No, it also does this with c:\ (or whatever drive letters are hard drives on your machine). I think this is sensible as there is really no need for the average user to be mucking around there. If they are installing programs, those will automatically put themselves in Program Files, and the user shouldn't need to go into Program Files to directly touch anything there. If the user is looking for any files they have created (or downloaded or whatever), they should by putting those in My Documents, not directly on c:\ . If you know enough to want to navigate the whole filesystem directly, then just click on the thing and never be bothered again. But keeping the average user out of there stops them from breaking stuff.
A lot of bugs/ security holes/ general problems are caused by overzealous programmers who think they are 'leet because they find a hack that makes their code completely unreadable and unmaintainable, but gives a.01% speed improvement. I'm glad that developers finally realize that the extra efficiency is not always worth it.
I think I was pointing out that Pepsi's market share prior to the Cola wars was much less than it is today. Coke made a mistake and they tried to correct it, but when you ask anyone who the major soft drink companies are, they'll always say Coke and Pepsi. Before the cola wars, Pepsi wasn't mentioned that much.
This doesn't at all indicate that "Coke made a mistake". A much more likely scenario seems to be: Pepsi was already gaining mindshare and marketshare, largely through it's own advertising. Had coke done nothing, they would have skyrocketed in popularity, but coke's advertising helped hold them off somewhat.
You seem to be indicating that pepsi was a little company no one had heard of or ever would hear of, that had little growth, and suddenly coke randomly decided to target them, and thus they became huge. I don't know why that seems more reasonable that assuming that they were already growing, and coke saw this and was forced to respond.
I know Delphi does funky stuff at startup, but if the APIs stayed consistent then you'd think it wouldn't be a problem
That's true only if you are using the APIs correctly, in the documented ways, and there's no reason to assume Delphi is doing that. It's very possible that they are doing something buggy that they are not supposed to do (this is especially likely since this is during startup and dll entrypoints and such have real restrictions on what they are allowed to do; "funky stuff" is almost always bad). This buggy code happened not to crash on win98, but does crash on xp. In other words, the APIs staying consistent doesn't always help, because they only need to stay consistent in their documented behavior. If you are relying on undocumented behavior, then even though the API itself is consistent, your program might break.
It's not about being "qualified"; obviously, you need to be qualified for any job. It's about having a fishing license. Alaska isn't giving those out anymore. And if you don't have one, you can't take this job. So the only way to do get this job, is to acquire a fishing license from someone who has one and doesn't want it anymore (or, more likely, wants it less than they want the money you can offer for it). So anyone who wants to do this is not "free to try it". Becoming a programmer or a farmer doesn't require someone else quitting that trade and giving you their license.
You're trying to refute the people who make fun of France for being compltely unsuccessful at war by pointing out that they managed to get a lot of their population killed or wounded in war? That's not very convincing.
Believe it or not, not everyone wants to go through the trouble of tracking down all of the songs on kazaa, or wherever, rather than buying the album. People will borrow the album from a friend to burn or rip a copy for themselves since it's easy and fast (especially in college, where someone like that may be next door or just down the hall). If they borrow it and can't copy/ rip it, they will go out and buy it. Will everyone do this? No, of course not. But businesses don't operate in the same black and white world as slashdot. If some people find that they can't burn or rip their friend's copy of the album and thus go out to buy their own copy from a music store, than the record companies make more money, which is their goal. There goal is not to make it impossible for everyone everywhere to ever copy anything as a point of principle.
Basically, if the entire world could scrape together enough money to buy, oh, say, the land of 100 people in Nunavut, we could be trash-problem-free for at least a few centuries worldwide.
But hey, let's pretend we want to put the landfill in the centre of Hollywood without paying people for the inconvenience. That makes way better press than giving 20 inuit $1,000,000 each.
