As a long-time computer user, and committed pessimist, I'd have hoped you'd think about backups long before you placed all your trust in the cloud.
This is exactly the model that all clouds will eventually mutate into... once enough people become dependent on the cloud, they will announce it will become a paid service the following week.
Your eggs, Google's basket.
Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment... like the body or the subject!) Erm, you mean you can't detect which it is ???
This is the same poo-pooing which has held us back from a viable alternative to fossil fuels for years.
Yes, the initial energy cost for the FIRST batch of cells will have a negative impact, but after that the system is energy efficient, as the SECOND batch of cells can be produced using solar energy created by the first batch. Even if it took 5 years to collect enough energy to create that second batch, it would still have no further cost !
We've been burning fossil fuels for 200 years, and no one gave a damn about carbon positive, carbon negative, carbon neutral until someone started suggesting alternatives that might start to affect the kickbacks certain groups have been receiving for years from the oil companies to promote their products at the cost of all alternatives.
And now anytime anyone comes up with an alternative energy source, the oil lobby groups start with the "energy cost" of alternative technologies... when will you learn, that after the initial investment, the energy is free.
I don't think at this stage we can afford to pick and choose anymore, we have to innovate and move forward.
They are doing it because the entire Philippines (population circa 91m people), has been using a single corporate licence key for XP since the day it was released (well in fact before actually, as we tend to see a lot of beta releases here even before the real product launch day).
Coupled with the fact that before the "I Love You" worm (proudly made in the Philippines), we didn't even have any hacking laws, never mind IP laws. You can still go to any shopping mall and pick up a DVD of Vista for 120 pesos (about 3 USD). And hell, if the O/S is crap, at least the DVD's make interesting decorations dangling from a jeepneys front windscreen:-)
It's not like Microsoft could sell any LESS copies than zero, so they decided it's a good place to promote free software.
Surely it would just mean that it would take 70% longer for everyone to become infected ?
I remember watching a documentary once on AIDS, and one particular African guy who KNEW he had the disease but had embarked on a quest to hump every female that moved anyway.
With that kind of mentality, you are just prolonging the inevitable.
Education will not work with people that are uneducatable. Prevention will not work in a country where there are a million other nasty ways to die (starvation, genocide, Rober Mugabe etc etc).
The sooner we accept that Africa is a lost cause the better... but we're not allowed to say that are we, because the truth really does hurt.
It's not so much about spying as what you do with the information. I can promote Islam or Communism right here on slashdot and, although NSA can probably hack into my account and get the contact info, I am not likely to be tortured and imprisoned
Well, not until they find a replacement for Gitmo anyway.
What does this do for countries without a health care system where aids is rampant?
Exactly the same thing as any eventual cure will do for them... absolutely nothing, as a real cure for HIV/AIDS is the holy grail of pharmaceutical profits for years to come.
The best they can hope for is Robotussin (thanks to Chris Rock for this suggestion).
I can't work out why they'd want to block 3rd party bookings now, especially as they've recently been told they actually have to publish the REAL TOTAL price of the airfare on the first page instead of that whole "99 pence" crap (with 99 pounds in taxes and airport surcharges added on the final bill).
You'd think they'd need all the help they could get. Still, they are Irish... (dons his flameproof underwear ready for the inevitable politically correct flamers).
We've been managing with 200 peso ($5 dollar) keyboards and wheel mice out here in the Philippines for a number of years, and those are faily good quality logitech stuff... the unbranded "copies" sell for even less.
Perhaps we should let the mass producers of Taiwan and China develop a $12 dollar PC ?
AFAIK, THe MySQL doesn't actually select the rows, but does determine which, if any, of the available indices it WOULD use if the query was run, using the cardinality stats stored in the indices themselves.
So you can see from the EXPLAIN that he had indices "a","b", and "c" available, and chose "a" as it would probably return the fewest rows if the query was run.
Sometimes it can cause problems, as his optimizer tends to always choose the index that returns the fewest rows, but experience has shown me that sometimes this doesn't always equate to the fastest response time.
