Some of the biggest flaws in Windows would remain flaws no matter how well they were implemented, because they're inherent in the high level design of major components, designs that were chosen for political reasons. bad user interfaces can be replaced. Bugs can be fixed. But there is no way to securely implement Active X as Internet Explorer uses it even if you got the ghost of Turing riding shotgun with Wirth and Knuth as pilot and copilot.
This isn't anything to do with software development. It's no different than the wrangling in the auto industry over seatbelts and air bags, or the oil industry pushing gas prices down on the run up to an election where an "energy-friendly" incumbent is in the white house.
The Zune is identical to the next-generation Toshiba Gigabeat. This isn't like the XBox being a custom-motherboard PC, or the XBox 360 being a custom-motherboard PC with a non-intel CPU, this would be like the XBox being an off-the-shelf thin-client PC with the name changed.
The point is that Microsoft didn't perform any great prodigies of rapid development to bring the Zune from concept to production in 9 months, as the message I was responding to implied.
In fact, since I've owned a Palm - about eight years - I've used that [...] at least twice!
And of course your anecdote is proof that everyone else found it just as useless.
I used it quite a lot until recently. What happened is that I started running into people who were using cellphones and Blackberries as their PDAs, and so could neither send nor receive IR.
Of course Microsoft couldn't reliably do IR in their PDA software until 2002, and it's never been as convenient as Palm even in PPC 2002 and later... so when Palm dropped the ball and decided to go head to head with Microsoft's "baby laptops", and handed Microsoft market share, that hurt beaming as well.
The question becomes; is it possible to code a truly "secure" browser app?
There's many answers, depending on what you mean by secure...
1. A browser in which no path throough the code can in principle be exploited. Technically, yes, but in practise you're unlikely to see such a browser in wide use because it wouldn't permit third party plug-ins nor would its scripting language allow many of the capabilities people are used to seeing.
2. A browser in which no security flaws can be practically exploited. This would be possible, if you don't count holes in third-party plugins. You would need to implement the browser in an inherently safe language and restrict the ability of scripts to only change the presentation of data, to communicate with plugins at a high level, and trigger events within the same document.
3. A browser in which no security flaws require changing the exposed API to be fixed. This is easily implemented, and Gecko is actually not far from it. Scripts would need to be somewhat restricted to prevent cross-site information exposure, but most of the problems with Firefox are at a higher level... for example, the use of the same scripting engine to implement user interface features and to execute untrusted scripts, or (and worse) the support code for XPI installs from the web that requires a hole in the sandbox to implement. A browser such as Camino that uses Gecko for rendering HTML but implements the user interface in native code is safer in principle.
4. A browser in which 'trusted' documents can run unsandboxed code, and which is still secure? Not possible. This is where Internet Explorer is. The difference between point 3 and point 4 is huge... you can build a class three secure browser using the Gecko engine with minor changes that don't effect the API. You can't make a class 4 browser secure without turning it into a class 3 browser, and to do that you have to fundamentally change the API. Microsoft could do it now, but it would have been much easier for them to do it in 1998.
I learned to write Grafitti by obsessively writing in the first few days I got one when they first came out. Grafitti is faster than regular writing (though not typing) because every character is a single stroke, much like the speed of cursive writing was a consequence of ballpoint pens. [...] This half-duplex keyboard is different.
Indeed. Graffiti is good, but many of its workalikes are truly awful. Jot, which was used on the original Microsoft handhelds and has replaced Graffiti on the palm (under the name Graffiti 2), slows me down so much that I'm considering the possibility that I may be forced to switch to the Pocket PC when my current Palm dies simply because Microsoft learned... their later emulation of Graffiti is almost perfect and far far better than Graffiti 2.
Similarly, when I started using modern laptops it took me some time to get used to the relatively short throw and awkward layout, but the better ones (like the one on the Thinkpad) are quite good. The worst ones are terrible, though, and what makes them so bad is the same thing that makes this bad. It's the "Graffiti 2" to the good laptop's "Graffiti".
I love my Mac but the snap and fell of the PC keyboards is far better so I still try to write on the PC.
