X.400 was the heavyweight, carefully-planned protocol suite for doing all manner of things including email (aka "messaging"). If you're sitting there in the early 90s at Microsoft's offices and someone tells you to build an office messaging platform and you decide to that correctness trumps speed of development and simplicity, then X.400 is an obvious choice.
The fact that X.400 took forever to get finished and is so complex most people don't understand it means that it never really took off. We see little bits of it in LDAP but otherwise there's really nothing anywhere that uses it or cares at all about it... except that MS used X.400 as the basis for exchange. Eventually they even made it work acceptably well, but meanwhile the internet revolution went from "Are you sure it's really happening?" to "What other networks? You mean, like, a NAT'd LAN?" and compatibility with Unix and its half-assed-but-working-in-production-for-years protocols became essential. Few other people have attempted to build unified messaging systems like that, much less X.400 systems, until open source work on exchange compatibility began.
I foresee an intercept course between the functionality of exchange as viewed by its clients and the functionality of open alternatives. Currently a functionality like that is only theoretically possible using open tools, mostly via undesirable web front ends, but this will change to the point where the client experience is the same. Once this feature parity is reached exchange's days are numbered. Of course it would help if Outlook could act as nicely when connected to non-exchange systems... that's actually a harder problem to solve.
Whine about? If you consider criticizing the OOXML format whining, then we need speak no more. I will continue to object to this format because it's fundamentally broken, no matter whether or not MS fully implements it.
I reiterate that this whole mess was a marketing gimmick to steal ODF's thunder. If MS eventually conforms with the ISO version of OOXML, great, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't a gimmick. It's easy to announce such a format and prevent a competitor from succeeding in the marketplace, then deliver it only years later (if ever). If you don't recognize this tactic then you're too young; Microsoft has used it numerous times in the past.
In the first place their binary format was a de-facto standard, not the new XMLized format.
In the second place, their format is so convoluted and broken that it should not be standardized as-is. All the complaints that exist about OOXML and how it's impossible to fully implement from the spec apply also to the binary predecessor. It's not at all standards-worthy since it cannot even be properly described by Microsoft's own people.
Some changes were necessary to avoid ridiculous situations. MS could easily implement these changes but simply chooses not to. If MS never intended to comply with the process by modifying their Office programs to fit with the written standard then why did they submit it in the first place? They knew what ISO was about and what they were getting in to. They never wanted a standard format, they only ever wanted to be able to tick the box on a requirements sheet that says "Format is standards-compliant?" which they certainly now do, no matter how untrue it is. It was a sleazy marketing gimmick.
At least for Comcast business service actually is better QOS. Maybe not officially, but there's a measurable drop in random downtime incidents.
Otherwise you are correct. You must request a static IP, you must go through additional configuration hoops and even then your reverse DNS will look funky unless and until you request that it be fixed.
Seriously though, I'm wondering how long it will take before someone in the media gets a clue and publishes something meaningful on this topic. There's a good chance that it's already too late and this "anonymous is a group of vigilante hackers" meme has taken hold. It seems like a lot of anonymous believe it themselves, somehow, which is even funnier. At what point will it be impossible for a reporter to find any kind of truth by asking? If many of the people who might get asked don't even know what's real any more it's damned difficult. There's a better than even chance that, given the chance to disambiguate, a self respecting anonymous would troll harder instead.
It's funny until it becomes scary. It's not scary yet, but one day it probably will be.
Secondly, anonymous isn't a group. Anonymous is an *individual*. One person. It's a name.
If everyone were named Bob then any action taken by Bob could be attributed to anyone. With me so far? If I sign a letter "Bob" and send it to another Bob, did he receive a letter from himself? No, but he did receive a letter from Bob. If I am Bob and you are Bob and a death threat is written in graffiti and swears that Bob must die, were you or I targeted? There's no way to know which Bob wrote it or which Bob was the target.
Similarly, a man named Bob can write a press release about the intentions of Bob, but that doesn't mean all Bobs everywhere agreed to it, recognize it, know about it or care.
Anonymous is exactly like this with a couple of additional points: First, all anonymous tend to share some personality traits (viz. being a monster). Second, anonymous sometimes does things with anonymous. Third, sometimes when anonymous and anonymous (and anonymous, etc) do something together it it sometimes for a purpose on which they all agree, or for multiple purposes on which they each individually agree. Fourth, sometimes one anonymous will 'trick' another anonymous into performing some action by making him think it is funny or otherwise a good idea. If this happens a lot it is "someone pulling the strings." But, anonymous won't know who pulled his strings (or rather, he'll know it was anonymous but what good does that do?) and he may not know that his strings were pulled--or may not care.
