The whole point of Windows tablets is that they use the same OS for tablets and PCs. But they couldn't push that same OS for tablets because people chose to buy iPads instead, because the desktop OS isn't optimised for tablets.
But making the desktop OS use Metro means that customers will have to become acquanted with Metro once Microsoft stops selling XP and Windows 7 licenses to OEMs. And then their tablet offering will come with the 'familiar Windows experience', only now in addition to using the same OS that's on your desktop, it will be suitable for tablets.
If they can't shove a desktop OS in a tablet because people can choose not to buy that tablet, they can shove a tablet OS on the desktop and every office worker has to buy that.
There is always risk when investing that the enterprise might fail. You don't know the future, so you can't have investing without some degree of gambling. Risk have to be taken in real life too, not just in the casino.
C is not insecure per se, it simply requires that all the securing is done in the source code. One of the most important principles of C as I understand it is that no hidden actions are performed in the binary that are not written by the programmer in the source code, i.e. the compiler never adds code on its own. Bounds checking would be just that - silent code that executes in the binary but is not there in the source code. Destructors and a garbage collector would fall in the same category.
I understand that programmers not always write code carefully, and if they don't, C won't help there, but I don't think security can be automated anyway - for example, can you make a compiler that prevents you from writing code that's vulnerable from SQL or shell injection?
I'm wondering how difficult would it be to create such a hacked chip. May be designing it and making it work right would involve significant know-how and effort.
Most people would download the source code and compile it on their local machine which has its local make patch and gcc. Not the ones from the kernel.org server. Does kernel.org even offer precompiled images?
I'd argue that for the average user replacing the desktop icon with another browser would be enough. Who cares if the dlls are still around on the hard drive?
Every time I hear about the 'nefarious' and 'dangerous' cyberattacks coming from China, it always turns out that they involve sending emails probably saying 'look at nude photo - http://www.youtube.com.cn/video.exe'. If the Chinese are so dangerous, why can't they make something more technically challenging like Stuxnet? They might have the quantity, but their methods show something about the quality of their hackers - it's Chinese quality.
One good thing about the new incognito mode in Chrome is that it allows you to temporarily 'logout' from Google without having to actually logout. For me, the fact that in incognito you're not logged anywhere is even more important than the fact it won't store things in your local history.
Yes, they probably just don't buy new computers and go on using the same hardware for 7-8 years. I'd be curious to see statistics about the average length of the hardware refresh cycle in China.
The problem with compromised hardware wouldn't have existed, or at least not on that scale, if it wasn't for the fact that devices are increasingly connected to the Internet. If it wasn't for that, you would have no way to control your compromised hardware. So at most you could make it defective at some level, or make it become defective after a set period of time. It's the equivalent of remote control bomb vs time bomb - the time bomb is essentially 'dumb', it can't be controlled. The point is you can't use the compromised hardware at the exact moment you need it. So compromised hardware isn't that sinister for standalone machines that are not connected in any way, or are connected to isolated networks.
He's probably talking about all those foreign A students who can be found in the university library. But they probably know English anyway, so it's not like he needs to learn Chinese in order to talk to them.
You learn Spanish because there are people who speak it in the US. Chinese is spoken only in China. Unless everyone plans to go live there (great, another 400 million people to add to the population) then there is no reason why everyone should learn Chinese.
Yes, and Linux has a strength here - you can remove the browser from the OS. One employer who moved to Linux had productivity go up after he removed the browser from the computers of clerks who didn't need to surf the web (but who might have needed to use network printers and email).
I would argue that even the sites and the tracker aren't centralized in the sense that there is no single torrent site/tracker - there are many, and nothing prevents anyone from creating a new one. In smaller countries, there are local torrent sites which only the people of that country use and know about. I doubt anyone is going to go after them. When people say that torrent sites are centralized they think about the highly visible targets like pirate bay or isohunt which everyone knows.
I was wondering about that, too. It started happening since yesterday or the day before yesterday I think. I click on a link and nothing happens, but 'Open in new tab/window' works well enough. Is this browser-specific? I use only Google Chrome, but what do those using IE or Firefox have to say?
In various games I've often succumbed to the temptation to replay parts of the game until I've done it right but that made me feel the eventual success has been dilluted. Sometimes I've wished there was just such a 'feature' to help impose discipline on me so I don't replay every time I've make a mistake.
The problem here is that the price of energy usage is largely hidden for the consumer, who can't make the connection between the purchase and an increased monthly bill. The price of the box itself is visible to the consumer who can discriminate according to price, but the fact that one box might cost him $100 less in the course of a year is invisible to him so he doesn't choose it even though he might have if he was aware of that fact.
I bought an Eee 904HD 2-3 years ago and was surprised how well it ran (it came with Xandros Linux, which I eventually replaced with Ubuntu, most netbooks still came with Linux at that time). It had 900 MHz Celeron CPU, but it came with 2 GB RAM so the speed felt very good.
Slashdot Mirror
The whole point of Windows tablets is that they use the same OS for tablets and PCs. But they couldn't push that same OS for tablets because people chose to buy iPads instead, because the desktop OS isn't optimised for tablets.
