I think the main benefit of such a system would be responsiveness. It is very unpleasant when one tab temporarily causes the entire browser window to become completely unresponsive--including the STOP button or the button to CLOSE the misbehaving tab. The UI should never freeze for any reason.
I have never owned a smartphone of any sort. I have used WM6 and WM5 phones which were provided by my employer. Both have been complete garbage, but then both came with "branding" software.
I just went through a process I found online to remove branding software from my WM6 phone, and it does seem to be more responsive. It's still bad enough that I would not consider spending my own money on such a phone.
Except, with contract enforcement, you can be sued (and lose) in a state you've never entered without even being present in court or even being a citizen of the US.
Yes, the fact that you spent the time to figure out how to do custom ROMs for phones clearly indicates that you are more intelligent than the other 99.999% of the human population. We are all very impressed.
Interesting. My device is from AT&T. So you're saying AT&T badly broke WM6 phones and never tried to update/fix the problem? That's horrible. I'll look at XDA forum--hopefully there's a way I can strip out AT&T's malware without having to become a mobile phone expert in the process.
Windows Mobile is such a failed piece of software, I can't see how this even matters. Nobody would use a WM6 device unless it is provided for them by their employer. My WM phone gets a 1-second lag between pressing a button and having anything change on the display. It also has to be hard reset every other day or the web browser stops working. How the HELL did that ever make it past QA?
Well as a tech worker, I certainly do not want to work in a state where I can be sued for switching jobs! Driving away developers certainly isn't going to help Massachusetts foster technological development.
Your solution does seem to be the best of both worlds.
A good UI would give an answer assuming the most common uses of ambiguous terms, and also give links saying "did you mean..." with all the other possible meanings of those terms.
I had zero driver issues and zero required uses of the command line in Ubuntu 9.04. Ubuntu has come a long way int he past two years.
My support issues were generally solved very quickly with a google search. Calling MSFT for support would take much longer and would connect me with a third-world script-reader.
In my AI class, "expert systems" were mentioned. There was an example of a system for diagnosing blood-borne pathogens. Basically, they programmed some computer to ask every question of the patient that a doctor would ask, and programmed the doctors' decision-making process into the app. It was exactly as accurate as the doctors were. This was in the seventies.
The book said that expert systems were largely abandoned, however, because the software was less efficient--it asked males if they were pregnant, for example.
Software has come a long way since the seventies. I think it's time we take another swing at expert systems. I applaud Wolfram for making an attempt. There is no question in my mind that expert systems which are limited in scope could be very successful.
It's true. Where I work, we have very good security. This is because we have very good security engineers who select (or write) the tools they use, rather than having some shitty pie-chart generating security app shoved on us by some middle manager who liked the sales presentation.
Infosec really is an art at this point. Managers, don't tell the artist what equipment he can use. Your $40,000 SIM is going to be completely wasted, because syslog + a perl script will get him exactly what he needs in exactly the format he wants in less time than it takes to open the box on the SIM.
You are insane. Office 2007 was a horribly slow, buggy nightmare. SP2 is wonderful, though. Finally, I don't have to deal with Outlook freezing on me for 2+ minutes several times per day.
Office 2007 was crap from the start. Only now is it even usable.
I'm a security guy, not an AD admin, so maybe you could help me clarify this: You're saying it's possible to configure (via GP) Windows to automatically associate to the company wifi whenever it is in range, rejecting association if there is no valid certificate? And when the company wifi is not in range, users would be allowed to select any AP from a list?
I was told by our AD people this is not possible. Perhaps they just don't know how to do it? What happens if an AP with your company's SSID pops up, but uses no certificate?
The Windows XP wireless software simply lacks the features to prevent MITM. The sort of configuration needed would be something like:
"If you see our company's access points, always connect to them if they have valid certificates signed by the company's PKI. If you see them but they have invalid or no certificates, do not connect to anything at all. If you do not see our company's access points, let the user select which AP to use."
If there's a way to do this, fill me in. Because otherwise, anybody could put up a fake AP and MITM away your company's credentials. Furthermore, preventing users from selecting APs under all circumstances is not on option, as wifi is now the standard means of getting online while at hotels and such.
Since some ACs are telling me I'm wrong, I tried to look this up, and couldn't find what I was looking for. I could have him confused with someone else. So don't put too much stock in my comment.
Bruce is famous for writing some sort of P2P software, which, I believe, failed due to inadequate support for now-ubiquitous NAT, and for having a borderline-worthless search capability. Because of this project, though, he is somewhat of a celebrity, so his ideas are going to get more attention than the average slashdot comment.
802.11N is awesome. It's faster than 100Mb ethernet even in real world tests. But does it scale well even in dense office buildings? In a cube-farm scenario, where there are computers every five meters in every direction in 3D space, is it really possible to get 100Mb speed?
Security isn't there yet, either. Someone in the parking lot could still put up an access point which advertises itself as being part of your company network, and your users will connect to it. Doing it right is possible in theory (configure computers such that they will only connect to APs which have certificates issued by your company's PKI) but Windows doesn't allow you to lock down wireless in such a way.
Some may think Dutch frankness seems rude, but there is an easy solution. On your trip to Europe, visit France first. After that, everyone you meet in other countries will seem downright sweet.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the main benefit of such a system would be responsiveness. It is very unpleasant when one tab temporarily causes the entire browser window to become completely unresponsive--including the STOP button or the button to CLOSE the misbehaving tab. The UI should never freeze for any reason.
I have never owned a smartphone of any sort. I have used WM6 and WM5 phones which were provided by my employer. Both have been complete garbage, but then both came with "branding" software.
