The education ministry in Japan recently sponsored/bought an English education program for 5th and 6th graders.
Macromedia.
No Mac version.
Linux version? What?
Most Boards of Education are just buying boatloads of netbooks for running the thing, netbooks that run, you guessed it, MSWindows. (Macs? Get serious. Cost too much. Nobody uses them. Linux? Huh? That's for college students. Longhaired college students who have social problems.)
Some elements of the networks were running on customized Red Hat or Fedora servers, but they are being replaced with MSWindows network servers. (Just wait 'til one of those internal servers gets backdoored.)
Microsoft lead the world in bulk-loading certs in the browser, because they wanted to put that "feature" on the label.
You can't bulk-load certs in the browser like that unless the browser is able to delineate all the contexts successfully. No Microsoft browser I know of is able to properly delineate contexts.
The best way to solve the problem would be to quit trying to build an all-in-one browser, but Microsoft engineers can't understand that concept. (That's part of the reason they can't properly delineate contexts.)
Even though Microsoft's software will tell you that it thinks the cert is correctly or incorrectly configured, any time it tells you the cert is correct it's lying to you.
In the present context, there is no such thing as a valid SSL certificate.
Until the browser can tell the difference between your bank's cert and a driver vendor's cert, you can't meaningfully tell the browser to trust a cert.
But, really, you shouldn't be doing bank business with the same browser that you use for downloading drivers.
Is it just me, or is the first onslaught of posts unusually full of people who seem to want to judge government first and read/think later? I mean, beyond the usual level here.
I mean, something has to be done. We are well over 50% of the internet's capacity being used to send people junk mail, most of it both offensive and fraudulent, far too much of it containing executable payloads that harm the internet itself, etc.
If the ISPs don't take voluntary action at a level of minimum intrusion, some excited parents' group is going to hold a referendum and hand their government the right to intrude in every living room.
Sure, this proposal goes too far in places, misses the boat technically in others. It's not perfect. But it's better than legalizing deep inspection to be adminitered and performed by the agency of the UN/international courts.
If we want better than this, we need to come up with counter-proposals of our own, get out, educate people. (And get ourselves off the OS that is the primary medium of abuse.)
My ISPs are cool with my internal network, as long as I maintain it myself and don't push my connection to max all day long 168 hours a week and stuff. I've asked, and they say they just aren't willing to give me multiple IP addresses unless I'm willing to pay for them. Which is actually sort of reasonable in the IPv4 world.
I do wish they would pick up IPv6, but that's a different issue.
This policy statement goes a little overboard, and it could be better named, but the ISPs need to take more steps in maintaining their networks, including the principle bullet points here.
This "icode" thing is voluntary, to be implemented by the providers.
I see one problem already ("... is novel or not previously seen by the ISP" should be listed under things to keep an eye on, not under things to report.)
But the concept here is much better than some of the alternatives which have been talked about, and the ISPs should do good things voluntarily, I think, rather than postpone it all until it becomes mandated by laws that will most likely go way overboard.
I mean, sure, I know the fad, but?... but... but...
Well, we used to call intermediate or interpreted codes i-codes in school. I guess I was living in a different branch of reality or something. I mean byte code is so, well, architecture specific.
BASIC09. Wow. Blast from the past. First loves. Things that might/should have been.
But there's a fundamental problem. An intractible problem, even.
Browsers simply try too hard to be all things to all people.
That's an impossible task without making all people conform to your definition of all people. Woops, totalitarian dictators and religious idealogues keep trying that one and finding it doesn't work either.
We should not be continuing to try to build or define the ultimate browser. We should, instead, be defining standards for browsers for specific application fields in specific countries.
Open standards, not standards led by any industry leader or special interest group.
Simple, standard browsers, implemented and implementable by small teams with unencumbered tools. With an overall API a single developer can grasp, and libraries that don't require teams just to find out where to find the answers.
That's all very well and good, until you want to deal with paper sizes, fonts, and (heaven forbid) backgrounds in data cells in tables. (I really, really wanted that last one to work for a little app I have that is literally only half as useful without backgrounds in data cells.)
Browsers try to be too many things to too many people.
I think the point he was trying to make is that Java's biggest selling point is that Sun really worked hard to make working with the network feel the same as working with the file system.
(Not commenting on the relative merits, here. Too many underestimations in every technology I've ever worked with. Java is good for consistency, if you can put up with the overhead of detail.)
