My Speculative Fiction prof (if you're well-read in short SF, you might know her by her pseudonym--Sally Caves), told us about an exhibit that she saw at Disneyworld once: the House of the Future, or some such.
Imagine a house where everything's plastic and metal. Smooth curves everywhere, something out of the Jetsons.
Instead of discussing Gibson's "The Gernsback Continuum" that day, we reflected on how technology was supposed to change the world, make it into a utopia.
Have any of you wondered why those futuristic settings rarely have any non-futuristic buildings in them? Disney, as did many thinkers of the time, saw a future filled with impossibilities made substantial by the bountiful god of Technology. Nobody would be left behind. Everyone would get a shiny new building of plastic and steel and light.
Today, I type this in a room with hardwood floors, in a building older than my parents. Outside, I see asphalt, cars, and people braced against the cold. They wear natural-seeming fabrics, not aluminum foil Intel bunny suits.
Maybe we're seeking to recover the natural world we've pushed away from us. Or maybe the dream just left us behind.
I remember being quite lost when I started using Linux. Recompiling the kernel for the first time scared the hell outta me. (It would've been better had I known about 'make menuconfig' or even 'make xconfig', which this article covers.) I definitely agree this sort of article is needed, even though the requisite information is doubtless available from already existing sources (like the linux/Documentation directory).
There are a few points which could've definitely used improvement. For one thing, the article's quite biased toward Red Hat. Understandable, as it's a choice for many who are new to Linux, but still there could be mention of other ways of doing things--to satisfy curious gurus-to-be, at the very least.
Along the lines of edification, perhaps some more detail could have been given for the hows and wherefores of using certain commands. Since this article seemed to use RH as a basis, perhaps some explanation on what exactly that ugly rpm command was doing would be in order. To their credit, though, they did have links to related articles.
Finally, I think some newbies could benefit from information on gathering more information for themselves about the Linux kernel--further reading, to be specific. Every kernel hacker starts somewhere, and a mention of the linux/Documentation directory (at the very least) would be helpful to those wishing to learn the art.
Thanks to PCWorld for this article--though it might not explain everything, at the very least it can help with the intimidating process of customizing one's kernel.
I've noted that many of my favorite authors, who defined the genres of modern SF, have been passing on lately. But still I haven't seen anybody quite worthy of wearing their mantles--yet. Perhaps it's just that we're in a transition period. Or perhaps the legacy is already being carried on--in the form of not one, but several authors. Thoughts?
First off, I'd appreciate a more civil tone, should you choose to respond again.
Now to address your post:
Yes, Outlook is easy to use, and, as such, has its merits. But the issue at hand is one of security, not ease-of-use. An application that is user-friendly is not necessarily secure.
Note that I said "precautions" in my post. An update does exist, as stated by the article. However, that does not change the fact that the possibility of using such tight integration in an attack should have been addressed beforehand. To their credit (or folly--whatever have you), the flaw was in the security label for the affected controls, an accident--though I believe the labels shouldn't have been the sole determinant of the permissions granted them.
Staying silent on this issue is hardly an option for me. The article also states that there may be other HTML-email issues present, and I firmly believe security through obscurity is not the best defense.
Amazing(?) that MS didn't take precautions against this happening. Then again, they've got so many Windows extensions out there, that it's gotta be hard to keep track of the interactions... Seems like they're running as fast as they can just to keep up with the problems.
Then again, some of it is the responsibility (or lack thereof) of the end user. I find it depressing that people will mindlessly follow such simple directives as "Open Me". Even though the subject in this case wasn't quite that direct, it still would seem rather alien in my inbox.
If you want to see how Linux et al. seem to fit into the picture, check out III.B.2.c in the Findings of Fact. Also, for Open Source info, check out III.B.3. I find it interesting that the judge still labeled Linux a "fringe OS" despite all the media attention.
In my mind, in the context of this case, that label actually applies--at least until Linux becomes even more friendly to people who'd like a near-effortless migration from WinXX.
There appear to be several things which need to happen before such a boycott could proceed successfully:
Support for sites with ad banners. As some have pointed out, even/. doesn't have complete control over what format ads are displayed in.
Standardization of browser support for PNG. I can't tell you how many times I've heard PNG referred to as the replacement for GIF. However, both Netscape and IE still have various issues with PNG, though most of the transparency bugs seem to have been worked out.
Unisys actually trying to get the money. Had Unisys tried to actively extract money from many websites, this boycott would have many more devoted supporters. But it's not--yet.
