Actually a dirty bomb would inspire *huge* amounts of terror. A very effective terrorist weapon in fact. Anything with 'nuclear' and 'radiation' in close proximity the fear level goes off the scale.
Don't underestimate fear - look at the Antrax scare.. Anthrax is already in the environment, is relatively difficult to catch , easily cured anyway with antibiotics, and really fails as a 'real' weapon. OTOH the *mere threat* of a few spores being sent by the mail paralyzed the country for several weeks. The press were wildly predicting doomsday scenarios and tens of thousands dead. People believed them (well, most did.. at our office we were busily sending envelopes containing flour through the internal mail system to watch peoples reactions...)
Considering the distinct lack of nuclear attacks in the past few decades, about 100%.
No, that's the false negative rate. We don't have any information to state what the false positive rate is, because we don't know what the true positive rate is.
For a dev machine running that combination even on XP I wouldn't go with less than 2GB... given Vista's memory footprint you'd probably want 4GB for that.
btw. Have they fixed JIT in 2008 (is that out of beta yet?). Certainly on VS2003 and VS2005 UAC simply hoses any attempt at debugging, because it blocks it.
Also btw. this is *nothing* like the early days of XP. In those days only the devs hated it because of its stupid interface and they way they moved everything around. Now you've got ordinary non-technical people literally calling their techie friends and begging them to install XP on their new machines because nothing works.
In most companies we deal with even upgrading to 2003 or XP is considered a risk, and only done on noncritical machines run in parallel with the critical ones.
In Nov 06 you're talking about the RC I presume - the one that wouldn't run anything useful without falling over... in production? I wish I had the balls to try that.
NT 3.1 was actually quite good. Stable as a rock. NT 3.5 wasn't bad either. NT4 it started to go downhill. 2000 started out a trainwreck and ended up quite good after enough service packs and fixes... as did XP (only took them 2 (arguably) or 3 service packs to do it too).
Vista is still at the trainwreck stage, but at least SP1 takes it out of beta.
Let me guess.. you just browse and never really use it.
I used it from pre-launch until a few months ago.
1. Recursive file copy is broken - it'll copy a few files then crap out without an error. 2. Network file copy is broken - it has a max transfer rate of 2k/sec on a gigabit network (XP on the same hardware can saturate it). 3. Network settings worked for a couple of months then broke, giving 'permission denied' for every screen so you couldn't even tell if the cable was plugged in. 4. It would just reboot, randomly, with no warning. On known good hardware with 100% WHQL drivers. 5. The base OS uses 700mb minimum. On a 1.5GB machine that leaves too little for a decent development environment, so the whole thing slowed to a crawl with both the prefetch *and* swapping to disk driving the hard disk to distraction. 6. The DNS handling is utterly broken - if you try to connect to a local machine more often than not it'd pick something random on the internet and try to connect to that. You have to use FQDN all the time otherwise it's a major security problem (vista is currently banned at our company for precisely this reason). 7. On a laptop it fails to impress. Because it's hitting the hard drive 24/7 the battery life is less than 1/3 of what XP can manage on the same hardware. 8. Sometimes it would just forget its users... literally forgot they existed. You had to boot into safe mode and recover.
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Huh? It's *more* broke in Vista - in fact it simply doesn't work. Every machine on this network, mac, linux, XP, 2000 even NT4 can view every other machine. Vista can't.
XP is more secure than vista in fact, due to its tried and tested codebase and all the major bugs have been found by now.
Your SDK argument doesn't wash - microsoft moved the goalposts and somehow this is the developers fault? I personally know of several APIs that simply behave differently on Vista.. and a program which adheres 100% to the documentation will likely fail if it uses them.
SP1 craps out peoples computers and it's their own fault.. I've heard that from MS fanboys with every update and it's *really* old - MS should do testing. Their OS should *not* fail simply because a piece of 3rd party software does something odd - it should report the error and carry on.
So vista has no problems - it's all due to poorly made drivers and programs... even when the programs are Microsoft software (VS2003 & 2005, SQL Server 2000...) and WHQL drivers.
But OSX upgrade problems are all the OS's fault!
Sorry, that won't wash.
Vista has major issues, and should never have been released in the state it was. SP1 fixes most but not all of them... but it's still way below the usability of XP.
Yeah if anyone invented the mass market 'home' computer it was Sinclair... The ZX80 was close but still largely hobbyist. The ZX81 was the first computer I ever saw up close, and it was being sold in a newsagents, connected to a black and white portable TV... that's what made it so successful - anyone could buy one.
Even apple store employees have told me not to bother with the apple RAM, when I was looking at an mbp.
Every laptop I've owned has fallen apart within 9 months. The mbp doesn't have a scratch on it... it's very well built. Now I don't normally upgrade for power reasons (any laptop made in the last 5 years is more than powerful enough for development, provided you don't do something stupid like put vista on it), but because the hardware simply gives up. I can easily imagine needing to upgrade the mbp half as much as a windows laptop.. thus halving the cost over time.