Lest we forget that if an index is not stored in memory, he's still going to have the I/O overhead of loading the MYI (index file) from disk anyway.
Okay, so let's gloss over the fact that I was easily able to respond to your query and that should have put an end to it
You responded easily to the part of the Mozilla security model that up till now is behaving, and glossed over the insecure part which for some reason still forms an integral part of the model.
So the premise is, use a plugin... if you can't find an approved plugin, use an extension which everyone knows is insecure. So do exactly the same as MSIE in case the Mozilla plugin doesn't fulfill your needs. Sure, go ahead, defend the bits that work for you, and ignore the rest... we can let the rest of the readers decide.
I don't understand how you fail to see the difference between a site that happens to ask a user to download and run content (ActiveX) and a user deliberately and consciously choosing to download and install software (Firefox extensions).
One day late in responding, but here it is... fucking nonsense.
When you go to a restaurant and the waiter welcomes you and brings you a menu... do you send him/her back and tell her to "wait until you ask for the menu" ???
It's called convenience (which is supposedly what the internet is about). If you need some plugin to run something on a page, ActiveX will tell you, "do you wish to download this ?". Mozilla will say basically, "click here to download this".
The only conscious decision is clicking on a link, or having that click done automatically.
And if that is your idea of "better security", then God help you.
MSIE tells you "beware of this plugin, don't download it because we're not sure where it comes from"... i.e. the onus is on the user to decide whether he thinks it's safe or not. Mozilla tells you "go ahead, download it, because it comes from our website so it MUST be safe"... great... until the day they let one slip through the net, and then their "added security" is just so much bullshit.
Once just ONE compromised plugin is available on Mozilla, the whole trust model is screwed. MSIE on the other hand have always said "it's up to you, you choose".
Enough, a day late anyway, doubt if anyone will read my rant...
I suppose they could go and join all the looneys holed up in bomb shelters who believed the world was going to end at the turn of the millenium.
But really, in a potentially infinite universe (and of course no one can yet say it ISN'T infinite seeing as the universe is not only expanding, but that expansion is accelerating also), anything is possible.
I can't see how anyone can DENY the fact the we cannot be alone in the universe, and that the whole thing is just so Adam and Eve had something pretty to look at at night.
Okay, so let's just gloss over the extensions because they are a problem, and focus on plugins, which are only downloaded from Mozilla.
Meaning of course every plugin is vetted and 100% secure, until of course there's one that slips through the net and then the whole concept becomes just another embarrassment to the great "firefox is secure" myth. Security through obscurity is not real security, and as the browser becomes more popular, so do the attempts to find a way to corrupt plugins and make them do nasty things.
Look don't get me wrong, IE's track record is god-awful, but the whole ActiveX myth has been laid to rest a long time ago... and it's only FF zealots who attempt to perpetuate it in the attempt make FF look "more secure", when it seems to have just the same amount of problems.
Yes, IE requires the users consent to run ActiveX controls. That's not the same as manually downloading and installing software.
You're right, one requires you to click Run BEFORE you download, the other requires you to click Run AFTER you download. Yes, completely different, I've been such a fool !!!
You mean to say you're of the opinion that ActiveX can't possibly make IE any less secure than any other browser, because the user must consent to run ActiveX content? But yet, in contradiction to that assertion, the fact that malicious Firefox extensions exist makes Firefox less secure than other browsers?
When did I say FF was LESS secure than x other browser ? Never. I merely pointed out that it is no MORE secure than x other browser, because it employs the EXACT same methods to allow third party content to run in it.
Of course, as an obvious FF zealot, you won't take MY word for it... so try this little experiment.
Install on a fresh machine MSIE 6 or 7, and Firefox 3. Then nip across to youtube, and tell me what you see ?
"This video requires the latest version of the Adobe blah blah plugin".
Then tell me, in ALL honesty, that accepting and installing that application, be it ActiveX container for MSIE or a "Plugin" container for Firefox is ANY DIFFERENT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER !!!
That is different from browsing to a website and having malicious code run on your computer without you having to install a thing. That's what ActiveX allows.
