His claims of AI are floundering on simple facts like Intel scrapping 4gHz chips and any number of other signs that Moore's Law, on which Kurzweil's argument rests, is being scrapped as we speak.
Moore's law does not deal with clock speed. It deals with complexity. Intel did say they were working on making the processors more efficient (per cycle). That is typically achieved by adding more hardware; increased complexity.
OS/2's desktop (workplace shell) was exposed as objects and was very consistant no matter how different parts were viewed. Unfortunately, modern desktops including KDE, Gnome, and Windows XP either don't expose the parts properly or treat 'the desktop' and CLI environments as if they aren't dealing with the same computer.
Without an OS that deals with the system as objects, I don't see the value of Rexx above any of the dozens of others out there.
(I'd like to hear from OS X users if the GUI/CLI split is there or if both are fully integrated.)
I wonder why everyone would want to search his browser cache. I always thought the cache was wasted space on my hard drive and i always empty it up as soon as i close my browser in IE, and as often as possible in Firefox.
That could be handy for transient information; have a large cache (+100 MB), browse the web for topic X, search the cache, save the results off before they are nuked on the web.
You sound like you've never dealt with supporting secretaries.
Secretaries exist? I thought they were phased out at the end of the last century.
(Not including professional assistants, cabinet ministers,... or other positions that take substantial skill above the traditional secretary work of taking notes/boiler plate letters/answer phones.)
My mother works for the County Gov't, and I've seen some of the spyware infested cesspools that they call computers, and they fire this guy for doing what? Wasting clock cycles?
He was treated harshly, though let's be serious. Is the problem that his boss (besides being an ass) takes security seriously, or that where your mother works they don't take it seriously at all?
The chick in HR who's downloaded the "kitty-cat screen saver" spam zombie is doing just fine.
Ever heard of locking down and isolating systems?
Client stations shouldn't have the same network access as a system in the server room.^
If your client stations can be used to install arbitrary software, you've got other problems that need to be addressed.
( ^ Servers should also have limited access to other servers. They don't necessarily get exposed to the client systems, and when they are the exposure should be limited.)
Firefox is quite nice, though moving settings between two partitions -- say, Linux and Windows -- doesn't seem possible. Selecting file...import only shows the currently installed browsers. The bookmarks can be imported manually, though the other settings can't be.
Any suggestions -- such as an Export option I might have overlooked -- would be appreciated. I'd like to make these transitions as simple and transparent as possible.
Read the article. The total amount memory (flash + RAM) is well below 1MB -- and that is on the largest and most expensive chip in the series . That little memory can not be expanded.
There is enough room for Linux, though even stripped down to the minimum kernel there is little room for anything else.
Another OS or a custom program with no OS would probably be much more practical.
I encounter similar statements. Most people think that they have to set the browser home page to the ISP they are using and click on things from there.
Here's what I found: I haven't talked anyone into using Firefox or Mozilla, let alone Linux. Don't tell them how wonderful it is...they won't get it!
Here's what works;
Ask them if they have problems with pop-ups.
Ask them if they have problems with 'the Internet'. Get details on these 'problems'.
If either answer is 'yes', ask them what sites they like to go to.
Install Firefox, and add those sites to the Home page; create tabs for each site, bookmark the tabs, use that bookmark folder as the user's home page.
Import IE settings.
Show them this new program. Show them how easy it is to click on the tabs for each web site.
Point out that there are no popups.
If necessary, tweak Firefox to 'fix the problems' encountered with IE.
Having said all that, I can't get my older sister to look at anything but IE...while about a month ago two people outside of work have asked me for help in installing Firefox and one other person asked me to install Linux after I showed him Firefox and mentioned Linux in passing. (This last person is a total novice; hadn't turned his computer on during most of last year). All are happy and have not switched back to IE.
However when they buy Nautilus equipment and they maintain it in line with the recommendations and it still breaks due to design flaws that the manufacturer isn't talking about and no one but industry insiders in metallurgy really understand, are they liable when it breaks?
However obvious to us all the internet security issues are, to mom and pop shops the issues are far too obscure for them to know the first thing about.
If they aren't experts in Nautilus repairs, they schedule maintenance on a regular basis. If sued, they show the maintenance records. If they do not schedule maintenance, they can be held liable. It should be no different for corporate records that happen to be on a computer.
