But the point is that there's no guarantee that the free certification won't go away, causing your email to simply vanish into the aether. Even if browsers stopped supporting self-signed certificates it would be obvious to the user that something was going on, as they'd surf to a website and not get what they were expecting.
That's the difference - in the former scenario, there's an excellent chance that the user would be none the wiser, while in the latter, it's obvious that something's going on.
MS has just spent several billion on a failed development project
It's not failed until they fail to recover their costs. I appreciate that that's looking more likely every time they put back the release date, but it's by no means certain.
As a bonus, life improves drastically for their users.
Short term, perhaps it does improve a lot for a lot of users, although even that's going to be a mixed bag - none (or few) of their apps will run, so they'll be swapping security for appliaction support. Once OS X has a large enough user base, though, malware will follow. Sure, it'll be much harder to exploit the system without the user's knowledge, but that won't matter - people will still install trojans and other crapware, and still open their machines up to being in bot nets, put their files at risk, and lower stability.
Given a couple of years, the situation will be similar - better, due to a lower number of exploits (perhaps even none at all), but still nowhere near perfect, as people happily install BonziCometBuddyCursor and zombify their own machine.
You can't protect a machine from its users without completely locking it down with DRM/trusted computing. Moving everyone from Windows to OS X will be a short-term workaround at best if you don't educate the users, and God knows, we've not had a lot of success so far.
Hence the advice to make a note of what state the guy thinks it's in before going in - if he's not spoken to his friend yet, he can't have been given any subconcious cues.
Apart from that, I agree with you. As another respondent said, that's why double-blind testing was invented.
Not only that, but spammers tend to fake the From: headers on their emails. A couple of months ago some lowlife scum happened on my domain; the flood has subsided a little, but at its height I was getting a couple of thousand mails a day.
That may not seem like much to some of you, but:
1) my domain has no website at it and gives no indication of being in use (other than resolving to a valid IP) 2) previous to that, I got maybe a couple of dozen crap mails a week
The pattern was actually reasonably interesting. At first they were all bounces, then gradually the number of bounces started to drop but I started getting spam to some of the fake addresses. Now I get bounces, spams, out of office autoreplies, the occasional indignant mail from people pissed off with spam, lots of "confirmation required" emails and even the occasional virus.
Catchalls are very useful too - when registering with a website I can give them an address that identifies them, so if I get spam to it, I know who leaked my details and can act accordingly. It's just a shame that some spammers are such lying, deceitful shits.
There is a school of thought that would maintain that the ends do not justify the means, and that if google is serious about doing no evil then it should not participate in such practices, as doing so only serves to further legitimise them.
Personally, I hope that the relevant people here in the EU are taking note, and that this lends more weight to the anti-software patents campaigners' message.
No offence, but I suspect that the US is going to have to seriously screw itself over on this issue in order to save the rest of the world from doing the same.
I suspect that you don't really mean "designed" or "programmed" at all, assuming that you don't subscribe to creationism theory...
Re:Visualisation is the only thing he's good at no
on
The New Force at Lucasfilm
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I'd say the people who complain endlessly and needlessly about 1-3 have simply forgotten how to be a child.
That's probably closer to the truth than you realise. Most of those people will have first seen (and fallen in love with) 4-6 as a child, and as such they have a special signifigance to them.
They've seen 1-3 as adults, with an adult's view of things, and they simply can't compare to their childish recollection of 4-6. Sure, they've seen 4-6 as adults too, but you know the old saying, "first impressions last".
I didn't think 1-3 sucked that badly, but then neither did I consider them awesome. On the other hand, while I certainly enjoy the originals, I didn't consider them to be life-altering either.
Yet enter DRM: Sony and pals are so scared of nerds ripping off their signal and trading it peer-to-peer they're going to screw those who spent $3000 on TVs and who can afford and do purchase large amounts of DVDs.
That's the funniest part actually - they're worried about a bunch of nerds ripping off high definition content and then either downsampling the shit out of it, or trying to p2p/ftp/irc around 40GB files. The former isn't worth it (might as well do the DVD, it'll be quicker), the latter really isn't practical even now. The only really practical way to shift that much data currently is on disc (or tape), which seriously limits distribution.
If you really want to know, you could try asking us, there are one or two of us here. But no, you feel you have to talk about us rather than to us.
I guess there's one thing I'd lose - the unconscious jingoism that makes people such as you forget that you address an international audience, even as you speculate on the effects that such a change would have on that very audience. I don't think I'd miss it much though.
1) Apple has complete control over the hardware, which simplifies development and testing enormously. Even if it's possible to run OS X86 on non-Apple hardware, they can completely ignore it from a QA point of view.
