Presumably you're missing something better to do with your time, if you bothered going back 5 times to watch the rest of the film.
If I hadn't been there with my nephew, who loved it, I would have walked out as well. The 3D was quite impressive, but by an hour into the film I'd seen more than enough of that. And I can't believe anyone would bother sitting through the whole thing in 2D.
I was thinking the same thing - there's a big difference between something that looks like a sheet of paper, but with animation on it, and something that looks like a small TV screen stuck into a hole in the page.
Maybe it looks better in real life, but it looks quite some way from proper "sci fi" e-paper to me.
. I just meant that surely studying mathematics and advancing CS are more significant endeavors than the ol 9 to 5
More significant in what way? Plenty of advances (scientific/mathematical or otherwise) come out of industry, and even without advancing human knowledge it's debatable whether actually producing something is more or less significant than thinking about it.
Not trying to knock acedemia - there's definitely a valuable place for abstract pursuit of knowledge - but it's easy to get caught up in the idea that the rest of the world is nothing more than mindless drudgery.
Just because you design and code systems that others can make millions from, it doesn't automatically mean that you're being underpaid. Is it your software, or the way that it's used that is adding the real value?
If I wrote software that helped someone to write a bestseller, should I complain if they made a fortune and I didn't? If I'd invented and written a "story generator" that took a few bits of input from a user and spat out a great novel, then yes I would be annoyed (although I'd presumably just create a book myself). But if all I did was create another standard word processor, or even if I'd coded the story generator based on someone else's algorithms, then no I wouldn't.
Even ignoring the practical impossibility of doing this, presumably they would still have had to purchase a copy of that, and every other, book (and probably one copy for each person that would be tasked with checking the documents) in order to do it legally.
Can't speak for non Apple phones, but I can certainly achieve the 5 bars to lost signal on my iPhone 3GS simply by holding it in a natural way (for me at least).
It usually only goes down to about 2-3 bars, but it does sometimes drop all the way to 0, then scans, then goes back up to 5 again.
Depends what the password is for. We have to lock our screens when we leave our desks, and then retype our passwords when we return. I now lock my screen out of habit if I turn round to talk to someone. I don't want to have to retype a 40 letter string (correctly) every time I turn back to do some work.
If you RTFA, there are no "texting devices aimed at children as young as three ". The device aimed at 3 year olds is a toy with spelling games that's designed to look like a Blackberry. My daughter has had toy phones, including toy mobiles, since she was was one (and I'm pretty sure I had a pull-along phone when I was a toddler). Don't really see how this is greatly different from that.
Kids these days are surrounded by technology - my daughter's now 3 and would much rather sit and play on the CBeebies (BBC kids channel) website than watch CBeebies on the TV. If used (and supervised) properly, tech can be great for education as well as being fun.
I'd agree it's not "evil", but I do question the statement "dead simple to use". It's dead simple until it doesn't work, and then you're pretty much stuffed.
Synchronising my iPhone with iTunes freezes the PC 75% of the time, gives an error another 20% of the time and works for the final 5%. I've tried pretty much every "fix" out there, from trying different cable, unplugging my mouse or disconnecting from the network through to disabling anti-virus and firewall, all with no noticable difference. It's a brand new PC (I've got nothing but Windows, AV, firewall, iTunes and Firefox on there), so it's unlikely to be some bizarre software compatibility issue.
There's two things I'd love to try - syncing without iTunes, which I can't do, and trying a shorter cable in case it's related to power dropping (I've had this with other devices and a shorter USB cable fixed it), but I can't do this either as it's got to be an Apple cable.
Looking on the Internet, I seem to be far from the only one with this problem. If you're going to give people one option for how to do something, you really ought to be 100% certain it's going to work.
Rather difficult to sit on the sofa with a desktop monitor balancing on your lap, or to cart the whole lot between meeting rooms that all have power supplies.
It depends which German speaking country (at least in my experience). I travelled round Germany by train a couple of years ago and it was like Britain in the mid '90s - within an hour of the scheduled time usually seemed to qualify as "on time".
In Switzerland, OTOH, every train I ever caught left pretty much exactly on time - I don't recall one ever being near a minute late (and I'm sure I remember there being some departures listed down to the nearest 30 seconds) - that was 8 years ago though so it may be different now.
Well, arguably it's not "broken" - merely somewhat less secure [0] - because if an intruder has already made it far enough in to disable the burglar alarm, then your "security" is breached.
Then what possible purpose is it serving? The only point it would ever be needed is when someone's breached other security, and at that point it is useless as it can be turned off.
And that is pretty much the position I see with UAC as it was planned in Win 7 (it seems to have been changed now). At the point it would serve any useful purpose, it could be turned off without the user knowing.
The issue isn't whether Win 7 should have impenetrable security. It's about whether this choice would have made UAC totally and utterly useless. Security and convenience aren't always inversely proportional - as originally planned in Win 7, UAC would offer pretty much no additional protection at all (any malicious code would simply turn it off before doing anything that would trigger the warnings), while continuing to annoy people trying to make legitimate changes to the system.