OSX doesn't really need the GUI unless you specifically want to run a GUI app. For administration it's perfectly possible to do without it - I remotely admin OSX boxes across the world using nothing more than SSH.
Apparently you can launch without the GUI by typing ">console" (without the quotes) into the username at the login prompt.. but I haven't personally tried that.
There's no reason not to run it though.. it does nothing if not used, and ends up in swap eventually anyway.
They haven't really. They released a copy of gcc and some headers, and an emulator, but those 'tools' can't actually create code that runs on the device unless you're one of the chosen few (and *very* few have been picked). And the rules about what you can develop limit 90% of what you could write.. all of which has to be approved by apple.
Oh yeah, and when I said "It looks like you're all set", there was no "Thanks" or "Awesome" or really any positive acknowledgment other than "It's about time".
I've sorted problems for a lot of people, and those kind of assholes are OS independent.
Faced with that attitude the moment it froze when plugging in the *adapter* my response would be to tell them to take it to the apple store as their computer had a fault. I would then leave.
Monopoly does not mean 'the only maker of them'. That would be s silly defintion.
Google gives a good definition:
The situation wherein one company has the market power to control the price or availability of a good or service. If this is unregulated, the company is likely to produce fewer goods or to sell goods more expensively than would be the case in a competitive environment.
FFS don't click that link - it's some sort of browser spawner/malware/virus.
I had to power cycle my machine to shut it down as it managed to completely saturate the machine. As far as I can tell it:
1. Tried to log me onto a gay porn site 2. Tried to open up IRC and do something (failed, luckily, since osx won't let such things happen automatically.. my screen just filled boxes asking if I wanted to start colloquy) 3. Tried to run a.exe - luckily on my mac that did nothing.. that's the virus payload I guess
I reckon if you clicked that button on a windows machine you'd be crying right now - and your passwords would be all over IRC too...
That's about 10 minutes work on the average poorly secured network.
Once you're on there are lots of attacks.. their windows box probably has open shares on it anyway. If not, DNS poisoning + redirects to illegal sites are in order. Once it's in the browser cache they're hosed.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually a dirty bomb would inspire *huge* amounts of terror. A very effective terrorist weapon in fact. Anything with 'nuclear' and 'radiation' in close proximity the fear level goes off the scale.
Don't underestimate fear - look at the Antrax scare.. Anthrax is already in the environment, is relatively difficult to catch , easily cured anyway with antibiotics, and really fails as a 'real' weapon. OTOH the *mere threat* of a few spores being sent by the mail paralyzed the country for several weeks. The press were wildly predicting doomsday scenarios and tens of thousands dead. People believed them (well, most did.. at our office we were busily sending envelopes containing flour through the internal mail system to watch peoples reactions...)
Considering the distinct lack of nuclear attacks in the past few decades, about 100%.
No, that's the false negative rate. We don't have any information to state what the false positive rate is, because we don't know what the true positive rate is.
Not Billy Graham perhaps, but one of the leaders of the US Christian church publically ordered the murder of Hugo Chavez.
Islam isn't the *only* religion that does this, clearly.
Actually Christians and Jews are 'the people of the book' and have protected status under islam.
It's atheists who should be worried...
Vista Ultimate on 1GB?? You shittin' me right?
For a dev machine running that combination even on XP I wouldn't go with less than 2GB... given Vista's memory footprint you'd probably want 4GB for that.
btw. Have they fixed JIT in 2008 (is that out of beta yet?). Certainly on VS2003 and VS2005 UAC simply hoses any attempt at debugging, because it blocks it.
Also btw. this is *nothing* like the early days of XP. In those days only the devs hated it because of its stupid interface and they way they moved everything around. Now you've got ordinary non-technical people literally calling their techie friends and begging them to install XP on their new machines because nothing works.
Wow.. that's risky.
In most companies we deal with even upgrading to 2003 or XP is considered a risk, and only done on noncritical machines run in parallel with the critical ones.
In Nov 06 you're talking about the RC I presume - the one that wouldn't run anything useful without falling over... in production? I wish I had the balls to try that.
Yeah NT was VMS with its brains knocked out.
NT 3.1 was actually quite good. Stable as a rock. NT 3.5 wasn't bad either. NT4 it started to go downhill. 2000 started out a trainwreck and ended up quite good after enough service packs and fixes... as did XP (only took them 2 (arguably) or 3 service packs to do it too).
Vista is still at the trainwreck stage, but at least SP1 takes it out of beta.
Let me guess.. you just browse and never really use it.
I used it from pre-launch until a few months ago.
1. Recursive file copy is broken - it'll copy a few files then crap out without an error.
2. Network file copy is broken - it has a max transfer rate of 2k/sec on a gigabit network (XP on the same hardware can saturate it).
3. Network settings worked for a couple of months then broke, giving 'permission denied' for every screen so you couldn't even tell if the cable was plugged in.