2) Apple supports three form-factors - desktop and laptop for OS X, and server for OS X Server. MS has tablet, media and embedded versions of Windows because they support tablet PCs, media centre PCs and embedded devices. XP Pro 64 isn't entirely fair either, as it's only available OEM and it's only relatively recently that PCs have been available with 64 bit processors (another consequence of not controlling the hardware) A fairer comparison would be the various editions of Windows Server, not all of which (eg Data Centre) are due to legitimate hardware differences.
From my bitter experience, he could well be working at almost any large corporation; they all have layers of management that exhibit some or all of those qualities.
No worries - some things bear repeating. There are far too many people around, even here, who seem to think that.xxx is the solution to all their problems, even if it were possible to enforce it.
The Internet is a public place and decency laws that apply to public conduct ought to apply.
Whose laws? In some places, a topless woman on the main street of town would be arrested or even stoned; other places no-one would pay her any attention. Which of those societies gets to impose their laws on the other?
Feel free to legislate your section of the internet, but keep away from everyone else's.
If there's a strip club on Broadway and Main they have signs to indicate what the content on the inside is going to be like so my kids can't accidently walk inside.
Actually they have those signs up to try to entice adults to go in, not to keep kids out. The bouncers keep kids and other undesirables out, yes, but in the case of the kids it's mostly because
a) they don't have much money b) the strip joint will lose their licence if they get caught letting kids in too often
It's not like that on the Internet but it should be.
Every single porn site I've ever seen has had a warning along the lines of "Explicit content past this page - if you're too young or offended by this stuff, keep out!". That's analagous to your signs. Most sites also require a valid credit or debit card to gain full entry; that's analagous to your doorman. True, it's no guarantee that a kid can't get in, but then you'll be wanting to ask the parents why they have a credit card (or why the parents weren't careful enough with their own).
Do you have the moral courage to take a stance or are you a coward?
Yes, I have the moral courage to take a stance. As another respondent already said, I have the courage to take a stand for my morals, which are clearly not identical to yours. I'm sorry, but I really don't see anything particularly wrong with graphic depictions of sex. No, I don't want my six year old viewing hardcore porn; that's one of the reasons why I make sure I'm with her when she's using the Internet, so she doesn't accidentally stray from disney.com or nickjr.co.uk on to a porn site. But then I'm odd like that; I take responsibilty for what my kid is exposed to.
In which case you'll most likely get an error page or default web page/site if you browse to the IP address, as the host: header is missing and the webserver can't tell which site you wanted. Make sure that the default site isn't porn, and you're good to go.
The guy did say that quite often you'll get an error; that's what he was talking about.
It's kind of like the False Claims Act, which essentially allows private individuals who have knowledge of defrauding of the Federal Government to become, in essence, civil law vigilantes.
Technically, every citizen has a duty to uphold the law and to report any wrongdoings to the relevant authorities. The difference between a private citizen and a police officer is that the police do it as their job and have greater powers of arrest, etc. (Here in the UK at least, private citizens can make an arrest under certain circumstances - see for example the final paragraph of this article)
I've yet to meet anyone who doubts evolution, but there are plans afoot to teach creationism in biology lessons, and the OCR has already included it in its revised syllabus, due out in September (source; see also this story).
Now, I have no real problem with teaching kids about creationism, or any other facet of any other religion. But it is not a scientific theory and so has no place in a science lesson, other than as an example of junk science.
I'll give you a good example: we have this archaic law that schools need to have a religious prayer every day. It's a leftover we have because we're an ancient country compared with such places as the USA.
Yes, the UK is much older than the USA is, but that doesn't mean that the law you're referring to is. From this article:
The 1944 Education Act promised lessons for children up to the age of 15, created grammar, technical and secondary modern schools - and also placed worship at the heart of school life.
The 1988 Education Reform Act strengthened the legislation, further defining worship in schools as wholly or mainly of a broadly Christian character.
The most recent legislation dates from 1988. I don't know about you, but I was still in school then, so it hardly feels like an echo of ancient times to me.
Guess what? The vast majority of schools simply ignore the law. And they face no consequences for it whatsoever.
That's true, but there is some evidence that the authorities are tightening up on that. No consequences have been faced yet, but there are definite "you must comply with the law" noises being made.
There is no concious improvement, no guiding power behind it, but there most certainly is improvement. Natural selection works to improve the species's suitability to the current conditions. That's not necessarily an asbolute improvement, as in "it makes you faster" or "it makes you stronger", but an improved chance of survival in the prevailing conditions has to be an improvement by any definition.
Slashdot Mirror
suits just make me think parasite.
Then you're just as prejudiced as those people who dismiss anyone who's not in a suit or business casual.