UAC is only triggered if an application specifically requests it, or if it tries to access system areas.
And if I understand the issue with Windows 7, your malicious app can simply turn UAC off before it tries to access the system area.
Like I keep saying - either the UAC warnings serve some purpose, in which case being able to silently turn them off is a bad thing, or they don't and UAC may as well be abandoned.
I accept that it's only a second level defence, but that's like saying a burglar alarm that has a simple off switch on the front is not broken because the front door must already have been compromised for the burglar to get to the switch.
Yes. You're missing the part that the malware cannot run in the first place unless the user has authorised it to.
Not sure that I am. My understanding of the various UAC warnings is that they are to try to stop malicious behaviour once a program is already running, otherwise why not simply have a single "Do you trust this application to run" prompt? What else is the rest of the UAC mechanism achieving?
If malware can turn off UAC without prompting the user, and can therefore subsequently do whatever it wants without any further prompts (as UAC is disabled), what protection is it offering me?
You can say that "something else must have broken for this to have caused a problem", but that's true of anything that UAC is protecting, surely?
Either UAC is serving a purpose, in which case being able to silently turn it off is a security hole, or it's not and it's a total waste of time.
If someone is fundamentally incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction (which is the claim here), then he's unlikely to be safe to be let either out the house or on the PC on his own.
And that still doesn't address the issue of the gun.
The problem is that if a person is that incapable of separating fiction from reality, they would presumably have been influenced by everything from the first kids TV programs they saw onwards (and I'm not just talking about the violent ones - last week, Rupert The Bear had them climbing a tree and flying due to magic - would he have tried that if he'd seen it?)
I struggle to believe someone could realistically made it to 17 with that little grip on reality, or at least managed it without this problem being plainly clear to his parents - in which case, what the hell were his parents doing a)buying him a video game like that and b)having a gun in the house?
They can't (although looking at your startup scripts and seeing dmcrypt in there may be a clue), but if I remember correctly, under the UK RIP act it's up to the defendent to prove that it's NOT encrypted - not sure exactly how you'd do that - and you'll be done, and probably sent down, for refusing to hand the key over if you can't.
Yes, me. My eeePC normally lives in my kitchen (handy for looking up recipes, streaming BBC radio while I'm cooking etc), but is extremely handy for things like when I'm off to the in-laws for the week, or on a work trip and only carrying light luggage etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Apple's already got "i".
Presumably you're missing something better to do with your time, if you bothered going back 5 times to watch the rest of the film.
If I hadn't been there with my nephew, who loved it, I would have walked out as well. The 3D was quite impressive, but by an hour into the film I'd seen more than enough of that. And I can't believe anyone would bother sitting through the whole thing in 2D.
I was thinking the same thing - there's a big difference between something that looks like a sheet of paper, but with animation on it, and something that looks like a small TV screen stuck into a hole in the page.
Maybe it looks better in real life, but it looks quite some way from proper "sci fi" e-paper to me.
More significant in what way? Plenty of advances (scientific/mathematical or otherwise) come out of industry, and even without advancing human knowledge it's debatable whether actually producing something is more or less significant than thinking about it.
Not trying to knock acedemia - there's definitely a valuable place for abstract pursuit of knowledge - but it's easy to get caught up in the idea that the rest of the world is nothing more than mindless drudgery.
Just because you design and code systems that others can make millions from, it doesn't automatically mean that you're being underpaid. Is it your software, or the way that it's used that is adding the real value?
If I wrote software that helped someone to write a bestseller, should I complain if they made a fortune and I didn't? If I'd invented and written a "story generator" that took a few bits of input from a user and spat out a great novel, then yes I would be annoyed (although I'd presumably just create a book myself). But if all I did was create another standard word processor, or even if I'd coded the story generator based on someone else's algorithms, then no I wouldn't.
In that kind of situation, I could probably get by pretty well without a map as well.
I'd take a late-80s ST with monochrome monitor over a late-80s PC any day of the week.
A Sat Nav is simply a map that can also tell you where you are.
Even ignoring the practical impossibility of doing this, presumably they would still have had to purchase a copy of that, and every other, book (and probably one copy for each person that would be tasked with checking the documents) in order to do it legally.
Can't speak for non Apple phones, but I can certainly achieve the 5 bars to lost signal on my iPhone 3GS simply by holding it in a natural way (for me at least).
It usually only goes down to about 2-3 bars, but it does sometimes drop all the way to 0, then scans, then goes back up to 5 again.
Depends what the password is for. We have to lock our screens when we leave our desks, and then retype our passwords when we return. I now lock my screen out of habit if I turn round to talk to someone. I don't want to have to retype a 40 letter string (correctly) every time I turn back to do some work.