So why don't you use a PC keyboard on your Mac?
I have used PC keyboards exclusively since Apple switched to USB, because that coincidentally is when they introduced teh horrid mushy keyboards they have now. I actually get confused because teh CMD/Apple/Windows key is in the "wrong place" on a Mac keyboard.
The horrid Apple laptop keyboards are a bigger problem. I have found a decent Bluetooth keyboard by Logitech that's slim enough to fit in my backpack and has a far superior feel.
I concur with the first poster in this thread. I already suffer enough pain just using my Macbook Pro's keyboard that one with even less responsiveness brings a shiver to my spine... and ulnar nerve...
DRM used to protect a confidential document has to be independent of displayed time. Setting the clock back has to be detected by the DRM mechanism, or else you could bypass it by copying the document to your own laptop. Which makes the DRM irrelevant.
They'll also likely be delighted by the fact that Microsoft has slammed the door on some of the more glaring security holes that have plagued XP users for years.
They've gotten rid of Internet Explorer, Outlook, and the rest of the applications that use the HTML control?
Whoa, you had me going there for a second. What you mean is that they've added some more internal firewalls to make it a little harder for an exploit to use the more obvious hiding places... which is basically the same approach they've been using to attack the deep and fundamental security holes produced by the HTML control's criminally stupid trust model since 1997.
There's nothing new here. It's not going to solve the problem. It's just going to annoy people more.
They need to catch on: security is like sex. Once you're penetrated you're fucked. Get rid of the stuff that's making the initial penetration easier, and you'll find you won't need the rhythm method and the statues of saints.
No - they are not stupid. They know the "price" of a human life [...]
"He's posting without reading the OP."
"crOsh, you've turned off your posting computer. Stay on topic."
I'm referring to them being "stupid" for not realising the value of marketing value of spending a penny on a mini stereo jack ten years ago (let alone 25). And "sons of bitches" for the reasons you cited. Which is why I asked whether the folks making aftermarket stereo gear are equally stupid.
However reading at +5, most of the posts either point out that the summary was incorrect, or they state one of the things I summarised, "Apple is just defending their trademark, all companies do this."
I guess you should have read at +5 before the attempt rather than after.
Doesn't that imply that the RIAA has an overwhelming share of the content market?
No, again, and even though this conclusion is arguably correct it's not implied here.
If someone's breaking the law, and you're harmed by it, whether or not other people are harmed by it isn't actually relevant.
Doesn't the fact that you can point to a number of artists who sell and distribute their work through alternative channels, including LimeWire, imply that the RIAA could be targeting LimeWire to eliminate competition in their field?
Not unless they're also going after distribution mechanisms that don't provide the same measure of anonymity and deniability that distinguishes certain kinds of peer-to-peer networks. There isn't even reason to believe that they are going to go after independant musicians own web sites and tracable file-sharing services like download.com, which is what they'd need to do to "eliminate competition".
So, even though I firmly believe that calling the RIAA a bunch of dirty rats is a visios slander on rats everywhere, there's no smoking gun here. Not even a soggy super-soaker.
This is to the authors of the innumerable articles flaming about Apple without actually bothering to find out what's going on. Like the one two or three articles below this.
You didn't read the fucking letter. You didn't even read the comments RIGHT HERE that point out Apple is NOT going after "podcast". They have 'no general objection to proper use of the descriptive term "podcast" as part of a trademark for goods and services offered in the podcasting field'. It's right there in the letter. Can't you people read?
Though getting rid of all the voltage levels will take more than the motherboard work... you'll also need to do something about all the disks and other components that are currently getting a mixed feed.
They're not talking about reducing the voltage the PS uses, they're talking about not having the PS produce things like +5 and -5 as well as +12, INSIDE the computer.
Much as I enjoy slamming the RIAA, I'm not sure how antitrust comes into this. There's thousands of artists distributing music online, either directly from their own websites or through sites like the Piano Society, download.com, Magnatune, emusic.com, and many others for free or for pay.
Google originated the term "google" in the context of search engines. And they do go after businesses who used the term "google" in ways that implied a connection to Google.