4. It would just reboot, randomly, with no warning. On known good hardware with 100% WHQL drivers.
5. The base OS uses 700mb minimum. On a 1.5GB machine that leaves too little for a decent development environment, so the whole thing slowed to a crawl with both the prefetch *and* swapping to disk driving the hard disk to distraction.
6. The DNS handling is utterly broken - if you try to connect to a local machine more often than not it'd pick something random on the internet and try to connect to that. You have to use FQDN all the time otherwise it's a major security problem (vista is currently banned at our company for precisely this reason).
7. On a laptop it fails to impress. Because it's hitting the hard drive 24/7 the battery life is less than 1/3 of what XP can manage on the same hardware.
8. Sometimes it would just forget its users... literally forgot they existed. You had to boot into safe mode and recover.
Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head.
Huh? It's *more* broke in Vista - in fact it simply doesn't work. Every machine on this network, mac, linux, XP, 2000 even NT4 can view every other machine. Vista can't.
XP is more secure than vista in fact, due to its tried and tested codebase and all the major bugs have been found by now.
Your SDK argument doesn't wash - microsoft moved the goalposts and somehow this is the developers fault? I personally know of several APIs that simply behave differently on Vista.. and a program which adheres 100% to the documentation will likely fail if it uses them.
SP1 craps out peoples computers and it's their own fault.. I've heard that from MS fanboys with every update and it's *really* old - MS should do testing. Their OS should *not* fail simply because a piece of 3rd party software does something odd - it should report the error and carry on.
So vista has no problems - it's all due to poorly made drivers and programs... even when the programs are Microsoft software (VS2003 & 2005, SQL Server 2000...) and WHQL drivers.
But OSX upgrade problems are all the OS's fault!
Sorry, that won't wash.
Vista has major issues, and should never have been released in the state it was. SP1 fixes most but not all of them... but it's still way below the usability of XP.
Yeah if anyone invented the mass market 'home' computer it was Sinclair... The ZX80 was close but still largely hobbyist. The ZX81 was the first computer I ever saw up close, and it was being sold in a newsagents, connected to a black and white portable TV... that's what made it so successful - anyone could buy one.
Even apple store employees have told me not to bother with the apple RAM, when I was looking at an mbp.
Every laptop I've owned has fallen apart within 9 months. The mbp doesn't have a scratch on it... it's very well built. Now I don't normally upgrade for power reasons (any laptop made in the last 5 years is more than powerful enough for development, provided you don't do something stupid like put vista on it), but because the hardware simply gives up. I can easily imagine needing to upgrade the mbp half as much as a windows laptop.. thus halving the cost over time.
You do realize that macs have supported right click for 15 years, right?
Yes just tried that and it works perfectly... GUI-less OSX :p
OSX doesn't really need the GUI unless you specifically want to run a GUI app. For administration it's perfectly possible to do without it - I remotely admin OSX boxes across the world using nothing more than SSH.
Apparently you can launch without the GUI by typing ">console" (without the quotes) into the username at the login prompt.. but I haven't personally tried that.
There's no reason not to run it though.. it does nothing if not used, and ends up in swap eventually anyway.
They haven't really. They released a copy of gcc and some headers, and an emulator, but those 'tools' can't actually create code that runs on the device unless you're one of the chosen few (and *very* few have been picked). And the rules about what you can develop limit 90% of what you could write.. all of which has to be approved by apple.
Seems pretty locked down to me.
That was in response to the 'just copy the folder' comment btw. Damn slashdot crappy threading.
Which part of 'no mass storage device' did you not comprehend?
Oh yeah, and when I said "It looks like you're all set", there was no "Thanks" or "Awesome" or really any positive acknowledgment other than "It's about time".
I've sorted problems for a lot of people, and those kind of assholes are OS independent.
Faced with that attitude the moment it froze when plugging in the *adapter* my response would be to tell them to take it to the apple store as their computer had a fault. I would then leave.
They're actually billed as 6-12 years, but don't have anything like that in real use.
I suspect the same for this technology too.
Don't worry it wouldn't be a problem for long :p
Monopoly does not mean 'the only maker of them'. That would be s silly defintion.
Google gives a good definition:
The situation wherein one company has the market power to control the price or availability of a good or service. If this is unregulated, the company is likely to produce fewer goods or to sell goods more expensively than would be the case in a competitive environment.
FFS don't click that link - it's some sort of browser spawner/malware/virus.
.exe - luckily on my mac that did nothing.. that's the virus payload I guess
I had to power cycle my machine to shut it down as it managed to completely saturate the machine.
As far as I can tell it:
1. Tried to log me onto a gay porn site
2. Tried to open up IRC and do something (failed, luckily, since osx won't let such things happen automatically.. my screen just filled boxes asking if I wanted to start colloquy)
3. Tried to run a
I reckon if you clicked that button on a windows machine you'd be crying right now - and your passwords would be all over IRC too...
You seem to think the above is hard.
That's about 10 minutes work on the average poorly secured network.
Once you're on there are lots of attacks.. their windows box probably has open shares on it anyway. If not, DNS poisoning + redirects to illegal sites are in order. Once it's in the browser cache they're hosed.