But the point is that there's no guarantee that the free certification won't go away, causing your email to simply vanish into the aether. Even if browsers stopped supporting self-signed certificates it would be obvious to the user that something was going on, as they'd surf to a website and not get what they were expecting.
That's the difference - in the former scenario, there's an excellent chance that the user would be none the wiser, while in the latter, it's obvious that something's going on.
MS has just spent several billion on a failed development project
It's not failed until they fail to recover their costs. I appreciate that that's looking more likely every time they put back the release date, but it's by no means certain.
As a bonus, life improves drastically for their users.
Short term, perhaps it does improve a lot for a lot of users, although even that's going to be a mixed bag - none (or few) of their apps will run, so they'll be swapping security for appliaction support. Once OS X has a large enough user base, though, malware will follow. Sure, it'll be much harder to exploit the system without the user's knowledge, but that won't matter - people will still install trojans and other crapware, and still open their machines up to being in bot nets, put their files at risk, and lower stability.
Given a couple of years, the situation will be similar - better, due to a lower number of exploits (perhaps even none at all), but still nowhere near perfect, as people happily install BonziCometBuddyCursor and zombify their own machine.
You can't protect a machine from its users without completely locking it down with DRM/trusted computing. Moving everyone from Windows to OS X will be a short-term workaround at best if you don't educate the users, and God knows, we've not had a lot of success so far.
Hence the advice to make a note of what state the guy thinks it's in before going in - if he's not spoken to his friend yet, he can't have been given any subconcious cues.
Apart from that, I agree with you. As another respondent said, that's why double-blind testing was invented.
Goths are generally fools, university grads or not.
That just proves we're as human as the rest of you.
Not only that, but spammers tend to fake the From: headers on their emails. A couple of months ago some lowlife scum happened on my domain; the flood has subsided a little, but at its height I was getting a couple of thousand mails a day.
That may not seem like much to some of you, but:
1) my domain has no website at it and gives no indication of being in use (other than resolving to a valid IP)
2) previous to that, I got maybe a couple of dozen crap mails a week
The pattern was actually reasonably interesting. At first they were all bounces, then gradually the number of bounces started to drop but I started getting spam to some of the fake addresses. Now I get bounces, spams, out of office autoreplies, the occasional indignant mail from people pissed off with spam, lots of "confirmation required" emails and even the occasional virus.
Catchalls are very useful too - when registering with a website I can give them an address that identifies them, so if I get spam to it, I know who leaked my details and can act accordingly. It's just a shame that some spammers are such lying, deceitful shits.
But then again, MS knows best, all the time, doesn't it?
It doesn't matter what MS does or doesn't know, their customers have demanded it.
There is a school of thought that would maintain that the ends do not justify the means, and that if google is serious about doing no evil then it should not participate in such practices, as doing so only serves to further legitimise them.
Personally, I hope that the relevant people here in the EU are taking note, and that this lends more weight to the anti-software patents campaigners' message.
No offence, but I suspect that the US is going to have to seriously screw itself over on this issue in order to save the rest of the world from doing the same.
I suspect that you don't really mean "designed" or "programmed" at all, assuming that you don't subscribe to creationism theory...
I'd say the people who complain endlessly and needlessly about 1-3 have simply forgotten how to be a child.
That's probably closer to the truth than you realise. Most of those people will have first seen (and fallen in love with) 4-6 as a child, and as such they have a special signifigance to them.
They've seen 1-3 as adults, with an adult's view of things, and they simply can't compare to their childish recollection of 4-6. Sure, they've seen 4-6 as adults too, but you know the old saying, "first impressions last".
I didn't think 1-3 sucked that badly, but then neither did I consider them awesome. On the other hand, while I certainly enjoy the originals, I didn't consider them to be life-altering either.
NCSA httpd was the first, and Apache is a derivative of that.
Hence the name, of course - Apache is "a patchy" webserver, as it started off life as a bunch of patches to NCSA httpd.
Yet enter DRM: Sony and pals are so scared of nerds ripping off their signal and trading it peer-to-peer they're going to screw those who spent $3000 on TVs and who can afford and do purchase large amounts of DVDs.
That's the funniest part actually - they're worried about a bunch of nerds ripping off high definition content and then either downsampling the shit out of it, or trying to p2p/ftp/irc around 40GB files. The former isn't worth it (might as well do the DVD, it'll be quicker), the latter really isn't practical even now. The only really practical way to shift that much data currently is on disc (or tape), which seriously limits distribution.
If you really want to know, you could try asking us, there are one or two of us here. But no, you feel you have to talk about us rather than to us.
I guess there's one thing I'd lose - the unconscious jingoism that makes people such as you forget that you address an international audience, even as you speculate on the effects that such a change would have on that very audience. I don't think I'd miss it much though.