So you DIDN'T read it then ?
It has been quite clear to all of us for a long time that ActiveX controls do NOT automagically run any code downloaded from anywhere WITHOUT the user's consent (at least since IE 6 with security on it's default setting).
So your statement is perpetuating a fallacy in the attempt to say that somehow one type of container is somehow "safer" than another.
They are, and have been for a long time, identical in behaviour, in that they BOTH require the user (no matter how inexperienced) to make the YES / NO choice.
ActiveX is an application WRAPPER... repeat after me... a WRAPPER... one that allows an application to be embedded into another so that some degree of control can be exercised from the containing app.
This means that extra functionality can be accessed above what is usually provided by the containing app.
Anyone can write an application and make it useable as an ActiveX control... it's not just the bad boys up at Redmond that "control ActiveX".
When you install third party software on your PC and it crashes, who do you blame ? The writer of course.
But for some reason allowing an embedded third party software to run using IE as a container, you suddenly want to be absolved of all blame, and point the finger at Microsoft for designing the container format ?
Whereas I suppose Mozilla's Plug In format can do no wrong ? Even though there are plenty of malicious plugins and vulnerabilities for that also.
Slashdot Mirror
As a long-time computer user, and committed pessimist, I'd have hoped you'd think about backups long before you placed all your trust in the cloud.
... once enough people become dependent on the cloud, they will announce it will become a paid service the following week.
... like the body or the subject!) Erm, you mean you can't detect which it is ???
This is exactly the model that all clouds will eventually mutate into
Your eggs, Google's basket.
Cat got your tongue? (something important seems to be missing from your comment
This is the same poo-pooing which has held us back from a viable alternative to fossil fuels for years.
Yes, the initial energy cost for the FIRST batch of cells will have a negative impact, but after that the system is energy efficient, as the SECOND batch of cells can be produced using solar energy created by the first batch. Even if it took 5 years to collect enough energy to create that second batch, it would still have no further cost !
We've been burning fossil fuels for 200 years, and no one gave a damn about carbon positive, carbon negative, carbon neutral until someone started suggesting alternatives that might start to affect the kickbacks certain groups have been receiving for years from the oil companies to promote their products at the cost of all alternatives.
And now anytime anyone comes up with an alternative energy source, the oil lobby groups start with the "energy cost" of alternative technologies ... when will you learn, that after the initial investment, the energy is free.
I don't think at this stage we can afford to pick and choose anymore, we have to innovate and move forward.
They are doing it because the entire Philippines (population circa 91m people), has been using a single corporate licence key for XP since the day it was released (well in fact before actually, as we tend to see a lot of beta releases here even before the real product launch day).
Coupled with the fact that before the "I Love You" worm (proudly made in the Philippines), we didn't even have any hacking laws, never mind IP laws. You can still go to any shopping mall and pick up a DVD of Vista for 120 pesos (about 3 USD). And hell, if the O/S is crap, at least the DVD's make interesting decorations dangling from a jeepneys front windscreen :-)
It's not like Microsoft could sell any LESS copies than zero, so they decided it's a good place to promote free software.
I think I'd rather drill Liv Tyler than the meteor to be honest (although I'm sure my wife would disagree).
Surely it would just mean that it would take 70% longer for everyone to become infected ?
I remember watching a documentary once on AIDS, and one particular African guy who KNEW he had the disease but had embarked on a quest to hump every female that moved anyway.
With that kind of mentality, you are just prolonging the inevitable.
Education will not work with people that are uneducatable.
Prevention will not work in a country where there are a million other nasty ways to die (starvation, genocide, Rober Mugabe etc etc).
The sooner we accept that Africa is a lost cause the better ... but we're not allowed to say that are we, because the truth really does hurt.
I would imagine most of the graphics will show a distinct concentric circle pattern, centered around the solitary female at the conference.
It's not so much about spying as what you do with the information. I can promote Islam or Communism right here on slashdot and, although NSA can probably hack into my account and get the contact info, I am not likely to be tortured and imprisoned
Well, not until they find a replacement for Gitmo anyway.
