What's new in XP, except for the ugly blue window titlebars that everyone turns off the first thing after installation?
If it's just support for newer hardware (XP doesn't need a floppy to install to a SATA drive, right?), then the same argument will apply to Vista in a year or two.
XP was the same. I tried it once when it came out, and it took like 10 minutes to completely boot on my 300 MHz processor (which I believe was pretty standard back then). My thoughts were exactly the same as the stuff everyone is saying about Vista now. I wonder if in 5 years everyone will be saying how Vista is speedy and some new Windows version needs unreasonable hardware...
I stuck with Windows 2000 at the time and migrated to Linux later, but whenever I needed to set up a Windows computer for someone, I used 2000, because I never could shake the feeling that XP is bloated, just like everyone feels about Vista.
So what exactly is it that makes XP OK (in comparison with previous versions, like 2000) and Vista too bloated (in comparison with previous versions, like XP)?
A better system would have the end-user pay someone they trust to identify the site; they are directly paying for the identification service and can take their business elsewhere if they get crap service.
This is as if you said that a shopping center should not pay for the security guards, but the customers that visit this shopping center should.
The web site provides services to its users (usually not for free - even if only for the revenue from advertising), and security is just one of these services. End users do end up paying for that (either by directly paying the site owners, or by clicking on the advertisements), but there is absolutely no reason for end users to want to pay for security to a 3rd party.
If some CA doesn't do a good enough job at verifying what it signs, then this CA is (or should be?) removed from the lists included in browsers, thus making all the certificates it issues worthless and forcing web site owners to purchase services from a different CA - which is exactly how it should be.
If there is a problem with this system, it is not a design problem, it's a problem with implementation. If users are ignoring the warnings, then they should be more persistent and explanatory (like the Firefox warnings are now, though I'm not so sure about the "explanatory" part). If the CAs sign keys without verifying their owners, then they should be punished. If there is no authority that regulates the CAs (checking whether their verification processes are thorough enough, etc.), then maybe there should.
You write on a piece of paper, read a book, or do anything besides looking on a screen this way, for that matter. People don't seem to have had any problem with that in the last 3000 years.
Anyway, you could have two screens. One output-only like you have now, and one touchscreen instead (or next to) the keyboard.
5:4 screen will always have more pixels than 16:10 with the same diagonal, as the aspect ratio is closer to square. It has nothing to do with LCD/CRT monitors.
Well, if you are in control of the server, you can use SSL (which is part of the specification, so client support is practically universal) and there's no need to add additional layer of encryption on the client side.
I use blip.tv. They offer very good video quality in a Flash player and will host the original video file on their site so you can provide a download link as well. The Flash player is also very customizable, so you can fit it into your site and you don't even have to link to or otherwise advertise them. See also the comparison on Wikipedia.
machines have a cryptographically encoded conversation to establish both parties' authenticity
Isn't this what OpenID does? TFA obviously doesn't understand the point of OpenID, which is to completely abstract from the details of the method the user uses to authenticate. The OpenID specification doesn't care whether you use password or some special hardware token to authenticate with your OpenID provider. It's just the fact that most OpenID providers use web-based password authentication that gives it the bad reputation. There certainly are a few that use public key cryptography, and you can always setup your own using whatever you consider the most secure.
I double the parent's request. Please point me to a free CA with certificate installed by default in the major browsers, or point me to the $10 one at least. All that I know of cost hundrends of dollars for a single year certificate.
Here's a better analogy. In small towns, grocery store owners often know their regular customers. They can remember what you have been buying and offer you similar products. Would you consider that infringing on your privacy? How is that different from a website that tracks what articles/pages you've been viewing and then offering you relevant ads?
Slashdot Mirror
What's new in XP, except for the ugly blue window titlebars that everyone turns off the first thing after installation? If it's just support for newer hardware (XP doesn't need a floppy to install to a SATA drive, right?), then the same argument will apply to Vista in a year or two.