String pulling happens sometimes. Always? It's hard to judge, but from experience I think it's less than half the time. Your guess may vary, but I don't think anyone is in a position to make an authoritative guess.
Somewhere there may be anonymous who is in charge of several other anonymous who work as an organized group and receive orders and report back and so forth. Maybe. I can't rule it out just like I can't know which Bob graffiti'd a death threat, because I don't know everyone. But, because my name is Bob and I am not involved, and because your name is Bob and you are not involved, I can say for sure that there is no command and control structure that covers the entire set of all anonymous.
You're attempting to argue an abstract concept, and you are entirely right in general. It's all relative, it's a matter of opinion, different things to different people, etc, etc.. I get it. It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's that I'm saying in this case there is a difference. You can keep replying and saying the same thing if you like but it changes nothing; I don't misunderstand you, I disagree with you. In this case it isn't all relative, it isn't a matter of opinion. I simply don't have a good way to convince anyone of the truth of the reality that I see and so I am not trying, I am stating it and hoping that those who almost realized it already will understand. If you don't "just get it" then that's not you. Sorry. Go about your business. There's nothing to talk about and nothing of any further use can be said.
Those replying with negative reactions to this need to learn some damned history. This is about the best reply that a non-story like "steve jobs might be dying!" deserves. If you don't find it funny you are twelve years old and haven't been following the computer industry press since the 1980s.
While you are correct I stand by my point. If you are spending your life playing these 'games' you are not really living at all. A mind turned off, a body disengaged, you are nothing and no one while you are engaged in this activity. If you spend most of your time this way you may as well not be alive at all.
However indefensible this point is, technically, I believe it to be correct.
Exceptions prove the rule, as I said. Even minecraft has a reward system, just not a traditional one. At the end of the day you've expressed your creativity, you built something, you destroyed something. There's nothing creative taking place in most facebook games and no personal growth; it makes them fundamentally unrewarding.
I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying, but there is a difference. I have played all kinds of games and all kinds of video games. Facebook's "games" are almost all pure soul-crushing madness. They're pointless to the point of being actively harmful to the psyche. Go play some god damned tetris, instead, it's far more mentally stimulating.
The real problem with so-called "social games" such as mafia wars is not that they are exploitive, though they are, and not that they are not very social (ie, no real player interaction). These things are possibly problematic, or not, depending on your views. No, the real problem with these social games is that they are pure time sinks.
A real game ought to be *winnable*. This is a basic principle and exceptions prove the rule. Maybe you can't "win" at dungeons and dragons, but you can complete definable goals and make advancements. You most certainly can *lose*. In facebook time-sink games you cannot win AND you cannot lose. Because they are ever-expanding you cannot even "complete" the game by exploring 100% of its features. These are not games, these are activities for the sheeple masses; a form of circus to keep the percentage of the populace that has too much time and not enough imagination content.
I am always offended by these so-called "games" and feel disgusted when I see people playing them. I say this as a long time gamer and a fan of both hard core and casual games. There's nothing wrong with wasting your life playing video games (or other games) but please, PLEASE do not waste your life "playing" these time sinks. There is no purer form of wasted time anywhere. You are throwing away the precious hours of your existence for absolutely no reward, no effect and no return. If that's what you want to do suicide is similar and far more efficient.
It will start with "We would like you to perform this scan first." or "Would you like a FREE health check to make sure your PC is safe?" but once the bank gets 90% penetration with that it will flip to mandatory. The slipperiness of the slope here is pretty obvious.
It's not about content. Their target audience is 13, period. If it's anything fantastical it has got to sell to a 13 year old. Even if they wouldn't care about the movie the trailer can make it look like they would care so they'll go see it once anyway, The only snag is the rating: Most parents won't let them go and see if if it's R. So it's gotta be PG-13.
A better definition is that the device has been placed in to a state where extraordinary, heroic and skilled actions are necessary to restore any kind of functionality. The average consumer can "brick" a PC to the point where he can't recover it just by sticking gum in the power port on the PSU, so let us not use them as the benchmark for "It's a brick."
In the first place, I am not a Windows user. Windows has pretty terrible support for lots of open windows.
In the second place, expose only kind of works and is a hacky workaround to the problem, and it only works up to a certain number of windows. What happens when you have a hundred open applications? Please don't tell me "Oh, why would you do that?" and instead believe that if your system has plenty of resources and never crashes and good window management you will easily find yourself opening up whatever you need whenever you need it and never closing it, Because after all, why would you *close* an application?
It's nice that you can set preferences, I'd forgotten that, but that's a silly kind of preference to have these days. I don't always browse on the same computer at the same resolution and it would be nice if my comment box would adapt to available space using some kind of Space Aged Technology like CSS.