What does this do for countries without a health care system where aids is rampant?
Exactly the same thing as any eventual cure will do for them ... absolutely nothing, as a real cure for HIV/AIDS is the holy grail of pharmaceutical profits for years to come.
The best they can hope for is Robotussin (thanks to Chris Rock for this suggestion).
I can't work out why they'd want to block 3rd party bookings now, especially as they've recently been told they actually have to publish the REAL TOTAL price of the airfare on the first page instead of that whole "99 pence" crap (with 99 pounds in taxes and airport surcharges added on the final bill).
You'd think they'd need all the help they could get. Still, they are Irish ... (dons his flameproof underwear ready for the inevitable politically correct flamers).
1975 ARPANET and Ethernet Hook up
1976 - 1992 ???
1993 ahead scattering of notable events (and the omission of many more)
2008 Profit ?
Seems this is not so much of a time line as a black hole (goatse again) ... we seem to have lost 17 years of internet history.
Oops! Looks like the topic you're looking for doesn't exist
Yes those pesky free markets with their innovation. Damn those telephones, damn those e-mails, damn those cell phones, damn them all to hell.
We should ALL be using morse code, now THERE was a standard !!!
And I don't think they could work out what chicken tastes like, which is why chicken tastes like everything else.
Shut up Mouse !
We've been managing with 200 peso ($5 dollar) keyboards and wheel mice out here in the Philippines for a number of years, and those are faily good quality logitech stuff ... the unbranded "copies" sell for even less.
Perhaps we should let the mass producers of Taiwan and China develop a $12 dollar PC ?
While probably a controversial point, a $12 dollar sterilization per child would go a lot further to solving their problems.
Yes, because Firefox does SUCH a wonderful job with vertical-align within a DIV.
Only 2 wrapped divs and combinations of absolute and relative positioning, as opposed to MSIE's 3 wrapped divs :-(
AFAIK, THe MySQL doesn't actually select the rows, but does determine which, if any, of the available indices it WOULD use if the query was run, using the cardinality stats stored in the indices themselves.
So you can see from the EXPLAIN that he had indices "a","b", and "c" available, and chose "a" as it would probably return the fewest rows if the query was run.
Sometimes it can cause problems, as his optimizer tends to always choose the index that returns the fewest rows, but experience has shown me that sometimes this doesn't always equate to the fastest response time.
Lest we forget that if an index is not stored in memory, he's still going to have the I/O overhead of loading the MYI (index file) from disk anyway.
Okay, so let's gloss over the fact that I was easily able to respond to your query and that should have put an end to it
You responded easily to the part of the Mozilla security model that up till now is behaving, and glossed over the insecure part which for some reason still forms an integral part of the model.
So the premise is, use a plugin ... if you can't find an approved plugin, use an extension which everyone knows is insecure. So do exactly the same as MSIE in case the Mozilla plugin doesn't fulfill your needs. Sure, go ahead, defend the bits that work for you, and ignore the rest ... we can let the rest of the readers decide.
I don't understand how you fail to see the difference between a site that happens to ask a user to download and run content (ActiveX) and a user deliberately and consciously choosing to download and install software (Firefox extensions).
One day late in responding, but here it is ... fucking nonsense.
When you go to a restaurant and the waiter welcomes you and brings you a menu ... do you send him/her back and tell her to "wait until you ask for the menu" ???
It's called convenience (which is supposedly what the internet is about). If you need some plugin to run something on a page, ActiveX will tell you, "do you wish to download this ?". Mozilla will say basically, "click here to download this".
The only conscious decision is clicking on a link, or having that click done automatically.
And if that is your idea of "better security", then God help you.
MSIE tells you "beware of this plugin, don't download it because we're not sure where it comes from" ... i.e. the onus is on the user to decide whether he thinks it's safe or not. Mozilla tells you "go ahead, download it, because it comes from our website so it MUST be safe" ... great ... until the day they let one slip through the net, and then their "added security" is just so much bullshit.