XP was the same. I tried it once when it came out, and it took like 10 minutes to completely boot on my 300 MHz processor (which I believe was pretty standard back then). My thoughts were exactly the same as the stuff everyone is saying about Vista now. I wonder if in 5 years everyone will be saying how Vista is speedy and some new Windows version needs unreasonable hardware...
I stuck with Windows 2000 at the time and migrated to Linux later, but whenever I needed to set up a Windows computer for someone, I used 2000, because I never could shake the feeling that XP is bloated, just like everyone feels about Vista.
So what exactly is it that makes XP OK (in comparison with previous versions, like 2000) and Vista too bloated (in comparison with previous versions, like XP)?
I wonder if anyone's ever tried :wq on BSOD. It might just work...
It seems to me that we are actually quite fond of remembering Windows ME here on Slashdot.
A better system would have the end-user pay someone they trust to identify the site; they are directly paying for the identification service and can take their business elsewhere if they get crap service.
This is as if you said that a shopping center should not pay for the security guards, but the customers that visit this shopping center should.
The web site provides services to its users (usually not for free - even if only for the revenue from advertising), and security is just one of these services. End users do end up paying for that (either by directly paying the site owners, or by clicking on the advertisements), but there is absolutely no reason for end users to want to pay for security to a 3rd party.
If some CA doesn't do a good enough job at verifying what it signs, then this CA is (or should be?) removed from the lists included in browsers, thus making all the certificates it issues worthless and forcing web site owners to purchase services from a different CA - which is exactly how it should be.
If there is a problem with this system, it is not a design problem, it's a problem with implementation. If users are ignoring the warnings, then they should be more persistent and explanatory (like the Firefox warnings are now, though I'm not so sure about the "explanatory" part). If the CAs sign keys without verifying their owners, then they should be punished. If there is no authority that regulates the CAs (checking whether their verification processes are thorough enough, etc.), then maybe there should.
I'm a GNU/Linux.
You write on a piece of paper, read a book, or do anything besides looking on a screen this way, for that matter. People don't seem to have had any problem with that in the last 3000 years. Anyway, you could have two screens. One output-only like you have now, and one touchscreen instead (or next to) the keyboard.
Right, and don't even start with this computer platform until you've mastered the Turing Machine!
We're talking long distance here.
Also, zombo.com.
Every base is base-10... in base-10.
5:4 screen will always have more pixels than 16:10 with the same diagonal, as the aspect ratio is closer to square. It has nothing to do with LCD/CRT monitors.
Well, if you are in control of the server, you can use SSL (which is part of the specification, so client support is practically universal) and there's no need to add additional layer of encryption on the client side.
There is such thing as DRM, it just doesn't work.
Which should be obvious given that they're using GNU/Linux.
hello there rms
Fixed
There, fixed it for you. You must be new here.
I use blip.tv. They offer very good video quality in a Flash player and will host the original video file on their site so you can provide a download link as well. The Flash player is also very customizable, so you can fit it into your site and you don't even have to link to or otherwise advertise them. See also the comparison on Wikipedia.
Try playing Doom 3 in the middle of the night with headphones on top volume, and then tell me it's not frightening enough.
Isn't this what OpenID does? TFA obviously doesn't understand the point of OpenID, which is to completely abstract from the details of the method the user uses to authenticate. The OpenID specification doesn't care whether you use password or some special hardware token to authenticate with your OpenID provider. It's just the fact that most OpenID providers use web-based password authentication that gives it the bad reputation. There certainly are a few that use public key cryptography, and you can always setup your own using whatever you consider the most secure.
I double the parent's request. Please point me to a free CA with certificate installed by default in the major browsers, or point me to the $10 one at least. All that I know of cost hundrends of dollars for a single year certificate.
Google has GWT already, and it uses Java rather than some new language/framework.
Here's a better analogy. In small towns, grocery store owners often know their regular customers. They can remember what you have been buying and offer you similar products. Would you consider that infringing on your privacy? How is that different from a website that tracks what articles/pages you've been viewing and then offering you relevant ads?
+1 Sad :(
Why is this modded down? It really seems to be the very same diagram.
Have you ever seen an Acer fanboy?