Apple didn't originate the term "podcast" in the context of downloaded radio programs. Here they are going after a company using it in that context... but ALSO using another term (myPodder) that's a clear infringment of the trademarks Apple has claimed.
It's not at all clear that Apple is claiming the term "podcast", and if they did they wouldn't have as nearly as strong a position as Google.
The term "podcast" was clearly a surprise to Apple. They didn't even start using the term even casually, let alone in a product, until it was already in world-wide generic use.
It's not clear to me that they have a policy of going after people who use the term "Podcast" in business. The other term, "myPodder", is clearly the kind of thing that Apple has gone after in the past. Without that, would Apple's lawyers have acted? This could simply be an attack lawyer going overboard.
I don't suppose anyone has a rational explanation for something that's been bugging me for the past quarter of a century. Well, one other than "car companies and car stereo manufacturers are run by right daft bastards".
It's still a matter of amazement to me that a stereo mini plug hasn't been a standard part of all car audio systems since, oh, about 1980 at the latest.
I mean, we're talking about a feature that would cost them pennies per unit in a device.
The only vaguely rational explanation is that they're terrified by the possibility that if people could plug their own kit in easily they'd do that instead of upgrading to a better unit. As if someone spending a minimum of ten or twenty thousand dollars on a car is going to hold back a buck a week on their payments so they can have a more easily stolen CD player and more cables strewn about the inside of the car.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't use the keyboard to navigate to all the icons in a Windows application's toolbar? That sucks.
Your car stereo doesn't have a two-cent audio-in jack? That sucks.
Your cellphone's 'send to voicemail' button is right under your thumb when you flip the phone open? That sucks.
Your kids' school sends students home early when they don't have a class in the last period, but there's no school bus? That sucks.
Your TV reception is better than your cable reception, because there's an amplifier on your line that's flooded every time it rains? That sucks.
Your town built a bridge and created a stagnant pool right where the ouflow from the slaughterhouse hits the river? That sucks.
What makes anything think that bad design, screwed up decisions, and lousy implementation are unique to software?
Some of the biggest flaws in Windows would remain flaws no matter how well they were implemented, because they're inherent in the high level design of major components, designs that were chosen for political reasons. bad user interfaces can be replaced. Bugs can be fixed. But there is no way to securely implement Active X as Internet Explorer uses it even if you got the ghost of Turing riding shotgun with Wirth and Knuth as pilot and copilot.
This isn't anything to do with software development. It's no different than the wrangling in the auto industry over seatbelts and air bags, or the oil industry pushing gas prices down on the run up to an election where an "energy-friendly" incumbent is in the white house.
The Zune is identical to the next-generation Toshiba Gigabeat. This isn't like the XBox being a custom-motherboard PC, or the XBox 360 being a custom-motherboard PC with a non-intel CPU, this would be like the XBox being an off-the-shelf thin-client PC with the name changed.
The point is that Microsoft didn't perform any great prodigies of rapid development to bring the Zune from concept to production in 9 months, as the message I was responding to implied.
Let's not forget that the Zune was built in 9 months.
The Zune wasn't built by Microsoft. It's a rebadged third-party device.
In fact, since I've owned a Palm - about eight years - I've used that [...] at least twice!
And of course your anecdote is proof that everyone else found it just as useless.
I used it quite a lot until recently. What happened is that I started running into people who were using cellphones and Blackberries as their PDAs, and so could neither send nor receive IR.
Of course Microsoft couldn't reliably do IR in their PDA software until 2002, and it's never been as convenient as Palm even in PPC 2002 and later... so when Palm dropped the ball and decided to go head to head with Microsoft's "baby laptops", and handed Microsoft market share, that hurt beaming as well.
I am sure that the wireless feature will be used as often as you beamed or received business cards....
That would be "quite often, until Microsoft pissed in the PDA market with a device that made beaming hard".
Given that this is Microsoft, make that "quite a bit less often than...".
Now you'll be able to download songs from, say, Walmart for 88 cents and play them on your iPod.
If I can burn them to a CD I can already do that.
Well this whole concept is useless who could he license this to?