In the first place you certainly can, where "maximized" is understood to mean "the window occupies all screen real estate not covered by the global menu bar."
In the second place, MacOS users are weird and tend to have six million small, floating and overlapping windows that they can't see all of. Drives me crazy to look at a mess like that, and crazier to see a Mac user hunt through these panels trying to find a particular window.
Consistent naming is, indeed, beneficial, but there's no benefit from this change.
What you're after is making sure that logical configuration always maps back to the correct physical link. Since there's no way to assure this the next best bet is to make sure that it always maps back to the *same* physical link. It would also be good, I suggest, to name devices in a manner which aids human identification. Naming devices after what bus they're plugged in to solves neither of these well and the former not at all.
How about "I always have all windows full screen"?
How about "I like to be able to see as much as possible at once"?
I don't think running a full-screen browser window is at all abnormal; indeed, I am under the impression that this is standard practice and only a few people routinely use a non-maximized browser window. Naturally, of course, everyone will sometimes have non-full windows (for popups and special purposes).
Regardless, I don't see why my desire for a comfortably-large comment box, or a comment box that adapts to the size of my browser window, at all relates to whether or not one ought to or ought to not have a browser full screen on a large monitor. You may arrange your computing environment in whatever misguided and complicated manner you wish, as I may arrange mine.
As to your horizontal scroll bar question, I'm afraid I don't understand. I didn't mention a scroll bar and do not see a horizontal scroll bar. Is this a complaint of yours directed at the new design and its authors or was it intended for me? If it was intended for me, please explain what you mean.
There are a lot of device file naming conventions which could be adopted and would serve some useful purposes, but this isn't one. Hasn't the trend been *away* from trying to identify things by how they're plugged in toward identifying them for what they are?
I had my prefs set to discussion1 before the change and this is preserved. I don't see a lot of the issues people seem to be complaining about, including excessive javascript usage. I always hated d2, so now I have another reason not to use it.
Slashdot Mirror
X.400 was the heavyweight, carefully-planned protocol suite for doing all manner of things including email (aka "messaging"). If you're sitting there in the early 90s at Microsoft's offices and someone tells you to build an office messaging platform and you decide to that correctness trumps speed of development and simplicity, then X.400 is an obvious choice.
The fact that X.400 took forever to get finished and is so complex most people don't understand it means that it never really took off. We see little bits of it in LDAP but otherwise there's really nothing anywhere that uses it or cares at all about it... except that MS used X.400 as the basis for exchange. Eventually they even made it work acceptably well, but meanwhile the internet revolution went from "Are you sure it's really happening?" to "What other networks? You mean, like, a NAT'd LAN?" and compatibility with Unix and its half-assed-but-working-in-production-for-years protocols became essential. Few other people have attempted to build unified messaging systems like that, much less X.400 systems, until open source work on exchange compatibility began.
I foresee an intercept course between the functionality of exchange as viewed by its clients and the functionality of open alternatives. Currently a functionality like that is only theoretically possible using open tools, mostly via undesirable web front ends, but this will change to the point where the client experience is the same. Once this feature parity is reached exchange's days are numbered. Of course it would help if Outlook could act as nicely when connected to non-exchange systems... that's actually a harder problem to solve.
Whine about? If you consider criticizing the OOXML format whining, then we need speak no more. I will continue to object to this format because it's fundamentally broken, no matter whether or not MS fully implements it.
I reiterate that this whole mess was a marketing gimmick to steal ODF's thunder. If MS eventually conforms with the ISO version of OOXML, great, but it doesn't mean that it wasn't a gimmick. It's easy to announce such a format and prevent a competitor from succeeding in the marketplace, then deliver it only years later (if ever). If you don't recognize this tactic then you're too young; Microsoft has used it numerous times in the past.
In the first place their binary format was a de-facto standard, not the new XMLized format.
In the second place, their format is so convoluted and broken that it should not be standardized as-is. All the complaints that exist about OOXML and how it's impossible to fully implement from the spec apply also to the binary predecessor. It's not at all standards-worthy since it cannot even be properly described by Microsoft's own people.
Some changes were necessary to avoid ridiculous situations. MS could easily implement these changes but simply chooses not to. If MS never intended to comply with the process by modifying their Office programs to fit with the written standard then why did they submit it in the first place? They knew what ISO was about and what they were getting in to. They never wanted a standard format, they only ever wanted to be able to tick the box on a requirements sheet that says "Format is standards-compliant?" which they certainly now do, no matter how untrue it is. It was a sleazy marketing gimmick.