HTML beyond really basic stuff is hard to parse. (That's why it took so long to make near-wysiwig editors for it. Our processor/memory specs are just now getting into the ballpark.)
I'm an American, married to a non-American, living outside the US. My wife had a green card when we got married, the regulations said she had to give it up after we had lived outside the US for three years. Taking her and our children back into the states for anything but a visit would require breaking their regulations at this point -- taking her in on a visitor's visa and then requesting a change of status from there.
Or living apart for a year while I saved up the money to prove to the immigration "services" that I'm not a loser after all.
That's not the only reason, but closing the borders is not the answer, either.
I don't know where you got the mod points from, but others without as many real-world sock-puppets have pointed out where you are either lying or fooling yourself.
Look at all the resources intel has to waste keeping x86 afloat. Engineering resources, marketing resources, arm twisting, kickbacks and bribes,...
Imagine what we could have, if the resources intel is putting into keep x86 afloat were put into ARM. Or, shoot, PPC. Sparc, ColdFire. MIPS. The other Moore's FORTH CPU.
No, you can't imagine it because you're afraid it would offend your gods.
it only postpones the problem, as long as the industry itself is pushing impossible deadlines and weighing them down (and fueling them) with impossible feature lists.
Sandboxing is good in theory, but nobody really does it right, yet. The present version is more of a low wall than a speedbump, for now. Today's low walls are tomorrows speedbumps.
Slashdot Mirror
The education ministry in Japan recently sponsored/bought an English education program for 5th and 6th graders.
Macromedia.
No Mac version.
Linux version? What?
Most Boards of Education are just buying boatloads of netbooks for running the thing, netbooks that run, you guessed it, MSWindows. (Macs? Get serious. Cost too much. Nobody uses them. Linux? Huh? That's for college students. Longhaired college students who have social problems.)
Some elements of the networks were running on customized Red Hat or Fedora servers, but they are being replaced with MSWindows network servers. (Just wait 'til one of those internal servers gets backdoored.)
Effective monopoly.
Excellent metaphor.
All-in-one browsers are the wrong UI for the internet.
Microsoft lead the world in bulk-loading certs in the browser, because they wanted to put that "feature" on the label.
You can't bulk-load certs in the browser like that unless the browser is able to delineate all the contexts successfully. No Microsoft browser I know of is able to properly delineate contexts.
The best way to solve the problem would be to quit trying to build an all-in-one browser, but Microsoft engineers can't understand that concept. (That's part of the reason they can't properly delineate contexts.)
Even though Microsoft's software will tell you that it thinks the cert is correctly or incorrectly configured, any time it tells you the cert is correct it's lying to you.
In the present context, there is no such thing as a valid SSL certificate.
Until the browser can tell the difference between your bank's cert and a driver vendor's cert, you can't meaningfully tell the browser to trust a cert.
But, really, you shouldn't be doing bank business with the same browser that you use for downloading drivers.
My argument is that every cert is invalid.
Is it just me, or is the first onslaught of posts unusually full of people who seem to want to judge government first and read/think later? I mean, beyond the usual level here.
I mean, something has to be done. We are well over 50% of the internet's capacity being used to send people junk mail, most of it both offensive and fraudulent, far too much of it containing executable payloads that harm the internet itself, etc.
If the ISPs don't take voluntary action at a level of minimum intrusion, some excited parents' group is going to hold a referendum and hand their government the right to intrude in every living room.
Sure, this proposal goes too far in places, misses the boat technically in others. It's not perfect. But it's better than legalizing deep inspection to be adminitered and performed by the agency of the UN/international courts.
If we want better than this, we need to come up with counter-proposals of our own, get out, educate people. (And get ourselves off the OS that is the primary medium of abuse.)
My ISPs are cool with my internal network, as long as I maintain it myself and don't push my connection to max all day long 168 hours a week and stuff. I've asked, and they say they just aren't willing to give me multiple IP addresses unless I'm willing to pay for them. Which is actually sort of reasonable in the IPv4 world.
I do wish they would pick up IPv6, but that's a different issue.
This policy statement goes a little overboard, and it could be better named, but the ISPs need to take more steps in maintaining their networks, including the principle bullet points here.
This "icode" thing is voluntary, to be implemented by the providers.
I see one problem already ("... is novel or not previously seen by the ISP" should be listed under things to keep an eye on, not under things to report.)