Yes, instead, let's pretend that once "we" owned that land (undoubtedly the canadian government wouldn't object to their country becoming the world's landfill), tons of trash from all over the world would magically be transported there as soon as it was thrown out by friendly trash fairies at no cost to anyone. But why use a plan that will only last a 100 years? The governments of the world can declare Jupiter to be their landfill; since no one lives there it won't cost anything to acquire it, so we can solve our trash problems indefinitely for free.
If you're allowed to step outside of the language and add features line inlined assembler, there's no reason you couldn't do that with Java as well.
Doing this in java would actually be less "outside of the language" than inline assembly in C, since Java provides the "native" keyword as a standard part of the langauge.
Yes, and the fact that Outlook insecurities can affect the OS is proof that the OS itself is also insecure.
No more or less secure than linux, which is what the discussion was about. If you are running an application as root under linux and it has a security problem, then your system is in danger. The same is true on windows. If you were running a linux mail client as root and it did something bad, that would not show that the "OS iself is also insecure".
Okay, I just read that better link. It doesn't sound to me like it was "really not fixed", it sounds like this is a completely different bug, recently discovered, that also allows spoofing the address bar. The disctinction is important because the original claim was that a spoofing bug from december is still unpatched, and that's not true; microsoft patched that quickly, and this one will probably be patched quickly too. So the idea that they don't care about these bugs and don't bother fixing them isn't true, although the fact that these bugs exist in the first place is true. And of course that's still bad. Although, I would point out that they say that one of the spoofing bugs "works on IE, as well as the Mozilla and Safari browsers", and that since I've been running xp sp2 (which has an updated version of IE), whenever these security holes are revealed that work on unpatched xp sp1 machines, they almost never work on my machine. So once that's officially released and people upgrade to that, things will at least be somewhat better.
I'm sorry I called your claim FUD. It was an honest mistake then that you thought it wasn't patched. Still, when a security hole that was fixed six months ago is pointed out explicitly as "here's something that they never fixed for any version of IE", it rubs me the wrong way, especially since the point of your example seemed to be that this was something microsoft had knowingly not fixed, and in fact they had fixed it ages ago. The concerns about not knowing when support at work will apply a patch are valid, but exactly the same would be true of patches on mozilla or any other browser.
Sorry I didn't bother to track down the prrof before, but Here It Is!
This is where I would sometimes be sarcastic, except I'm afraid I'm missing the joke here, so I'll just be honest: You didn't post a link. You have no proof as to what you're talking about. If you are referring to the %1 bug that was patched almost instantly.
Dude, the expression is couldn't care less. Think about it...
Sometimes people say the opposite of what they mean. This is known as "sarcasm". Similarly, when people say "big deal", they often mean that something is not, in fact, a big deal.
You might try this line: "You already admit that you like and use the Google toolbar. Well then I guess you don't really like IE so much as you were claiming" on the Mozilla users instead, they are a lot more likley to react. "Oh you use adblock or some other mozilla/ firefox extension? Obviously you don't love your browser".
To top it off, how can you use a browser that has known bugs like letting a random web page overright the text in the URL bar so you think you are on a whole different site? I read a phish warning about just that issue last night, that's a bug that is not patched in ANY version of IE.
This part is such FUD, it's barely even worth responding to, but I guess everyone except me already figured that out.
The funny thing about Safari is that it "remembers" favorite icons better than IE (sometimes IE just turns things back to the regular icon). I thought favorite icons were an IE invention
They are an IE invention. IE stores them in your cache and "forgets" them when they disappear from your cache. Raymond Chen had a good explanation on his blog of why this behavior seemed better than having IE constantly hit the servers of all of the sites in your favorites to check for icons, or other alternatives.
So what qualifies as "life or limb"? In a criminal case, you usually aren't literally risking either of these things either. A guy shouldn't be tried twice for the same crime in criminal court, even if you could say "his only jeopardy each time was 30 days in jail, which isn't 'life or limb'".
He was not "twice put in jeopardy of life or limb".