Backwards compatibility. This is crucial for me. If I use JPG, most of my concerns are allayed. But what if I want to use transparency (IIRC, JPG transparency isn't widely supported yet)? Perhaps the image tags could be done with server-side includes, but that would be a pain to do for an existing site.
Perhaps my biggest qualm is that the initial furor over Unisys has died down. If this had been organized earlier, maybe there would have been more positive reaction--and, I dare say, the mainstream media might have latched on to it!
I'm sure that some compliments couldn't hurt their commitment to making the SB Live! work better with Linux (and other OSes, by the way). Pat them on their collective head and tell them they've been good.:)
...You might as well be dead. A story universe like Star Trek can only be carried so far if it remains static. The Federation's perspective itself can only be carried so far. Sure, there have been changes over the lifetime of the series, like the nature of the Klingons. However, the premise remains the same--boldly go where no one has gone before, and do it from the POV of the Federation. And that's the safe thing for Paramount to do.
I was one Trekker who was attracted to Babylon 5 because it offered a whole new perspective on the space genre. There was a new universe, produced in what was (at the time it started) a rather novel fashion for a large-scale space series. And the perspective wasn't nearly as centered on one species/alliance/side as it was in Star Trek.
Though I appreciate the symbolic value of "Wargames", it's just not a real-life example of the 'Net striking back. My nomination for #1 would be the cracking and slashdotting of kipling.com's "hacker" contest. >:)
Ye gods, they should've put Tux through all the astronaut training before launching him. 8)
Aside from that, one way of producing a name is as follows:
Take a nice, Mars-sounding name.
If it ends with a u, add an x.
If it doesn't end with a u, chop the end off at a convenient consonant, and add a ux.
If it sounds pitiful, or is more than two syllables, try chopping a bit earlier. (The Rule of Artistic License.)
Example: Barsoom
Applying rule 3 gets us
Barsoomux. However, this violates both qualifiers of rule 4--it's pitiful, and more than two syllables. Thus, we chop a bit earlier, and get Barsux.
Alternatively, one can aim for a two-syllable word ending in ux that has some deeper meaning than the obvious.
Examples: bigbux, marsux, dumfux
I'm sure the/. community can think of plenty more.
I know that the Internet began as a primarily American phenomenon. Likely, that hasn't changed much, despite the globalization of the Internet.
However, I think that if we are to make the Internet a truly global phenomenon, the US should be prepared to let other nations have a significant say in what happens to the 'Net. This means swallowing some pride and allowing themselves to be "underrepresented", despite the fact that the Internet was originally exclusively American.
...Or Northern Light. And if you enter "more evil than satan himself" you (more likely than not) get a hit for an article about Google's unusual search result.
I rather like the idea of two levels of IPC: a basic set and the whole CORBA shebang. Maybe the existence of a simple set of common hooks in this department will encourage more developers to make their programs friendlier to other programs. More modularity is a good thing, to me.
I'm looking forward to the release. Whenever that is.:)
Unfortunately for Venter et al., I have quite a few DNA polymerases (and associated proteins) working for me that not only recognize many DNA structures, but can duplicate them, as well. Additional 100% all-natural components can translate these sequences into RNA, and backends are available to translate RNA into protein. Applications already being pursued include protein synthesis and in vivo genetic recombination. So there.;)
Yes, forget who made the mouse--this is actually really neat technology!
I'd like to see computers and household appliances in general become more user-aware. A mouse that detects you is a start. What about a phone that detects when you're asleep and silently routes calls to your answering machine if you are? And a monitor that's only on if you're sitting in front of it?
Think of the possibilities! Cyberwar with actual blood and gore!
What I'd like to see is Quake (or Half-Life!) TF where you protect your processes from other guys trying to kill them. Yes, killing processes will actually kill the corresponding process on the host box.
Capturing the other guy's flag automatically makes his box reboot...
How interesting. Assuming the ultimate source of this information is reliable, that's the second widely-publicized cyberspy vs. cyberspy incident I've heard of this week.
Doubtless, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Russia cracks the U.S., U.S. cracks Australia... Does Australia crack Russia? Maybe.
Heh, wouldn't work quite as well in 1G. And Mir isn't that promising of a political target.:P
However, if they can get these to survive outside spacecraft... I can see satellites being assassinated.:) Adds a new meaning to the idea of a "Star Wars" program.
How interesting. If this is true, this so-called "E2K" is just a network of masq'ed computers. Quite believable in theory, though I wonder where the computers all came from...
Yes, they're both definitely necessary to the whole cause of world domination. Consider RMS the idea man and ESR the one who'll sell it.