At least for Comcast business service actually is better QOS. Maybe not officially, but there's a measurable drop in random downtime incidents.
Otherwise you are correct. You must request a static IP, you must go through additional configuration hoops and even then your reverse DNS will look funky unless and until you request that it be fixed.
It's actually kind of funny.
There, fixed it for ya.
Seriously though, I'm wondering how long it will take before someone in the media gets a clue and publishes something meaningful on this topic. There's a good chance that it's already too late and this "anonymous is a group of vigilante hackers" meme has taken hold. It seems like a lot of anonymous believe it themselves, somehow, which is even funnier. At what point will it be impossible for a reporter to find any kind of truth by asking? If many of the people who might get asked don't even know what's real any more it's damned difficult. There's a better than even chance that, given the chance to disambiguate, a self respecting anonymous would troll harder instead.
It's funny until it becomes scary. It's not scary yet, but one day it probably will be.
First of all, you can and do have it both ways.
Secondly, anonymous isn't a group. Anonymous is an *individual*. One person. It's a name.
If everyone were named Bob then any action taken by Bob could be attributed to anyone. With me so far? If I sign a letter "Bob" and send it to another Bob, did he receive a letter from himself? No, but he did receive a letter from Bob. If I am Bob and you are Bob and a death threat is written in graffiti and swears that Bob must die, were you or I targeted? There's no way to know which Bob wrote it or which Bob was the target.
Similarly, a man named Bob can write a press release about the intentions of Bob, but that doesn't mean all Bobs everywhere agreed to it, recognize it, know about it or care.
Anonymous is exactly like this with a couple of additional points: First, all anonymous tend to share some personality traits (viz. being a monster). Second, anonymous sometimes does things with anonymous. Third, sometimes when anonymous and anonymous (and anonymous, etc) do something together it it sometimes for a purpose on which they all agree, or for multiple purposes on which they each individually agree. Fourth, sometimes one anonymous will 'trick' another anonymous into performing some action by making him think it is funny or otherwise a good idea. If this happens a lot it is "someone pulling the strings." But, anonymous won't know who pulled his strings (or rather, he'll know it was anonymous but what good does that do?) and he may not know that his strings were pulled--or may not care.
String pulling happens sometimes. Always? It's hard to judge, but from experience I think it's less than half the time. Your guess may vary, but I don't think anyone is in a position to make an authoritative guess.
Somewhere there may be anonymous who is in charge of several other anonymous who work as an organized group and receive orders and report back and so forth. Maybe. I can't rule it out just like I can't know which Bob graffiti'd a death threat, because I don't know everyone. But, because my name is Bob and I am not involved, and because your name is Bob and you are not involved, I can say for sure that there is no command and control structure that covers the entire set of all anonymous.
I hope this has been clear.
You're attempting to argue an abstract concept, and you are entirely right in general. It's all relative, it's a matter of opinion, different things to different people, etc, etc.. I get it. It's not that I don't understand what you're saying, it's that I'm saying in this case there is a difference. You can keep replying and saying the same thing if you like but it changes nothing; I don't misunderstand you, I disagree with you. In this case it isn't all relative, it isn't a matter of opinion. I simply don't have a good way to convince anyone of the truth of the reality that I see and so I am not trying, I am stating it and hoping that those who almost realized it already will understand. If you don't "just get it" then that's not you. Sorry. Go about your business. There's nothing to talk about and nothing of any further use can be said.
Anyone serious about this topic should most of the above. Mr. Mueller is knowledgeable but his opinions must be taken with a large grain of salt.
Oh yeah? Well how about I patent your FACE with my FIST?
Those replying with negative reactions to this need to learn some damned history. This is about the best reply that a non-story like "steve jobs might be dying!" deserves. If you don't find it funny you are twelve years old and haven't been following the computer industry press since the 1980s.
My hat off to you, AC.
While you are correct I stand by my point. If you are spending your life playing these 'games' you are not really living at all. A mind turned off, a body disengaged, you are nothing and no one while you are engaged in this activity. If you spend most of your time this way you may as well not be alive at all.
However indefensible this point is, technically, I believe it to be correct.
Exceptions prove the rule, as I said. Even minecraft has a reward system, just not a traditional one. At the end of the day you've expressed your creativity, you built something, you destroyed something. There's nothing creative taking place in most facebook games and no personal growth; it makes them fundamentally unrewarding.
I don't expect you to understand what I'm saying, but there is a difference. I have played all kinds of games and all kinds of video games. Facebook's "games" are almost all pure soul-crushing madness. They're pointless to the point of being actively harmful to the psyche. Go play some god damned tetris, instead, it's far more mentally stimulating.
