all this fiber, even if they buy all the equipment, someone has to go ahead and put it together, do testing on it, and then roll it out; until they do that, they are not capable of dealing with the traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, by volume, IBM has far and away the largest number of patents.
I would argue that it is the first in-car computer system that was marketed separately from the model of car that had it to take off. Cars have had computers in them for a very long time now.
Actually, my first thought was "nice, something to entertain myself while compiling."
Actually, XP SP2 did not do anything other that sandbox IE into a low-priviledge process. If the user is in the Administrators group, he is running as Admin all the time. The problem was merging the 9X branch and NT branch of Windows together (in Windows XP) while maintaining backwards compatibility. If they forced the default user to have to provide an additional password (or even worse, log in to another account, or runas) whenever anything needed to be installed, people would have been screaming in frustration - not to mention the problems with poorly written software assuing it can party on the entire partition and registry. In fact, we saw a mini version of that in Vista with all the brouhaha over UAC and application compatibility.
And before Win98, there really was not as much pressing need for "security features" in the 9x branch simply due to the fact that generally it was already "completely secure" since it was not connected to anything - for the most part. Folks doing the planning were more concerned with feature lists - that was the big issue. *NIX was luckier and savvier in that regard since it came about from multi-tennant systems and had to deal with security from the beginning. In fact, XP SP2 was essentially a big "mea culpa" out of MS - they stopped developing their new operating system (Longhorn) to refocus efforts on making WinXP more secure.
The architecture of NT actually supported everything you needed to not run the average user as Admin. Claiming it to be an architecture problem is disingenuous. Usability and compatibility is what got in the way of delivering "secure by default"; until users were hit in the face with malware and social engineering attacks, how many of the average consumer would have understood the need for split-priviledge security, and how many would have been willing to put up with it?
Microsoft gives out all their software for free for startups for I believe several years through BizSpark. So you can get around the licensing costs initially - and if you are at all successful in those three years, the licensing costs generally are not going to kill you afterwards.
I am not entirely sure how ASP.NET... which is an HTML templating language with custom tags and embeddable code that compiles to a Page is significantly different from a JSP page... which is an HTML templating language with custom tags and embeddable code that compiles to a Servlet. Yes, the architecture has subtle differences, but the top-level concepts are similar enough. Lifetime of different objects is treated differently, but your JSP developer would have the same problem moving to ASP. I would actually argue that .NET encourages better structuring of code due to the concept of codebehind files as opposed to forcing code embedding (except when creating reusable components).
Also one not complex. So I guess Turtle is the only real programming language.
To be fair though, being the "CEO" of a startup is not particulary difficult. Getting uptake is the more difficult bit. But getting some angel investment if you have a reasonable sounding idea and a half-way decent prototype? Just go out and make the pitch - that involves no programming or development skills, or any such skills as would give credibility to the statements the CEO made.
In essence, TFA is arguing that Google, by sharing Marketplace revenue with the device manufacturers, on top of providing stock Android "free," is providing Android for "less than free." I am not entirely convinced by the argument; I remember hearing or reading somewhere that in order for the company to install the Google suite of applications or to be able to the the phone as "Powered by Google" they had to license something. Never very clear. So The free part might be susepct. As well, it is not very clear that the revenues from the Marketplace are significant.
In any case, it is interesting to read about the way even "free" Android is disrupting the market of mobile operating systems.
Actually, given that CSS generally fails in its goal in separating layout from content (you end up having to insert extra divs to stick formatting information on, rather than for semantic reasons), I would argue that HTML5 with CSS is not in stunningly better form. Then again, I am just hapring on my pet peeve: no way to, in a reasonable manner, center a box of indefinite size on the page. That a technology claims to be a "full-featured" presentation technology without support for such a simple request of it is somewhat annoying. The worst part is - doing it the "bad" way, with tables not only works correctly in /all/ the browsers, but is significantly faster, and much easier to read. Something is wrong here.