However, I think that an article of this sort is necessary (though I prob'ly wouldn't have put it in the words ESR did). The fact is, they do have differing methods, and I think they shouldn't be considered interchangeable, as the popular media would have it..
Slashdot Mirror
My Speculative Fiction prof (if you're well-read in short SF, you might know her by her pseudonym--Sally Caves), told us about an exhibit that she saw at Disneyworld once: the House of the Future, or some such.
Imagine a house where everything's plastic and metal. Smooth curves everywhere, something out of the Jetsons.
Instead of discussing Gibson's "The Gernsback Continuum" that day, we reflected on how technology was supposed to change the world, make it into a utopia.
Have any of you wondered why those futuristic settings rarely have any non-futuristic buildings in them? Disney, as did many thinkers of the time, saw a future filled with impossibilities made substantial by the bountiful god of Technology. Nobody would be left behind. Everyone would get a shiny new building of plastic and steel and light.
Today, I type this in a room with hardwood floors, in a building older than my parents. Outside, I see asphalt, cars, and people braced against the cold. They wear natural-seeming fabrics, not aluminum foil Intel bunny suits.
Maybe we're seeking to recover the natural world we've pushed away from us. Or maybe the dream just left us behind.
I remember being quite lost when I started using Linux. Recompiling the kernel for the first time scared the hell outta me. (It would've been better had I known about 'make menuconfig' or even 'make xconfig', which this article covers.) I definitely agree this sort of article is needed, even though the requisite information is doubtless available from already existing sources (like the linux/Documentation directory).
There are a few points which could've definitely used improvement. For one thing, the article's quite biased toward Red Hat. Understandable, as it's a choice for many who are new to Linux, but still there could be mention of other ways of doing things--to satisfy curious gurus-to-be, at the very least.
Along the lines of edification, perhaps some more detail could have been given for the hows and wherefores of using certain commands. Since this article seemed to use RH as a basis, perhaps some explanation on what exactly that ugly rpm command was doing would be in order. To their credit, though, they did have links to related articles.
Finally, I think some newbies could benefit from information on gathering more information for themselves about the Linux kernel--further reading, to be specific. Every kernel hacker starts somewhere, and a mention of the linux/Documentation directory (at the very least) would be helpful to those wishing to learn the art.
Thanks to PCWorld for this article--though it might not explain everything, at the very least it can help with the intimidating process of customizing one's kernel.
I've noted that many of my favorite authors, who defined the genres of modern SF, have been passing on lately. But still I haven't seen anybody quite worthy of wearing their mantles--yet. Perhaps it's just that we're in a transition period. Or perhaps the legacy is already being carried on--in the form of not one, but several authors. Thoughts?
First off, I'd appreciate a more civil tone, should you choose to respond again.
Now to address your post:
Yes, Outlook is easy to use, and, as such, has its merits. But the issue at hand is one of security, not ease-of-use. An application that is user-friendly is not necessarily secure.
Note that I said "precautions" in my post. An update does exist, as stated by the article. However, that does not change the fact that the possibility of using such tight integration in an attack should have been addressed beforehand. To their credit (or folly--whatever have you), the flaw was in the security label for the affected controls, an accident--though I believe the labels shouldn't have been the sole determinant of the permissions granted them.
Staying silent on this issue is hardly an option for me. The article also states that there may be other HTML-email issues present, and I firmly believe security through obscurity is not the best defense.
Amazing(?) that MS didn't take precautions against this happening. Then again, they've got so many Windows extensions out there, that it's gotta be hard to keep track of the interactions... Seems like they're running as fast as they can just to keep up with the problems.
Then again, some of it is the responsibility (or lack thereof) of the end user. I find it depressing that people will mindlessly follow such simple directives as "Open Me". Even though the subject in this case wasn't quite that direct, it still would seem rather alien in my inbox.
I've had a relationship that started through the Internet. I learned a few things:
Online communication only shows a little slice of the whole person. Thus, I figure it's best to wait until a RL meeting before committing to anything.
If you want to see how Linux et al. seem to fit into the picture, check out III.B.2.c in the Findings of Fact. Also, for Open Source info, check out III.B.3. I find it interesting that the judge still labeled Linux a "fringe OS" despite all the media attention.
In my mind, in the context of this case, that label actually applies--at least until Linux becomes even more friendly to people who'd like a near-effortless migration from WinXX.
There appear to be several things which need to happen before such a boycott could proceed successfully:
Perhaps my biggest qualm is that the initial furor over Unisys has died down. If this had been organized earlier, maybe there would have been more positive reaction--and, I dare say, the mainstream media might have latched on to it!