But making the desktop OS use Metro means that customers will have to become acquanted with Metro once Microsoft stops selling XP and Windows 7 licenses to OEMs. And then their tablet offering will come with the 'familiar Windows experience', only now in addition to using the same OS that's on your desktop, it will be suitable for tablets.
If they can't shove a desktop OS in a tablet because people can choose not to buy that tablet, they can shove a tablet OS on the desktop and every office worker has to buy that.
There is always risk when investing that the enterprise might fail. You don't know the future, so you can't have investing without some degree of gambling. Risk have to be taken in real life too, not just in the casino.
Perhaps Ballmer is a closet Linux enthusiast and is just trying to help the cause.
Without self-replication I wouldn't call them life, evolution can't work without self-replication of some sort.
C is not insecure per se, it simply requires that all the securing is done in the source code. One of the most important principles of C as I understand it is that no hidden actions are performed in the binary that are not written by the programmer in the source code, i.e. the compiler never adds code on its own. Bounds checking would be just that - silent code that executes in the binary but is not there in the source code. Destructors and a garbage collector would fall in the same category.
I understand that programmers not always write code carefully, and if they don't, C won't help there, but I don't think security can be automated anyway - for example, can you make a compiler that prevents you from writing code that's vulnerable from SQL or shell injection?
I'm wondering how difficult would it be to create such a hacked chip. May be designing it and making it work right would involve significant know-how and effort.
Most people would download the source code and compile it on their local machine which has its local make patch and gcc. Not the ones from the kernel.org server. Does kernel.org even offer precompiled images?
They're wearing masks. This proves they're Anonymous.
I'd argue that for the average user replacing the desktop icon with another browser would be enough. Who cares if the dlls are still around on the hard drive?
Every time I hear about the 'nefarious' and 'dangerous' cyberattacks coming from China, it always turns out that they involve sending emails probably saying 'look at nude photo - http://www.youtube.com.cn/video.exe'. If the Chinese are so dangerous, why can't they make something more technically challenging like Stuxnet? They might have the quantity, but their methods show something about the quality of their hackers - it's Chinese quality.
I don't think Chinese citizens are unable to leave China. I assume they need visas but I doubt their borders are like the Berlin Wall.
One good thing about the new incognito mode in Chrome is that it allows you to temporarily 'logout' from Google without having to actually logout. For me, the fact that in incognito you're not logged anywhere is even more important than the fact it won't store things in your local history.
Yes, they probably just don't buy new computers and go on using the same hardware for 7-8 years. I'd be curious to see statistics about the average length of the hardware refresh cycle in China.
It's even better if it's cracked antivirus software.
The problem with compromised hardware wouldn't have existed, or at least not on that scale, if it wasn't for the fact that devices are increasingly connected to the Internet. If it wasn't for that, you would have no way to control your compromised hardware. So at most you could make it defective at some level, or make it become defective after a set period of time. It's the equivalent of remote control bomb vs time bomb - the time bomb is essentially 'dumb', it can't be controlled. The point is you can't use the compromised hardware at the exact moment you need it. So compromised hardware isn't that sinister for standalone machines that are not connected in any way, or are connected to isolated networks.
He's probably talking about all those foreign A students who can be found in the university library. But they probably know English anyway, so it's not like he needs to learn Chinese in order to talk to them.
You learn Spanish because there are people who speak it in the US. Chinese is spoken only in China. Unless everyone plans to go live there (great, another 400 million people to add to the population) then there is no reason why everyone should learn Chinese.
Are interfaces even patentable?
Yes, and Linux has a strength here - you can remove the browser from the OS. One employer who moved to Linux had productivity go up after he removed the browser from the computers of clerks who didn't need to surf the web (but who might have needed to use network printers and email).
I would argue that even the sites and the tracker aren't centralized in the sense that there is no single torrent site/tracker - there are many, and nothing prevents anyone from creating a new one. In smaller countries, there are local torrent sites which only the people of that country use and know about. I doubt anyone is going to go after them. When people say that torrent sites are centralized they think about the highly visible targets like pirate bay or isohunt which everyone knows.
If Unity uses OpenGL, does that mean it will use the GPU more and the CPU less?
I was wondering about that, too. It started happening since yesterday or the day before yesterday I think. I click on a link and nothing happens, but 'Open in new tab/window' works well enough. Is this browser-specific? I use only Google Chrome, but what do those using IE or Firefox have to say?
In various games I've often succumbed to the temptation to replay parts of the game until I've done it right but that made me feel the eventual success has been dilluted. Sometimes I've wished there was just such a 'feature' to help impose discipline on me so I don't replay every time I've make a mistake.
The problem here is that the price of energy usage is largely hidden for the consumer, who can't make the connection between the purchase and an increased monthly bill. The price of the box itself is visible to the consumer who can discriminate according to price, but the fact that one box might cost him $100 less in the course of a year is invisible to him so he doesn't choose it even though he might have if he was aware of that fact.
I bought an Eee 904HD 2-3 years ago and was surprised how well it ran (it came with Xandros Linux, which I eventually replaced with Ubuntu, most netbooks still came with Linux at that time). It had 900 MHz Celeron CPU, but it came with 2 GB RAM so the speed felt very good.