16-bit also had the annoyances involved with stepping out of protected mode on top of the bitness switch, which is why it was so easy to bring down the operating system form inside a poorly behaving program or shim driver.
Unless the AV is itself a rootkit.
Or you need to find a hole in a program that the local user ran on a piece of data supplied by you.
You are being pedantic. He clearly means any sensical message of the same length. Which makes one time pads more secure as the message length increases (provided the key size is still longer than the message).
The problem with this argument is that you can counter-argue that all software operating on top of a CPU is in fact moving around electrical charges in specific ways and thereby performing a physical transformation. From there you build up "accepted" norms - create an abstract architecture with particular inputs and outputs which are defined as a collection of electrical charges in particular order. Using these norms you can describe any piece of software in standard language (reads user input, does processing in a novel way, outputs to screen in novel way, etc.) and have it reduce to a physical manipulation of the real world. If device drivers are patentable because they manipulate the physical world, so is any piece of software.
Which specific parts are they talking about? I somehow doubt that they are using a stock .NET component which is broken - given that FTP is a fairly straightforward client-server protocol and can be implemented using nothing but Sockets. And even if for some reason .NET sockets are broken, you can always P/Invoke and use the platform socket stack. Or maybe they should blame the Windows IP stack?
Sorry, your story simply does not ring true.
I am a bit confused - what "any sort of work" are you doing that requires C++?
I can understand that certain things are easier in C++ due to the ability to more easily manipulate memory sections directly, but situations which absolutely require this are few and far between.
As well, .NET can invoke all parts of the Windows API via P/Invoke, as well as consume and surface COM interface implementations.
Moderators, please remember that Troll != I disagree. While his anecdote may have or not have merit, there is nothing trolling about the comment above.
Actually you can mount volumes into directories on an already mounted volume. Please check before you assume that the easiest user-facing surface is the only available functionality.
The directory separator issue is a non-starter. If you are writing for multiple systems, you should be using a constant which is set on a per-system basis for the separator. Even if you do not, how hard is it, really, to type '\\'?
Powershell is a perfectly good shell. The fact that it interfaces into .NET gives the powershell scripter a lot more power than a Bash scripter, out of the box. However, at the end of the day, both can be used to accomplish pretty much any task a script would have to accomplish. They are simply a different languages. Maybe we should argue whether vi or EMACS is better?
I could go on and on, but the argument that a *NIX system is "intrinsically easier" is completely subjective. You acquired familiarity with Linux, beginning 1995, and so you feel it is "intrinscially easier" to use - due to that familiarity. Similarly, people might be significantly more familiar with Windows. They would consider the other "intrinscially easier," again, due to familiarity. Saying that familiarity is only a convenience for home computers is wrong, in this case.
Except consider that they could be using a neural network to generate the classifier and power it. There is no way to tell the underlying mechanism by which they do this. Or they could use linear or non-linear optimization techniques against a trained dictionary. Or they could use a combination of the two to generate input vectors into yet another computation. Who knows.
Aside: maybe they use the distance matrix as an edge detection algorithm against the visible picture which is then used to create a heirarchical cluster of vision regions and use MPEG-style motion vector generation (in 3d thanks to the distance matrix) to determine motion.
My point is, there is nothing in the article described that allows you to "guarantee" that Natal is using or not using any one technique.
Verbing nouns has been standard practice throughout history in language.
Consider that his IDA Pro is probably cracked too, so he could hit a lot of false positives, if it is the IDA crack that is bad...
Which reminds me, one thing I'd like to see abolished is this bullshit with contracts.
You have an out for that - pay the full price (rather than the lowered "introductory" price) and you will not be locked into a contract. It is your choice which to do.
If you write a solid paper, with proper research and good references, I should certainly hope so. It does not matter what your degree is, and where you got it. The quality of your work stands on its own merit.
Yes, but even if they buy all this fiber, even if they buy all the equipment, someone has to go ahead and put it together, do testing on it, and then roll it out; until they do that, they are not capable of dealing with the traffic.