Lots of highly popular software just doesn't follow the windows development guidelines. WinAMP was/is popular, but from the perspective of compliance with windows development guidelines, it grades an F, for Fail.
Most people don't know the details of the things they are not proficient in.
Also, it's easy to succumb to group-think. Anything somebody says that doesn't agree with an established opinion is easily dismissed as wrong or hyperbole.
I can picture people looking at your post and making mental contortions "Yeah, right, but you're wrong because..."
"blasting widly in a totally unrealistic fashion as strange creatures fall in front of me. Shortly before being overwhelmed by ridiculous odds, of course."
The basic health-care package includes all of these items: (...) and costs $foo. Applicants cannot be denied the basic health-care package. That's all, see ya.
Laws. College's are not completely free to set their own prices. This can be by _withholding_ subsidies, maximum tuition prices, or mandatory actual cost-only tuition.
Than the person or bank giving out the loan should refuse the loan, or advise the student-to-be against it. This is their job. Or it should be, anyway.
See the current credit crisis for examples on what happens when banks give out loans without verifying the ability to pay back.
Schools that are charging their students more than costs? And they receive subsidies?
My advice? Fix that. Deduct their subsidies to zero if you have to and/or withhold accreditation.
And have the schools give the students budget lists so that the students know how their tuition is being spent. (10% for teachers, 6% infrastructure, 40% landscaping,...)
O Really? So, this phone supports what I want? Bluetooth phone book access? Bluetooth sms access? Bluetooth AD2P? Bluetooth Headset profile? Bluetooth Handsfree profile? Bluetooth Dial up networking profile? T9 physical keyboard? And a nice big screen with a excellent browser?
Truth is, AFAIK, it only has the last one. Bluetooth support is anemic on both the Iphone and android.
If a precision guided bomb drops on some tunnel/cave, they are not going to be intimidated. When 20 precision guided bombs drop on a tunnel/cave-network; then they're going to be intimidated.
I don't know how many predators, UAV's or UCAV's you'd need to deploy to really intimidate the enemy without getting boots on the ground; but I'm guessing it's more than there are now.
I don't use Mac's, but that sounds like a _very_ nice feature!
I don't know how Apple enforces this, but probably through some mandated installation package management? While Windows has MSI, it has none of those features. Sounds like it should have them though.
From your post I can tell you don't get the reason for UAC's creation.
Since DOS 1.0 MS 3'rd party developers have been developing applications that needed root rights to function properly. No begging, scolding or best practices have been able to convince these developers to change their ways and stop recommending that their users run as "Administrator". Most Windows users _do not_ want to work with multiple accounts. So, MS's customers want their account to be able to perform both privileged and un-privileged tasks. And be secure.
You'll see MS was dead-locked with this problem until UAC. MS needed to change the attitude of the 3'rd party developers without fundamentally changing the user-interaction of 99% of the users.
UAC effectively downgrades the administrator user most of the time. And this enables MS to force the 3'rd party developers into making software that actually supports privilege separation. Because each time there is a UAC popup -> it is the 3'rd party developers fault. 3'rd party developers are now hit where it hurts. UAC popups negatively impact the reviews of their products, their sales and their income.
UAC was never intended to significantly increase the security of users who do not have separate logins for normal use and administrator use. Only the usage of separate user accounts constitutes a "security barrier" on Windows.
It however, enables the security conscious (like me) to run as a normal user and only to to login as "Administrator/root" for genuine system maintenance. Although I run XP, I credit UAC as a critical catalyst for change in 3'rd party windows software development.
Before UAC's release, lots of software was unable to function in a multi-user environment. After UAC's introduction, there was a trickle-down effect. Pretty soon after Vista's introduction I no longer had any programs that needed to be run as administrator.
So, UAC helped me in my usage of my computer. And I never had to use Vista to gain its benefits.
I think for an ISP cutting off connections for a lot of people can turn into a support nightmare. Not to mention a litigation nightmare.
Each time they cut somebody off, the ISP runs the risk that person is a lawyer, and that maybe, just maybe, they'll turn him in some nightmarish ghoul like Jack Thompson.
Debatable. Moxie created the bogus Paypal Cert himself. He didn't release it into the wild, sure. But still, I would expect any person or company to have behave hostile towards people who have created tools to attack that person or company _specifically_. Even if they didn't use them.
He could just as easily set up a bogus subdomain with SSL and used that to show the vulnerability.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't rely on BIOS passwords to protect you against three letter agencies. They're basically the kindergarten locks of the pc world.
TPM is supposed to be able to defend against this exact scenario.
I believe I read that Vista's Full Disk Encryption does exactly this. Not sure though.
Well. There's the Civilopedia? It's the one example with the most historic information I can think of right now.
Lots of highly popular software just doesn't follow the windows development guidelines. WinAMP was/is popular, but from the perspective of compliance with windows development guidelines, it grades an F, for Fail.
Perhaps he's installed programs that comply with the windows development guidelines?
Most people don't know the details of the things they are not proficient in.
Also, it's easy to succumb to group-think. Anything somebody says that doesn't agree with an established opinion is easily dismissed as wrong or hyperbole.