Of course he was. He was put in jeopardy once in the criminal case and once in the civil trial. Where's the ambiguity here? Are you trying to advocate some absurdly literal reading where it only counts as jeopardy if there is a risk that he will be killed or have one of his actual limbs removed?
presumably to justify why they have to tie IE into the kernel
Can we please let this die? I'm not sure if people are maliciously spreading FUD, if they don't know what a kernel is, or what, but IE is no more part of the the kernel than the web browser on any linux distribution is "tied" to the linux kernel. Yes, it is tied in with explorer. That's the shell. It's not the kernel. A shell and a kernel are not the same at all.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it also does this with c:\ (or whatever drive letters are hard drives on your machine). I think this is sensible as there is really no need for the average user to be mucking around there. If they are installing programs, those will automatically put themselves in Program Files, and the user shouldn't need to go into Program Files to directly touch anything there. If the user is looking for any files they have created (or downloaded or whatever), they should by putting those in My Documents, not directly on c:\ . If you know enough to want to navigate the whole filesystem directly, then just click on the thing and never be bothered again. But keeping the average user out of there stops them from breaking stuff.
Neither "Period inside the double quotes" nor "Better yet, no period at all" is a complete sentence either, but you still ended those with periods.
Wasn't this the old paradigm as well?
A lot of bugs/ security holes/ general problems are caused by overzealous programmers who think they are 'leet because they find a hack that makes their code completely unreadable and unmaintainable, but gives a .01% speed improvement. I'm glad that developers finally realize that the extra efficiency is not always worth it.
This doesn't at all indicate that "Coke made a mistake". A much more likely scenario seems to be: Pepsi was already gaining mindshare and marketshare, largely through it's own advertising. Had coke done nothing, they would have skyrocketed in popularity, but coke's advertising helped hold them off somewhat.
You seem to be indicating that pepsi was a little company no one had heard of or ever would hear of, that had little growth, and suddenly coke randomly decided to target them, and thus they became huge. I don't know why that seems more reasonable that assuming that they were already growing, and coke saw this and was forced to respond.
That's true only if you are using the APIs correctly, in the documented ways, and there's no reason to assume Delphi is doing that. It's very possible that they are doing something buggy that they are not supposed to do (this is especially likely since this is during startup and dll entrypoints and such have real restrictions on what they are allowed to do; "funky stuff" is almost always bad). This buggy code happened not to crash on win98, but does crash on xp. In other words, the APIs staying consistent doesn't always help, because they only need to stay consistent in their documented behavior. If you are relying on undocumented behavior, then even though the API itself is consistent, your program might break.
It's not about being "qualified"; obviously, you need to be qualified for any job. It's about having a fishing license. Alaska isn't giving those out anymore. And if you don't have one, you can't take this job. So the only way to do get this job, is to acquire a fishing license from someone who has one and doesn't want it anymore (or, more likely, wants it less than they want the money you can offer for it). So anyone who wants to do this is not "free to try it". Becoming a programmer or a farmer doesn't require someone else quitting that trade and giving you their license.
You're trying to refute the people who make fun of France for being compltely unsuccessful at war by pointing out that they managed to get a lot of their population killed or wounded in war? That's not very convincing.
Believe it or not, not everyone wants to go through the trouble of tracking down all of the songs on kazaa, or wherever, rather than buying the album. People will borrow the album from a friend to burn or rip a copy for themselves since it's easy and fast (especially in college, where someone like that may be next door or just down the hall). If they borrow it and can't copy/ rip it, they will go out and buy it. Will everyone do this? No, of course not. But businesses don't operate in the same black and white world as slashdot. If some people find that they can't burn or rip their friend's copy of the album and thus go out to buy their own copy from a music store, than the record companies make more money, which is their goal. There goal is not to make it impossible for everyone everywhere to ever copy anything as a point of principle.
Really? How is this "anybody" going to get an alaskan fishing license? Lots of things seem like something anybody could do until you actually try.
Yes.