... :)
The Beatles, Apple records,
The question becomes; is it possible to code a truly "secure" browser app?
There's many answers, depending on what you mean by secure...
1. A browser in which no path throough the code can in principle be exploited. Technically, yes, but in practise you're unlikely to see such a browser in wide use because it wouldn't permit third party plug-ins nor would its scripting language allow many of the capabilities people are used to seeing.
2. A browser in which no security flaws can be practically exploited. This would be possible, if you don't count holes in third-party plugins. You would need to implement the browser in an inherently safe language and restrict the ability of scripts to only change the presentation of data, to communicate with plugins at a high level, and trigger events within the same document.
3. A browser in which no security flaws require changing the exposed API to be fixed. This is easily implemented, and Gecko is actually not far from it. Scripts would need to be somewhat restricted to prevent cross-site information exposure, but most of the problems with Firefox are at a higher level... for example, the use of the same scripting engine to implement user interface features and to execute untrusted scripts, or (and worse) the support code for XPI installs from the web that requires a hole in the sandbox to implement. A browser such as Camino that uses Gecko for rendering HTML but implements the user interface in native code is safer in principle.
4. A browser in which 'trusted' documents can run unsandboxed code, and which is still secure? Not possible. This is where Internet Explorer is. The difference between point 3 and point 4 is huge... you can build a class three secure browser using the Gecko engine with minor changes that don't effect the API. You can't make a class 4 browser secure without turning it into a class 3 browser, and to do that you have to fundamentally change the API. Microsoft could do it now, but it would have been much easier for them to do it in 1998.
I learned to write Grafitti by obsessively writing in the first few days I got one when they first came out. Grafitti is faster than regular writing (though not typing) because every character is a single stroke, much like the speed of cursive writing was a consequence of ballpoint pens. [...] This half-duplex keyboard is different.
Indeed. Graffiti is good, but many of its workalikes are truly awful. Jot, which was used on the original Microsoft handhelds and has replaced Graffiti on the palm (under the name Graffiti 2), slows me down so much that I'm considering the possibility that I may be forced to switch to the Pocket PC when my current Palm dies simply because Microsoft learned... their later emulation of Graffiti is almost perfect and far far better than Graffiti 2.
Similarly, when I started using modern laptops it took me some time to get used to the relatively short throw and awkward layout, but the better ones (like the one on the Thinkpad) are quite good. The worst ones are terrible, though, and what makes them so bad is the same thing that makes this bad. It's the "Graffiti 2" to the good laptop's "Graffiti".
I love my Mac but the snap and fell of the PC keyboards is far better so I still try to write on the PC.
So why don't you use a PC keyboard on your Mac?
I have used PC keyboards exclusively since Apple switched to USB, because that coincidentally is when they introduced teh horrid mushy keyboards they have now. I actually get confused because teh CMD/Apple/Windows key is in the "wrong place" on a Mac keyboard.
The horrid Apple laptop keyboards are a bigger problem. I have found a decent Bluetooth keyboard by Logitech that's slim enough to fit in my backpack and has a far superior feel.
I concur with the first poster in this thread. I already suffer enough pain just using my Macbook Pro's keyboard that one with even less responsiveness brings a shiver to my spine... and ulnar nerve...
DRM used to protect a confidential document has to be independent of displayed time. Setting the clock back has to be detected by the DRM mechanism, or else you could bypass it by copying the document to your own laptop. Which makes the DRM irrelevant.
They'll also likely be delighted by the fact that Microsoft has slammed the door on some of the more glaring security holes that have plagued XP users for years.
They've gotten rid of Internet Explorer, Outlook, and the rest of the applications that use the HTML control?
Whoa, you had me going there for a second. What you mean is that they've added some more internal firewalls to make it a little harder for an exploit to use the more obvious hiding places... which is basically the same approach they've been using to attack the deep and fundamental security holes produced by the HTML control's criminally stupid trust model since 1997.
There's nothing new here. It's not going to solve the problem. It's just going to annoy people more.
They need to catch on: security is like sex. Once you're penetrated you're fucked. Get rid of the stuff that's making the initial penetration easier, and you'll find you won't need the rhythm method and the statues of saints.