I can picture people looking at your post and making mental contortions "Yeah, right, but you're wrong because..."
"blasting widly in a totally unrealistic fashion as strange creatures fall in front of me. Shortly before being overwhelmed by ridiculous odds, of course."
So you saw the ending of Starship Troopers 2?
Just look at Nokia's lineup. They sell something like +60 devices just by themselves. Anywhere from a classic candybar phone to a linux smartphone.
Throwing a whole lineup at the consumer seems to work for them.
Wrong. The admission selection should be the baseline. Anyone not getting through the selection can go ahead and try to buy themselves in.
Educated people are a resource of the nation. It's something to be encouraged. Note that with 'educated people' I also include vocational schooling.
Simple:
Congress to health care insurers:
The basic health-care package includes all of these items: (...) and costs $foo. Applicants cannot be denied the basic health-care package. That's all, see ya.
Laws. College's are not completely free to set their own prices. This can be by _withholding_ subsidies, maximum tuition prices, or mandatory actual cost-only tuition.
Than the person or bank giving out the loan should refuse the loan, or advise the student-to-be against it. This is their job. Or it should be, anyway.
See the current credit crisis for examples on what happens when banks give out loans without verifying the ability to pay back.
Schools that are charging their students more than costs? And they receive subsidies?
My advice? Fix that. Deduct their subsidies to zero if you have to and/or withhold accreditation.
And have the schools give the students budget lists so that the students know how their tuition is being spent. (10% for teachers, 6% infrastructure, 40% landscaping, ...)
Java has been installing plugins in web browsers for ages. I haven't seen any mass complaining about that.
O Really? So, this phone supports what I want? Bluetooth phone book access?
Bluetooth sms access?
Bluetooth AD2P?
Bluetooth Headset profile?
Bluetooth Handsfree profile?
Bluetooth Dial up networking profile?
T9 physical keyboard?
And a nice big screen with a excellent browser?
Truth is, AFAIK, it only has the last one. Bluetooth support is anemic on both the Iphone and android.
If a precision guided bomb drops on some tunnel/cave, they are not going to be intimidated. When 20 precision guided bombs drop on a tunnel/cave-network; then they're going to be intimidated.
I don't know how many predators, UAV's or UCAV's you'd need to deploy to really intimidate the enemy without getting boots on the ground; but I'm guessing it's more than there are now.
I don't use Mac's, but that sounds like a _very_ nice feature!
I don't know how Apple enforces this, but probably through some mandated installation package management? While Windows has MSI, it has none of those features. Sounds like it should have them though.
From your post I can tell you don't get the reason for UAC's creation.
Since DOS 1.0 MS 3'rd party developers have been developing applications that needed root rights to function properly. No begging, scolding or best practices have been able to convince these developers to change their ways and stop recommending that their users run as "Administrator". Most Windows users _do not_ want to work with multiple accounts. So, MS's customers want their account to be able to perform both privileged and un-privileged tasks. And be secure.
You'll see MS was dead-locked with this problem until UAC. MS needed to change the attitude of the 3'rd party developers without fundamentally changing the user-interaction of 99% of the users.
UAC effectively downgrades the administrator user most of the time. And this enables MS to force the 3'rd party developers into making software that actually supports privilege separation. Because each time there is a UAC popup -> it is the 3'rd party developers fault. 3'rd party developers are now hit where it hurts. UAC popups negatively impact the reviews of their products, their sales and their income.
UAC was never intended to significantly increase the security of users who do not have separate logins for normal use and administrator use. Only the usage of separate user accounts constitutes a "security barrier" on Windows.
It however, enables the security conscious (like me) to run as a normal user and only to to login as "Administrator/root" for genuine system maintenance. Although I run XP, I credit UAC as a critical catalyst for change in 3'rd party windows software development.
Before UAC's release, lots of software was unable to function in a multi-user environment. After UAC's introduction, there was a trickle-down effect. Pretty soon after Vista's introduction I no longer had any programs that needed to be run as administrator.
So, UAC helped me in my usage of my computer. And I never had to use Vista to gain its benefits.
Not trusting yourself on issues where you have insufficient experience or knowledge is a sign of wisdom.
Looking at the inboxes of other email addresses, I have a suspicion that not all junk mail reaches gmails spam folder.
Gmail may be deleting some of it without so much as a notice.
I think for an ISP cutting off connections for a lot of people can turn into a support nightmare. Not to mention a litigation nightmare.
Each time they cut somebody off, the ISP runs the risk that person is a lawyer, and that maybe, just maybe, they'll turn him in some nightmarish ghoul like Jack Thompson.
TRIZ? The Russian In Zjail?
Debatable. Moxie created the bogus Paypal Cert himself. He didn't release it into the wild, sure. But still, I would expect any person or company to have behave hostile towards people who have created tools to attack that person or company _specifically_. Even if they didn't use them.
He could just as easily set up a bogus subdomain with SSL and used that to show the vulnerability.
You mean galaxy, not universe. Universe is *everything*. And the Milky Way is the way we see the plane of our galaxy.
Anyway, Destiny has been traveling from galaxy to galaxy during its mission. So, it's no longer in our galaxy.
Star wars documentary style? What do you mean?