If you RTFA, there are no "texting devices aimed at children as young as three ". The device aimed at 3 year olds is a toy with spelling games that's designed to look like a Blackberry. My daughter has had toy phones, including toy mobiles, since she was was one (and I'm pretty sure I had a pull-along phone when I was a toddler). Don't really see how this is greatly different from that.
Kids these days are surrounded by technology - my daughter's now 3 and would much rather sit and play on the CBeebies (BBC kids channel) website than watch CBeebies on the TV. If used (and supervised) properly, tech can be great for education as well as being fun.
I'd agree it's not "evil", but I do question the statement "dead simple to use". It's dead simple until it doesn't work, and then you're pretty much stuffed.
Synchronising my iPhone with iTunes freezes the PC 75% of the time, gives an error another 20% of the time and works for the final 5%. I've tried pretty much every "fix" out there, from trying different cable, unplugging my mouse or disconnecting from the network through to disabling anti-virus and firewall, all with no noticable difference. It's a brand new PC (I've got nothing but Windows, AV, firewall, iTunes and Firefox on there), so it's unlikely to be some bizarre software compatibility issue.
There's two things I'd love to try - syncing without iTunes, which I can't do, and trying a shorter cable in case it's related to power dropping (I've had this with other devices and a shorter USB cable fixed it), but I can't do this either as it's got to be an Apple cable.
Looking on the Internet, I seem to be far from the only one with this problem. If you're going to give people one option for how to do something, you really ought to be 100% certain it's going to work.
Rather difficult to sit on the sofa with a desktop monitor balancing on your lap, or to cart the whole lot between meeting rooms that all have power supplies.
I've noticed exactly the same thing at Cologne station. Must be a Germanic thing.
It depends which German speaking country (at least in my experience). I travelled round Germany by train a couple of years ago and it was like Britain in the mid '90s - within an hour of the scheduled time usually seemed to qualify as "on time".
In Switzerland, OTOH, every train I ever caught left pretty much exactly on time - I don't recall one ever being near a minute late (and I'm sure I remember there being some departures listed down to the nearest 30 seconds) - that was 8 years ago though so it may be different now.
Then what possible purpose is it serving? The only point it would ever be needed is when someone's breached other security, and at that point it is useless as it can be turned off.
And that is pretty much the position I see with UAC as it was planned in Win 7 (it seems to have been changed now). At the point it would serve any useful purpose, it could be turned off without the user knowing.
The issue isn't whether Win 7 should have impenetrable security. It's about whether this choice would have made UAC totally and utterly useless. Security and convenience aren't always inversely proportional - as originally planned in Win 7, UAC would offer pretty much no additional protection at all (any malicious code would simply turn it off before doing anything that would trigger the warnings), while continuing to annoy people trying to make legitimate changes to the system.
And if I understand the issue with Windows 7, your malicious app can simply turn UAC off before it tries to access the system area.
Like I keep saying - either the UAC warnings serve some purpose, in which case being able to silently turn them off is a bad thing, or they don't and UAC may as well be abandoned.
I accept that it's only a second level defence, but that's like saying a burglar alarm that has a simple off switch on the front is not broken because the front door must already have been compromised for the burglar to get to the switch.
Not sure that I am. My understanding of the various UAC warnings is that they are to try to stop malicious behaviour once a program is already running, otherwise why not simply have a single "Do you trust this application to run" prompt? What else is the rest of the UAC mechanism achieving?
Am I missing something?
If malware can turn off UAC without prompting the user, and can therefore subsequently do whatever it wants without any further prompts (as UAC is disabled), what protection is it offering me?
You can say that "something else must have broken for this to have caused a problem", but that's true of anything that UAC is protecting, surely?
Either UAC is serving a purpose, in which case being able to silently turn it off is a security hole, or it's not and it's a total waste of time.
If someone is fundamentally incapable of distinguishing fact from fiction (which is the claim here), then he's unlikely to be safe to be let either out the house or on the PC on his own.
And that still doesn't address the issue of the gun.
The problem is that if a person is that incapable of separating fiction from reality, they would presumably have been influenced by everything from the first kids TV programs they saw onwards (and I'm not just talking about the violent ones - last week, Rupert The Bear had them climbing a tree and flying due to magic - would he have tried that if he'd seen it?)
I struggle to believe someone could realistically made it to 17 with that little grip on reality, or at least managed it without this problem being plainly clear to his parents - in which case, what the hell were his parents doing a)buying him a video game like that and b)having a gun in the house?
I've worked for a couple of companies without customers. It's only fun until the money runs out...
They can't (although looking at your startup scripts and seeing dmcrypt in there may be a clue), but if I remember correctly, under the UK RIP act it's up to the defendent to prove that it's NOT encrypted - not sure exactly how you'd do that - and you'll be done, and probably sent down, for refusing to hand the key over if you can't.
Yes, me. My eeePC normally lives in my kitchen (handy for looking up recipes, streaming BBC radio while I'm cooking etc), but is extremely handy for things like when I'm off to the in-laws for the week, or on a work trip and only carrying light luggage etc.