The real problem with so-called "social games" such as mafia wars is not that they are exploitive, though they are, and not that they are not very social (ie, no real player interaction). These things are possibly problematic, or not, depending on your views. No, the real problem with these social games is that they are pure time sinks.
A real game ought to be *winnable*. This is a basic principle and exceptions prove the rule. Maybe you can't "win" at dungeons and dragons, but you can complete definable goals and make advancements. You most certainly can *lose*. In facebook time-sink games you cannot win AND you cannot lose. Because they are ever-expanding you cannot even "complete" the game by exploring 100% of its features. These are not games, these are activities for the sheeple masses; a form of circus to keep the percentage of the populace that has too much time and not enough imagination content.
I am always offended by these so-called "games" and feel disgusted when I see people playing them. I say this as a long time gamer and a fan of both hard core and casual games. There's nothing wrong with wasting your life playing video games (or other games) but please, PLEASE do not waste your life "playing" these time sinks. There is no purer form of wasted time anywhere. You are throwing away the precious hours of your existence for absolutely no reward, no effect and no return. If that's what you want to do suicide is similar and far more efficient.
It will start with "We would like you to perform this scan first." or "Would you like a FREE health check to make sure your PC is safe?" but once the bank gets 90% penetration with that it will flip to mandatory. The slipperiness of the slope here is pretty obvious.
It's not about content. Their target audience is 13, period. If it's anything fantastical it has got to sell to a 13 year old. Even if they wouldn't care about the movie the trailer can make it look like they would care so they'll go see it once anyway, The only snag is the rating: Most parents won't let them go and see if if it's R. So it's gotta be PG-13.
Except that (1) Watson doesn't do any online access and (2) Watson doesn't do anything that resembles search as we know it today.
Sorry, try again later.
A better definition is that the device has been placed in to a state where extraordinary, heroic and skilled actions are necessary to restore any kind of functionality. The average consumer can "brick" a PC to the point where he can't recover it just by sticking gum in the power port on the PSU, so let us not use them as the benchmark for "It's a brick."
In the first place, I am not a Windows user. Windows has pretty terrible support for lots of open windows.
In the second place, expose only kind of works and is a hacky workaround to the problem, and it only works up to a certain number of windows. What happens when you have a hundred open applications? Please don't tell me "Oh, why would you do that?" and instead believe that if your system has plenty of resources and never crashes and good window management you will easily find yourself opening up whatever you need whenever you need it and never closing it, Because after all, why would you *close* an application?
It's nice that you can set preferences, I'd forgotten that, but that's a silly kind of preference to have these days. I don't always browse on the same computer at the same resolution and it would be nice if my comment box would adapt to available space using some kind of Space Aged Technology like CSS.
In the first place you certainly can, where "maximized" is understood to mean "the window occupies all screen real estate not covered by the global menu bar."
In the second place, MacOS users are weird and tend to have six million small, floating and overlapping windows that they can't see all of. Drives me crazy to look at a mess like that, and crazier to see a Mac user hunt through these panels trying to find a particular window.
Consistent naming is, indeed, beneficial, but there's no benefit from this change.
What you're after is making sure that logical configuration always maps back to the correct physical link. Since there's no way to assure this the next best bet is to make sure that it always maps back to the *same* physical link. It would also be good, I suggest, to name devices in a manner which aids human identification. Naming devices after what bus they're plugged in to solves neither of these well and the former not at all.
How about "I always have all windows full screen"?
How about "I like to be able to see as much as possible at once"?
I don't think running a full-screen browser window is at all abnormal; indeed, I am under the impression that this is standard practice and only a few people routinely use a non-maximized browser window. Naturally, of course, everyone will sometimes have non-full windows (for popups and special purposes).
Regardless, I don't see why my desire for a comfortably-large comment box, or a comment box that adapts to the size of my browser window, at all relates to whether or not one ought to or ought to not have a browser full screen on a large monitor. You may arrange your computing environment in whatever misguided and complicated manner you wish, as I may arrange mine.
As to your horizontal scroll bar question, I'm afraid I don't understand. I didn't mention a scroll bar and do not see a horizontal scroll bar. Is this a complaint of yours directed at the new design and its authors or was it intended for me? If it was intended for me, please explain what you mean.
There are a lot of device file naming conventions which could be adopted and would serve some useful purposes, but this isn't one. Hasn't the trend been *away* from trying to identify things by how they're plugged in toward identifying them for what they are?
I had my prefs set to discussion1 before the change and this is preserved. I don't see a lot of the issues people seem to be complaining about, including excessive javascript usage. I always hated d2, so now I have another reason not to use it.