I'm sure that some compliments couldn't hurt their commitment to making the SB Live! work better with Linux (and other OSes, by the way). Pat them on their collective head and tell them they've been good. :)
Comments developer relations can be emailed to dev-questions@creative.com or submitted by web at http://developer.soundblaster.com/feedb ack/.
If anyone has any other addresses which may be appropriate, feel free to post 'em!
I was one Trekker who was attracted to Babylon 5 because it offered a whole new perspective on the space genre. There was a new universe, produced in what was (at the time it started) a rather novel fashion for a large-scale space series. And the perspective wasn't nearly as centered on one species/alliance/side as it was in Star Trek.
To paraphrase Darwin: evolve or die.
Though I appreciate the symbolic value of "Wargames", it's just not a real-life example of the 'Net striking back. My nomination for #1 would be the cracking and slashdotting of kipling.com's "hacker" contest. >:)
Ye gods, they should've put Tux through all the astronaut training before launching him. 8)
Aside from that, one way of producing a name is as follows:
Example: Barsoom
Alternatively, one can aim for a two-syllable word ending in ux that has some deeper meaning than the obvious.
I'm sure the /. community can think of plenty more.
I know that the Internet began as a primarily American phenomenon. Likely, that hasn't changed much, despite the globalization of the Internet.
However, I think that if we are to make the Internet a truly global phenomenon, the US should be prepared to let other nations have a significant say in what happens to the 'Net. This means swallowing some pride and allowing themselves to be "underrepresented", despite the fact that the Internet was originally exclusively American.
Just my 0.02 zlotniks.
...Or Northern Light. And if you enter "more evil than satan himself" you (more likely than not) get a hit for an article about Google's unusual search result.
:P
Not only is this contrived, it's rather boring.
I rather like the idea of two levels of IPC: a basic set and the whole CORBA shebang. Maybe the existence of a simple set of common hooks in this department will encourage more developers to make their programs friendlier to other programs. More modularity is a good thing, to me.
:)
I'm looking forward to the release. Whenever that is.
Unfortunately for Venter et al., I have quite a few DNA polymerases (and associated proteins) working for me that not only recognize many DNA structures, but can duplicate them, as well. Additional 100% all-natural components can translate these sequences into RNA, and backends are available to translate RNA into protein. Applications already being pursued include protein synthesis and in vivo genetic recombination. So there. ;)
Yes, forget who made the mouse--this is actually really neat technology!
I'd like to see computers and household appliances in general become more user-aware. A mouse that detects you is a start. What about a phone that detects when you're asleep and silently routes calls to your answering machine if you are? And a monitor that's only on if you're sitting in front of it?
Sensitive technology is fun.
Think of the possibilities! Cyberwar with actual blood and gore!
What I'd like to see is Quake (or Half-Life!) TF where you protect your processes from other guys trying to kill them. Yes, killing processes will actually kill the corresponding process on the host box.
Capturing the other guy's flag automatically makes his box reboot...
In any case, I'm downloading the patch. 8)
Maybe not a checksum--I'm guessing perhaps a unique key for each line.
One wonders if the formatting as presented is even significant.
-W-
How interesting. Assuming the ultimate source of this information is reliable, that's the second widely-publicized cyberspy vs. cyberspy incident I've heard of this week.
Doubtless, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Russia cracks the U.S., U.S. cracks Australia... Does Australia crack Russia? Maybe.
Is there a war going on or something?
-W-
To pass a Turing test? I think I'm sentient. Maybe I'll give it a go. 8)
In all seriousness, have there been any previous projects that have passed Turing tests under conditions dictated by an independent third party?
-W-
Rather, gun, but the gist is there. 8)
-W-
Heh, wouldn't work quite as well in 1G. And Mir isn't that promising of a political target. :P
:) Adds a new meaning to the idea of a "Star Wars" program.
However, if they can get these to survive outside spacecraft... I can see satellites being assassinated.
-W-
How interesting. If this is true, this so-called "E2K" is just a network of masq'ed computers. Quite believable in theory, though I wonder where the computers all came from...
Power of Linux, eh? 8)
-W-
Yes, they're both definitely necessary to the whole cause of world domination. Consider RMS the idea man and ESR the one who'll sell it.
However, I think that an article of this sort is necessary (though I prob'ly wouldn't have put it in the words ESR did). The fact is, they do have differing methods, and I think they shouldn't be considered interchangeable, as the popular media would have it..
-W-