As for a franchise operation...the home office is responsible for these types of details. That's why it's a franchise!
It isn't their fault IMO. The vendors should be making more secure solutions for them to at least protect against all predictable threats.
If the gym bought Nautilus equipment and never maintained it, would they be held liable when it breaks?
They buy products without properly researching them or having experts install and maintain them. The vendors -- I'm guessing the OEMs not a group provides on-site support -- can't design products that are safe in all situations without making the products useless.
The only thing that works is mentioning that they may be liable -- they could be sued -- if they are found neglegent in not doing something to protect the data they have. Usually, this makes them concerned...and they still do nothing.
I always distrust software. Many of the open CRM projects are horridly insecure or use default administration methods that open the site up to man in the middle attacks by sniffers. ISPs tend to make this job harder too (unless you use a dedicated server - virtual or not).
As for Microsoft, it boils down to complexity and paying attention;
They're big, have complex APIs, and don't have transparency (you can't easily check what they've written).
They aren't really focused on security. They are primarily focused on features, release dates, and usability. If an insecure design leads to more sales -- HO-RA!
Any one project at Microsoft will have many dependencies between it and other projects; even they can't check easily if every other project is doing the right thing. This increased complexity makes it less likely that they will catch these types of problems.
These combine to make it very difficult for them to provide software that is secure. That's why I don't use it when given the option.
Dilbert: "Microsoft says we need to pull 20 programmers away from their current workloads to focus on fixing ASP.NET in all our websites. C-c-canon-ical-ization [reference.com] is what they are calling it."
Dogbert: "With so many companies using ASP.NET, it's unlikely that we will be singled out for attack. Besides, if our admins aren't fighting fires, how do we know that they are doing a good job or not?"
In typical anti-MS slashdotter bullshit, the use of the word "re-write" is used quite liberally. A grand total of four lines of code are required per application so no matter how bog the web site is, only four lines of code (typed once in a single source code file) take care of the problem:
Actually, those 4 lines do not fix the problem, they help.
If you expect Microsoft or any company or project to do the work for you -- you will constantly be disappointed.
Security is and never has been a product, like Clorox bleach, that can kill the offending security glitch by ample application.
That's why it takes many hours -- or proper automation tools -- to secure even a moderately complex Windows system. Even then, it's not secure...till you verify that everything you know that could be exploited has been checked to make sure that it isn't expoloitable.
Run scanners (external and internal), check running processes, turn them off and remove anything you can, know what is running in detail. If you wrote the software, keep security in mind from the first line of code and always consider the environment hostile.
That said, if you pick poorly designed software and run it in a hostile environment...it's still *your* responsibility. One thing you can do is not use bad designs and lock down your systems.
Actually they have a FAQ entry "What about Ogg Theora?"?
Thanks for the link.
I find that what people are currently discussing is most important, with FAQs and other documentation being less important; those documents don't change or express what people are thinking and considering right now.
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. This is also one of the main reasons for Microsoft and many other companies doing really dumb things for short term gains.
We did.
Unless you mean intelligent like R2D2 and C3PO?
Moore's law does not deal with clock speed. It deals with complexity. Intel did say they were working on making the processors more efficient (per cycle). That is typically achieved by adding more hardware; increased complexity.
OS/2's desktop (workplace shell) was exposed as objects and was very consistant no matter how different parts were viewed. Unfortunately, modern desktops including KDE, Gnome, and Windows XP either don't expose the parts properly or treat 'the desktop' and CLI environments as if they aren't dealing with the same computer.
Without an OS that deals with the system as objects, I don't see the value of Rexx above any of the dozens of others out there.
(I'd like to hear from OS X users if the GUI/CLI split is there or if both are fully integrated.)
I'm confused. If this isn't for thin clients, what technical/practical benifits do the 'server versions' of these apps provide?
List price in yen, of course. Speculation on the retail price plus the export/import markup can't happen without it!
You flip the lenses up.
That could be handy for transient information; have a large cache (+100 MB), browse the web for topic X, search the cache, save the results off before they are nuked on the web.
Look here for specific details on the HP Laserjet 1012.
Secretaries exist? I thought they were phased out at the end of the last century.
(Not including professional assistants, cabinet ministers, ... or other positions that take substantial skill above the traditional secretary work of taking notes/boiler plate letters/answer phones.)