But the concept here is much better than some of the alternatives which have been talked about, and the ISPs should do good things voluntarily, I think, rather than postpone it all until it becomes mandated by laws that will most likely go way overboard.
They call this icode?
I mean, sure, I know the fad, but? ... but ... but ...
Well, we used to call intermediate or interpreted codes i-codes in school. I guess I was living in a different branch of reality or something. I mean byte code is so, well, architecture specific.
BASIC09. Wow. Blast from the past. First loves. Things that might/should have been.
ahem.
Should I hit the AC button on this or own up to the metaphor in my mind?
here
Hmm.
ActiveState has left a bad taste in my mouth in the past. My quick research just now may have dug up some reasons to re-evaluate them.
Boogey, man.
I really, really wish I could agree with you.
But there's a fundamental problem. An intractible problem, even.
Browsers simply try too hard to be all things to all people.
That's an impossible task without making all people conform to your definition of all people. Woops, totalitarian dictators and religious idealogues keep trying that one and finding it doesn't work either.
We should not be continuing to try to build or define the ultimate browser. We should, instead, be defining standards for browsers for specific application fields in specific countries.
Open standards, not standards led by any industry leader or special interest group.
Simple, standard browsers, implemented and implementable by small teams with unencumbered tools. With an overall API a single developer can grasp, and libraries that don't require teams just to find out where to find the answers.
That's all very well and good, until you want to deal with paper sizes, fonts, and (heaven forbid) backgrounds in data cells in tables. (I really, really wanted that last one to work for a little app I have that is literally only half as useful without backgrounds in data cells.)
Browsers try to be too many things to too many people.
That is precisely what the problem is.
I think the point he was trying to make is that Java's biggest selling point is that Sun really worked hard to make working with the network feel the same as working with the file system.
(Not commenting on the relative merits, here. Too many underestimations in every technology I've ever worked with. Java is good for consistency, if you can put up with the overhead of detail.)
It was already broken.
More information to work from.
More flaky interactions to exploit.
Predictability is no substitute for security. It's not even halfway there.
NYah Nyah, I can't see you, you can't hurt me!
HTML beyond really basic stuff is hard to parse. (That's why it took so long to make near-wysiwig editors for it. Our processor/memory specs are just now getting into the ballpark.)
I mean, really hard to parse.
In case I have to spell things out,
R-E-C-U-R-S-I-O-N
for starters. Oh, and
unspecified O-B-J-E-C-T-s. Extensibility.
And, things-that-are-hard-to-parse-are-easy-to-hide-things-that-aren't-supposed-to-be-there-in.
HTML isn't really a bad idea for help documents, but where do you put the walls? Where did Microsoft fail to put the walls?
Shoehorn, whatever, Microsoft was too busy pushing features to take the market over with to build their product responsibly, and they still are.
There's some logic in that.
But I'm going to throw an anecdote your way:
I'm an American, married to a non-American, living outside the US. My wife had a green card when we got married, the regulations said she had to give it up after we had lived outside the US for three years. Taking her and our children back into the states for anything but a visit would require breaking their regulations at this point -- taking her in on a visitor's visa and then requesting a change of status from there.
Or living apart for a year while I saved up the money to prove to the immigration "services" that I'm not a loser after all.
That's not the only reason, but closing the borders is not the answer, either.
I don't know where you got the mod points from, but others without as many real-world sock-puppets have pointed out where you are either lying or fooling yourself.
Look at all the resources intel has to waste keeping x86 afloat. Engineering resources, marketing resources, arm twisting, kickbacks and bribes, ...
Imagine what we could have, if the resources intel is putting into keep x86 afloat were put into ARM. Or, shoot, PPC. Sparc, ColdFire. MIPS. The other Moore's FORTH CPU.
No, you can't imagine it because you're afraid it would offend your gods.
it only postpones the problem, as long as the industry itself is pushing impossible deadlines and weighing them down (and fueling them) with impossible feature lists.
Sandboxing is good in theory, but nobody really does it right, yet. The present version is more of a low wall than a speedbump, for now. Today's low walls are tomorrows speedbumps.
That's one of the reasons I quit the industry 4 years ago.
Not sure why I think I want to return to the industry now, I'm sure I'm not going to get anybody to listen to me this time.
I wonder if my sock puppet has mod points.
Come to think of it, we had less automotive pollution (overall, not in certain specific areas) in the '70s, too.