To be fair, you're forgetting two things.
1) Apple has complete control over the hardware, which simplifies development and testing enormously. Even if it's possible to run OS X86 on non-Apple hardware, they can completely ignore it from a QA point of view.
2) Apple supports three form-factors - desktop and laptop for OS X, and server for OS X Server. MS has tablet, media and embedded versions of Windows because they support tablet PCs, media centre PCs and embedded devices. XP Pro 64 isn't entirely fair either, as it's only available OEM and it's only relatively recently that PCs have been available with 64 bit processors (another consequence of not controlling the hardware) A fairer comparison would be the various editions of Windows Server, not all of which (eg Data Centre) are due to legitimate hardware differences.
From my bitter experience, he could well be working at almost any large corporation; they all have layers of management that exhibit some or all of those qualities.
Just look at any dart-board at where there are points from previous darts.
You'll find that there are far more points clustered around treble twenty than the bull's eye, I think.
But the guy isn't questioning the use of "almost everywhere", he's questioning the use of "negligible", which isn't the same.
No worries - some things bear repeating. There are far too many people around, even here, who seem to think that .xxx is the solution to all their problems, even if it were possible to enforce it.
The Internet is a public place and decency laws that apply to public conduct ought to apply.
Whose laws? In some places, a topless woman on the main street of town would be arrested or even stoned; other places no-one would pay her any attention. Which of those societies gets to impose their laws on the other?
Feel free to legislate your section of the internet, but keep away from everyone else's.
If there's a strip club on Broadway and Main they have signs to indicate what the content on the inside is going to be like so my kids can't accidently walk inside.
Actually they have those signs up to try to entice adults to go in, not to keep kids out. The bouncers keep kids and other undesirables out, yes, but in the case of the kids it's mostly because
a) they don't have much money
b) the strip joint will lose their licence if they get caught letting kids in too often
It's not like that on the Internet but it should be.
Every single porn site I've ever seen has had a warning along the lines of "Explicit content past this page - if you're too young or offended by this stuff, keep out!". That's analagous to your signs. Most sites also require a valid credit or debit card to gain full entry; that's analagous to your doorman. True, it's no guarantee that a kid can't get in, but then you'll be wanting to ask the parents why they have a credit card (or why the parents weren't careful enough with their own).
Do you have the moral courage to take a stance or are you a coward?
Yes, I have the moral courage to take a stance. As another respondent already said, I have the courage to take a stand for my morals, which are clearly not identical to yours. I'm sorry, but I really don't see anything particularly wrong with graphic depictions of sex. No, I don't want my six year old viewing hardcore porn; that's one of the reasons why I make sure I'm with her when she's using the Internet, so she doesn't accidentally stray from disney.com or nickjr.co.uk on to a porn site. But then I'm odd like that; I take responsibilty for what my kid is exposed to.
that one IP might be used for many websites
In which case you'll most likely get an error page or default web page/site if you browse to the IP address, as the host: header is missing and the webserver can't tell which site you wanted. Make sure that the default site isn't porn, and you're good to go.
The guy did say that quite often you'll get an error; that's what he was talking about.
Think before posting...
Why? No-one else seems to...
It's kind of like the False Claims Act, which essentially allows private individuals who have knowledge of defrauding of the Federal Government to become, in essence, civil law vigilantes.
Technically, every citizen has a duty to uphold the law and to report any wrongdoings to the relevant authorities. The difference between a private citizen and a police officer is that the police do it as their job and have greater powers of arrest, etc. (Here in the UK at least, private citizens can make an arrest under certain circumstances - see for example the final paragraph of this article)
Now, I have no real problem with teaching kids about creationism, or any other facet of any other religion. But it is not a scientific theory and so has no place in a science lesson, other than as an example of junk science.
I'll give you a good example: we have this archaic law that schools need to have a religious prayer every day. It's a leftover we have because we're an ancient country compared with such places as the USA.
Yes, the UK is much older than the USA is, but that doesn't mean that the law you're referring to is. From this article:
The most recent legislation dates from 1988. I don't know about you, but I was still in school then, so it hardly feels like an echo of ancient times to me.
Guess what? The vast majority of schools simply ignore the law. And they face no consequences for it whatsoever.
That's true, but there is some evidence that the authorities are tightening up on that. No consequences have been faced yet, but there are definite "you must comply with the law" noises being made.
There is no improvement
There is no concious improvement, no guiding power behind it, but there most certainly is improvement. Natural selection works to improve the species's suitability to the current conditions. That's not necessarily an asbolute improvement, as in "it makes you faster" or "it makes you stronger", but an improved chance of survival in the prevailing conditions has to be an improvement by any definition.