No - they are not stupid. They know the "price" of a human life [...]
"He's posting without reading the OP."
"crOsh, you've turned off your posting computer. Stay on topic."
I'm referring to them being "stupid" for not realising the value of marketing value of spending a penny on a mini stereo jack ten years ago (let alone 25). And "sons of bitches" for the reasons you cited. Which is why I asked whether the folks making aftermarket stereo gear are equally stupid.
However reading at +5, most of the posts either point out that the summary was incorrect, or they state one of the things I summarised, "Apple is just defending their trademark, all companies do this."
I guess you should have read at +5 before the attempt rather than after.
Doesn't that imply that the RIAA has an overwhelming share of the content market?
No, again, and even though this conclusion is arguably correct it's not implied here.
If someone's breaking the law, and you're harmed by it, whether or not other people are harmed by it isn't actually relevant.
Doesn't the fact that you can point to a number of artists who sell and distribute their work through alternative channels, including LimeWire, imply that the RIAA could be targeting LimeWire to eliminate competition in their field?
Not unless they're also going after distribution mechanisms that don't provide the same measure of anonymity and deniability that distinguishes certain kinds of peer-to-peer networks. There isn't even reason to believe that they are going to go after independant musicians own web sites and tracable file-sharing services like download.com, which is what they'd need to do to "eliminate competition".
So, even though I firmly believe that calling the RIAA a bunch of dirty rats is a visios slander on rats everywhere, there's no smoking gun here. Not even a soggy super-soaker.
You didn't read the fucking letter either, idiot.
This is to the authors of the innumerable articles flaming about Apple without actually bothering to find out what's going on. Like the one two or three articles below this.
You didn't read the fucking letter. You didn't even read the comments RIGHT HERE that point out Apple is NOT going after "podcast". They have 'no general objection to proper use of the descriptive term "podcast" as part of a trademark for goods and services offered in the podcasting field'. It's right there in the letter. Can't you people read?
So they're basically stupid sons of bitches.
And all the people making aftermarket radios are stupid sons of bitches as well?
Though getting rid of all the voltage levels will take more than the motherboard work... you'll also need to do something about all the disks and other components that are currently getting a mixed feed.
They're not talking about reducing the voltage the PS uses, they're talking about not having the PS produce things like +5 and -5 as well as +12, INSIDE the computer.
Much as I enjoy slamming the RIAA, I'm not sure how antitrust comes into this. There's thousands of artists distributing music online, either directly from their own websites or through sites like the Piano Society, download.com, Magnatune, emusic.com, and many others for free or for pay.
Google originated the term "google" in the context of search engines. And they do go after businesses who used the term "google" in ways that implied a connection to Google.
Apple didn't originate the term "podcast" in the context of downloaded radio programs. Here they are going after a company using it in that context... but ALSO using another term (myPodder) that's a clear infringment of the trademarks Apple has claimed.
It's not at all clear that Apple is claiming the term "podcast", and if they did they wouldn't have as nearly as strong a position as Google.
The term "podcast" was clearly a surprise to Apple. They didn't even start using the term even casually, let alone in a product, until it was already in world-wide generic use.
It's not clear to me that they have a policy of going after people who use the term "Podcast" in business. The other term, "myPodder", is clearly the kind of thing that Apple has gone after in the past. Without that, would Apple's lawyers have acted? This could simply be an attack lawyer going overboard.
I don't suppose anyone has a rational explanation for something that's been bugging me for the past quarter of a century. Well, one other than "car companies and car stereo manufacturers are run by right daft bastards".
It's still a matter of amazement to me that a stereo mini plug hasn't been a standard part of all car audio systems since, oh, about 1980 at the latest.
I mean, we're talking about a feature that would cost them pennies per unit in a device.
The only vaguely rational explanation is that they're terrified by the possibility that if people could plug their own kit in easily they'd do that instead of upgrading to a better unit. As if someone spending a minimum of ten or twenty thousand dollars on a car is going to hold back a buck a week on their payments so they can have a more easily stolen CD player and more cables strewn about the inside of the car.