I just went through a process I found online to remove branding software from my WM6 phone, and it does seem to be more responsive. It's still bad enough that I would not consider spending my own money on such a phone.
Except, with contract enforcement, you can be sued (and lose) in a state you've never entered without even being present in court or even being a citizen of the US.
Yes, the fact that you spent the time to figure out how to do custom ROMs for phones clearly indicates that you are more intelligent than the other 99.999% of the human population. We are all very impressed.
Interesting. My device is from AT&T. So you're saying AT&T badly broke WM6 phones and never tried to update/fix the problem? That's horrible. I'll look at XDA forum--hopefully there's a way I can strip out AT&T's malware without having to become a mobile phone expert in the process.
Windows Mobile is such a failed piece of software, I can't see how this even matters. Nobody would use a WM6 device unless it is provided for them by their employer. My WM phone gets a 1-second lag between pressing a button and having anything change on the display. It also has to be hard reset every other day or the web browser stops working. How the HELL did that ever make it past QA?
Well as a tech worker, I certainly do not want to work in a state where I can be sued for switching jobs! Driving away developers certainly isn't going to help Massachusetts foster technological development.
Your solution does seem to be the best of both worlds.
I'm sorry, the correct illustrative example showing English's ambiguity was, "What do men? African or European swallow?"
A good UI would give an answer assuming the most common uses of ambiguous terms, and also give links saying "did you mean..." with all the other possible meanings of those terms.
I had zero driver issues and zero required uses of the command line in Ubuntu 9.04. Ubuntu has come a long way int he past two years.
My support issues were generally solved very quickly with a google search. Calling MSFT for support would take much longer and would connect me with a third-world script-reader.
You need to stick to factual, well-defined questions; such as, "what is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?"
Obviously. Life is about beer, bullets, bitches, and videogames.
In my AI class, "expert systems" were mentioned. There was an example of a system for diagnosing blood-borne pathogens. Basically, they programmed some computer to ask every question of the patient that a doctor would ask, and programmed the doctors' decision-making process into the app. It was exactly as accurate as the doctors were. This was in the seventies.
The book said that expert systems were largely abandoned, however, because the software was less efficient--it asked males if they were pregnant, for example.
Software has come a long way since the seventies. I think it's time we take another swing at expert systems. I applaud Wolfram for making an attempt. There is no question in my mind that expert systems which are limited in scope could be very successful.
It's true. Where I work, we have very good security. This is because we have very good security engineers who select (or write) the tools they use, rather than having some shitty pie-chart generating security app shoved on us by some middle manager who liked the sales presentation.
Infosec really is an art at this point. Managers, don't tell the artist what equipment he can use. Your $40,000 SIM is going to be completely wasted, because syslog + a perl script will get him exactly what he needs in exactly the format he wants in less time than it takes to open the box on the SIM.
Creationists, however, deny the accuracy of carbon dating. Therefore, all the fake whiskey will be sold to them at full price.
Out of hundreds of schools, how is it at all useful to single out two?
Oh, he used them quite well. His use of them got him front page slashdot, and all the thousands of ad impressions that come with that.
You are insane. Office 2007 was a horribly slow, buggy nightmare. SP2 is wonderful, though. Finally, I don't have to deal with Outlook freezing on me for 2+ minutes several times per day.
Office 2007 was crap from the start. Only now is it even usable.
I'm a security guy, not an AD admin, so maybe you could help me clarify this: You're saying it's possible to configure (via GP) Windows to automatically associate to the company wifi whenever it is in range, rejecting association if there is no valid certificate? And when the company wifi is not in range, users would be allowed to select any AP from a list?
I was told by our AD people this is not possible. Perhaps they just don't know how to do it? What happens if an AP with your company's SSID pops up, but uses no certificate?
The Windows XP wireless software simply lacks the features to prevent MITM. The sort of configuration needed would be something like:
"If you see our company's access points, always connect to them if they have valid certificates signed by the company's PKI. If you see them but they have invalid or no certificates, do not connect to anything at all. If you do not see our company's access points, let the user select which AP to use."
If there's a way to do this, fill me in. Because otherwise, anybody could put up a fake AP and MITM away your company's credentials. Furthermore, preventing users from selecting APs under all circumstances is not on option, as wifi is now the standard means of getting online while at hotels and such.
Since some ACs are telling me I'm wrong, I tried to look this up, and couldn't find what I was looking for. I could have him confused with someone else. So don't put too much stock in my comment.
"even Windows won't connect to insecure networks without you telling it to."
Your confusion lies in the fact that you don't understand what the word "insecure" means in your above sentence.
Bruce is famous for writing some sort of P2P software, which, I believe, failed due to inadequate support for now-ubiquitous NAT, and for having a borderline-worthless search capability. Because of this project, though, he is somewhat of a celebrity, so his ideas are going to get more attention than the average slashdot comment.
802.11N is awesome. It's faster than 100Mb ethernet even in real world tests. But does it scale well even in dense office buildings? In a cube-farm scenario, where there are computers every five meters in every direction in 3D space, is it really possible to get 100Mb speed?
Security isn't there yet, either. Someone in the parking lot could still put up an access point which advertises itself as being part of your company network, and your users will connect to it. Doing it right is possible in theory (configure computers such that they will only connect to APs which have certificates issued by your company's PKI) but Windows doesn't allow you to lock down wireless in such a way.
Some may think Dutch frankness seems rude, but there is an easy solution. On your trip to Europe, visit France first. After that, everyone you meet in other countries will seem downright sweet.