Maybe you should ask Quicken ?
Long list you've got there!
He was treated harshly, though let's be serious. Is the problem that his boss (besides being an ass) takes security seriously, or that where your mother works they don't take it seriously at all?
Ever heard of locking down and isolating systems?
( ^ Servers should also have limited access to other servers. They don't necessarily get exposed to the client systems, and when they are the exposure should be limited.)
Any suggestions -- such as an Export option I might have overlooked -- would be appreciated. I'd like to make these transitions as simple and transparent as possible.
There is enough room for Linux, though even stripped down to the minimum kernel there is little room for anything else.
Another OS or a custom program with no OS would probably be much more practical.
I encounter similar statements. Most people think that they have to set the browser home page to the ISP they are using and click on things from there.
Here's what I found: I haven't talked anyone into using Firefox or Mozilla, let alone Linux. Don't tell them how wonderful it is...they won't get it!
Here's what works;
Ask them if they have problems with pop-ups.
Ask them if they have problems with 'the Internet'. Get details on these 'problems'.
If either answer is 'yes', ask them what sites they like to go to.
Install Firefox, and add those sites to the Home page; create tabs for each site, bookmark the tabs, use that bookmark folder as the user's home page.
Import IE settings.
Show them this new program. Show them how easy it is to click on the tabs for each web site.
Point out that there are no popups.
If necessary, tweak Firefox to 'fix the problems' encountered with IE.
Having said all that, I can't get my older sister to look at anything but IE...while about a month ago two people outside of work have asked me for help in installing Firefox and one other person asked me to install Linux after I showed him Firefox and mentioned Linux in passing. (This last person is a total novice; hadn't turned his computer on during most of last year). All are happy and have not switched back to IE.
Do we have to return it, or just contact Dell with the serial numbers?
(I'd check the site, but it's currently DOA.)
If they aren't experts in Nautilus repairs, they schedule maintenance on a regular basis. If sued, they show the maintenance records. If they do not schedule maintenance, they can be held liable. It should be no different for corporate records that happen to be on a computer.
As for a franchise operation...the home office is responsible for these types of details. That's why it's a franchise!
If the gym bought Nautilus equipment and never maintained it, would they be held liable when it breaks?
They buy products without properly researching them or having experts install and maintain them. The vendors -- I'm guessing the OEMs not a group provides on-site support -- can't design products that are safe in all situations without making the products useless.
It's boring, but it's true;
You can't protect people from themselves.
The only thing that works is mentioning that they may be liable -- they could be sued -- if they are found neglegent in not doing something to protect the data they have. Usually, this makes them concerned...and they still do nothing.
As for Microsoft, it boils down to complexity and paying attention;
They're big, have complex APIs, and don't have transparency (you can't easily check what they've written).
They aren't really focused on security. They are primarily focused on features, release dates, and usability. If an insecure design leads to more sales -- HO-RA!
Any one project at Microsoft will have many dependencies between it and other projects; even they can't check easily if every other project is doing the right thing. This increased complexity makes it less likely that they will catch these types of problems.
These combine to make it very difficult for them to provide software that is secure. That's why I don't use it when given the option.
Dogbert: "With so many companies using ASP .NET, it's unlikely that we will be singled out for attack. Besides, if our admins aren't fighting fires, how do we know that they are doing a good job or not?"
Actually, those 4 lines do not fix the problem, they help.
Look here for a good explanation.
'Them's da breaks'.
If you expect Microsoft or any company or project to do the work for you -- you will constantly be disappointed.
Security is and never has been a product, like Clorox bleach, that can kill the offending security glitch by ample application.
That's why it takes many hours -- or proper automation tools -- to secure even a moderately complex Windows system. Even then, it's not secure...till you verify that everything you know that could be exploited has been checked to make sure that it isn't expoloitable.
Run scanners (external and internal), check running processes, turn them off and remove anything you can, know what is running in detail. If you wrote the software, keep security in mind from the first line of code and always consider the environment hostile.
That said, if you pick poorly designed software and run it in a hostile environment...it's still *your* responsibility. One thing you can do is not use bad designs and lock down your systems.
Thanks for the link.
I find that what people are currently discussing is most important, with FAQs and other documentation being less important; those documents don't change or express what people are thinking and considering right now.