Once just ONE compromised plugin is available on Mozilla, the whole trust model is screwed. MSIE on the other hand have always said "it's up to you, you choose".
Enough, a day late anyway, doubt if anyone will read my rant ...
I suppose they could go and join all the looneys holed up in bomb shelters who believed the world was going to end at the turn of the millenium.
But really, in a potentially infinite universe (and of course no one can yet say it ISN'T infinite seeing as the universe is not only expanding, but that expansion is accelerating also), anything is possible.
I can't see how anyone can DENY the fact the we cannot be alone in the universe, and that the whole thing is just so Adam and Eve had something pretty to look at at night.
Okay, so let's just gloss over the extensions because they are a problem, and focus on plugins, which are only downloaded from Mozilla.
Meaning of course every plugin is vetted and 100% secure, until of course there's one that slips through the net and then the whole concept becomes just another embarrassment to the great "firefox is secure" myth. Security through obscurity is not real security, and as the browser becomes more popular, so do the attempts to find a way to corrupt plugins and make them do nasty things.
And while were playing the "I have a memory gap" problem, how long ago was it that a version of Firefox was actually SHIPPED with an adware plugin ? http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=12975
Look don't get me wrong, IE's track record is god-awful, but the whole ActiveX myth has been laid to rest a long time ago ... and it's only FF zealots who attempt to perpetuate it in the attempt make FF look "more secure", when it seems to have just the same amount of problems.
Well that's such a relief, as I was convinced we were going to run out of water here soon.
Oh jesus ...
... so try this little experiment.
Yes, IE requires the users consent to run ActiveX controls. That's not the same as manually downloading and installing software.
You're right, one requires you to click Run BEFORE you download, the other requires you to click Run AFTER you download. Yes, completely different, I've been such a fool !!!
You mean to say you're of the opinion that ActiveX can't possibly make IE any less secure than any other browser, because the user must consent to run ActiveX content? But yet, in contradiction to that assertion, the fact that malicious Firefox extensions exist makes Firefox less secure than other browsers?
When did I say FF was LESS secure than x other browser ? Never. I merely pointed out that it is no MORE secure than x other browser, because it employs the EXACT same methods to allow third party content to run in it.
Of course, as an obvious FF zealot, you won't take MY word for it
Install on a fresh machine MSIE 6 or 7, and Firefox 3. Then nip across to youtube, and tell me what you see ?
"This video requires the latest version of the Adobe blah blah plugin".
Then tell me, in ALL honesty, that accepting and installing that application, be it ActiveX container for MSIE or a "Plugin" container for Firefox is ANY DIFFERENT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER !!!
That is different from browsing to a website and having malicious code run on your computer without you having to install a thing. That's what ActiveX allows. So you DIDN'T read it then ? It has been quite clear to all of us for a long time that ActiveX controls do NOT automagically run any code downloaded from anywhere WITHOUT the user's consent (at least since IE 6 with security on it's default setting). So your statement is perpetuating a fallacy in the attempt to say that somehow one type of container is somehow "safer" than another. They are, and have been for a long time, identical in behaviour, in that they BOTH require the user (no matter how inexperienced) to make the YES / NO choice.
Go have a read of the "Security Myths" section here ...
http://home.comcast.net/~SupportCD/FirefoxMyths.html
Plugin 101 for the parent ignoramous.
ActiveX is an application WRAPPER ... repeat after me ... a WRAPPER ... one that allows an application to be embedded into another so that some degree of control can be exercised from the containing app.
This means that extra functionality can be accessed above what is usually provided by the containing app.
Anyone can write an application and make it useable as an ActiveX control ... it's not just the bad boys up at Redmond that "control ActiveX".
When you install third party software on your PC and it crashes, who do you blame ? The writer of course.
But for some reason allowing an embedded third party software to run using IE as a container, you suddenly want to be absolved of all blame, and point the finger at Microsoft for designing the container format ?
Whereas I suppose Mozilla's Plug In format can do no wrong ? Even though there are plenty of malicious plugins and vulnerabilities for that also.