Yes, instead, let's pretend that once "we" owned that land (undoubtedly the canadian government wouldn't object to their country becoming the world's landfill), tons of trash from all over the world would magically be transported there as soon as it was thrown out by friendly trash fairies at no cost to anyone. But why use a plan that will only last a 100 years? The governments of the world can declare Jupiter to be their landfill; since no one lives there it won't cost anything to acquire it, so we can solve our trash problems indefinitely for free.
Doing this in java would actually be less "outside of the language" than inline assembly in C, since Java provides the "native" keyword as a standard part of the langauge.
No more or less secure than linux, which is what the discussion was about. If you are running an application as root under linux and it has a security problem, then your system is in danger. The same is true on windows. If you were running a linux mail client as root and it did something bad, that would not show that the "OS iself is also insecure".
Okay, I just read that better link. It doesn't sound to me like it was "really not fixed", it sounds like this is a completely different bug, recently discovered, that also allows spoofing the address bar. The disctinction is important because the original claim was that a spoofing bug from december is still unpatched, and that's not true; microsoft patched that quickly, and this one will probably be patched quickly too. So the idea that they don't care about these bugs and don't bother fixing them isn't true, although the fact that these bugs exist in the first place is true. And of course that's still bad. Although, I would point out that they say that one of the spoofing bugs "works on IE, as well as the Mozilla and Safari browsers", and that since I've been running xp sp2 (which has an updated version of IE), whenever these security holes are revealed that work on unpatched xp sp1 machines, they almost never work on my machine. So once that's officially released and people upgrade to that, things will at least be somewhat better.
I'm sorry I called your claim FUD. It was an honest mistake then that you thought it wasn't patched. Still, when a security hole that was fixed six months ago is pointed out explicitly as "here's something that they never fixed for any version of IE", it rubs me the wrong way, especially since the point of your example seemed to be that this was something microsoft had knowingly not fixed, and in fact they had fixed it ages ago. The concerns about not knowing when support at work will apply a patch are valid, but exactly the same would be true of patches on mozilla or any other browser.
This is where I would sometimes be sarcastic, except I'm afraid I'm missing the joke here, so I'll just be honest: You didn't post a link. You have no proof as to what you're talking about. If you are referring to the %1 bug that was patched almost instantly.
Sometimes people say the opposite of what they mean. This is known as "sarcasm". Similarly, when people say "big deal", they often mean that something is not, in fact, a big deal.
The popup blocker in IE has been working fine for me.
You might try this line: "You already admit that you like and use the Google toolbar. Well then I guess you don't really like IE so much as you were claiming" on the Mozilla users instead, they are a lot more likley to react. "Oh you use adblock or some other mozilla/ firefox extension? Obviously you don't love your browser".
This part is such FUD, it's barely even worth responding to, but I guess everyone except me already figured that out.
They are an IE invention. IE stores them in your cache and "forgets" them when they disappear from your cache. Raymond Chen had a good explanation
on his blog of why this behavior seemed better than having IE constantly hit the servers of all of the sites in your favorites to check for icons, or other alternatives.
So what qualifies as "life or limb"? In a criminal case, you usually aren't literally risking either of these things either. A guy shouldn't be tried twice for the same crime in criminal court, even if you could say "his only jeopardy each time was 30 days in jail, which isn't 'life or limb'".
Of course he was. He was put in jeopardy once in the criminal case and once in the civil trial. Where's the ambiguity here? Are you trying to advocate some absurdly literal reading where it only counts as jeopardy if there is a risk that he will be killed or have one of his actual limbs removed?
I was wondering exactly the same thing and would be interested to hear the answer if anyone knows it.
Can we please let this die? I'm not sure if people are maliciously spreading FUD, if they don't know what a kernel is, or what, but IE is no more part of the the kernel than the web browser on any linux distribution is "tied" to the linux kernel. Yes, it is tied in with explorer. That's the shell. It's not the kernel. A shell and a kernel are not the same at all.