"What has happened in Alabama is that four companies participated in the training of Devin... to kill three men," attorney Jack Thompson told The Tuscaloosa News, which reported the suit's filing.
I believe that this attorney bears a far greater responsibility than anyone else named in the suit, with the exception of the kid who gained control of the police officer's gun and murdered those people.
What this man is doing is further eroding the concept of personal responsibility in thie United States. He is participating in the "training" of potential murderers by helping them believe that their actions were someone else's fault.
If it weren't so hypocritical, I'd be all about suing Jack Thompson.
How many times have you downloaded Firefox? I'm over 10, that's for sure. And how many people got it from others, rather than downloading it?
An excellent point; however, in some cases, it can go the other way. At our office, we've dropped it into all of our Ghost images. For a single download, a few dozen machines now run Firefox.
We're a few breaths away from requiring it's use for all applications where MSie is not specifically required...which would tack it onto a few hundred other systems for that single download.
Not like this small-business instance is statistically significant in any way, but we may not be the only ones.
And when a scientist does a study that your funding source didn't like, no more funding for that scientist. Anyone who thinks that science is immune from politics isn't paying attention.
I have to agree -- the whole global warming topic is very aggrivating to me...not because the world's supposedly gonna end in about 2 weeks, but because of the total lack of objectivity in the general discussion. The environmentalists are just as guilty as the oil companies (maybe even worse, since they're the ones making accusations, sometimes even personal, of anyone who thinks differently than they do). Most people involved in the discussion just want to be right, without any regard for discovering a greater truth.
Environmentalists (as well as geological resource research consultants/oil companies) are more interested in finding data that proves their case than uncovering the truth. It's a very emotional issue, which makes much of the "science" that comes out of the debate questionable in and of itself. It's akin to scientific data coming from a church. For example: How many/. environmentalists would welcome conclusive news that global warming is just a natural trend that has absolutely nothing to do with humankind's Co2 emissions? Maybe 1 in 1000, at best. I don't mention the oil industry, because their agenda is a bit more obvious...but the same goes for them.
Maybe someday, we'll be able to put emotion aside and allow our scientists to be objective again, but with this issue, it's pretty unlikely. A sad state of affairs.
Here's a better solution. Put vehicle scales at every filling station and have the taxes/gal adjust based on the weight of the vehicle. Obviously, a Hummer is going to put more wear/tear on the road than a Metro.
Here's what I don't get though...a Hummer weighs more than a Metro. Even if you drove a hybrid Hummer, it would get worse gas mileage than a hybrid Metro (or a normal ICE Metro), and due to the poorer fuel economy, you'll be paying more for gas. That's the nature of the beast. The lighter a car, the more economical it can be while still meeting performance standards (at highway speeds, aerodynamics and rolling resistance also play a role in mileage). You can't beat physics.
This is a lose-lose situation. If they nix or lower the gas tax, it will kill much of the incentive for people to buy more fuel-efficent cars. If they leave it in while introducing the use-tax on, they will be double-penalizing people (even those with hybrid vehicles).
It will also serve as a disincentive for people who use special-fuel-vehicles, which may not be taxed, but those people pay a higher premium on many of the fuels, due to a smaller distribution network than petrol.
There is also an obvious privacy concern.
I have a simple solution for CA. Stop spending so much damn money!
So it looks like Macintosh is going to be the premier game computer in the future...But clearly the largest obstacles to mac dominance of the gaming world are being removed...
This may be true in a Macintosh fan's wettest dreams. Superior hardware has almost nothing to do with viability as a gaming platform. It's all about market share. Go back to 1986, when the Amiga was the big thing. It had graphic and sound capability beyond any other home PC for it's time. It was not, however, the premier gaming platform becuase there simply wasn't enough market share for every game developer to start making Amiga games. 90% of the games on the shelf were for "MS-DOS". It will take far more than the Xbox's use of PPC chips for the Mac to be a viable gaming platform for any but the most successful and widely distributed games (let alone a dominant gaming platform).
Furthermore, the fact that the xbox ran on wintel hardware didn't mean that the xbox games were easily portable. They ran on a special version of DirectX that was incompatible with Windows DirectX. Games like Halo, which were ported to Windows were ported by third parties, and the backend was a ground-up port. It wasn't just a simple recompile.
The marketshare dictates other issues as well. For example, most peripherals are developed with Wintel in mind (not because Wintel is a technically better or worse platform...it has nothing to do with that -- it's all market share). So when nVidia or ATI crank out their latest graphics card, they have Wintel in mind. The Mac is sort of an afterthought and it tends to show in pricing. Apple went the extra mile by using open standards for their hardware, but you're still paying a premium for Macintosh verisons of Wintel hardware. It's not because they require many hardware tweeks to work -- the hardware is essentially identical. It's becuase the company has to expend the same amount on driver development and support, and the returns are limited. They'd rather stay competitive in the larger market (Wintel) than have to make the Wintel users subsidize the Mac development and support -- hence the premium on Mac graphics cards.
If you're buying a PC and honestly intend to use it with gaming in mind -- the Macintosh is probably the wrong PC for you. Forget about your allegiances for a second and just look at the software that's out there. I had to face this same issue when I finally ditched my Amiga in 1996. Maybe in 10 years, things could change, but buying a Mac today with the thought-in-mind that it's going to be a dominant (or even viable) gaming platform within its lifetime does not seem realistic to me. I strongly disagree with your statement that this removes the largest obstacle -- or really had anything to do with why Macintoshes aren't dominant gaming platforms.
I also think its funny how people bash Microsoft for being anti competitive in the PC world and then bash them for being HIGHLY competitive in the Console world.
Dude, this is Slashdot. If there was an article about Bill Gates wiping his nose, he'd be criticised here.
Trying to rationally discuss anything relating to Microsoft on Slashdot is an excercise in futility.
I've always been curious about this. I love Linux, but one of the areas where I think it is sorely lacking is in file system permissions flexibility.
I'm hoping that one of the things that you love about Linux is its flexibility...most distributions can grow far beyond their packaging.:)
I believe that you're looking for ACL support (Access Control Lists). Check this out. Also, just do a google search for Linux ACL's. There are lots of projects in development, and considering how long these have been worked on, there are probably some implementations which are quite mature. YMMV.
It is. The original poster also implied that Windows is "enterprise class". This seems to just be generally implicit. You and I may or may not like Microsoft operating systems, but it doesn't change the fact that this is what they're in place for. You can see past your own agenda, right?
2 - You can buy a shrinkwrapped package for Windows that does integrated payroll/HRIS for that aformentioned enterprise.
Yep...ADP'll sell you two different packages that will integrate. If you have any questions about it, I'm sure that they have a few sales people who would be glad to answer any questions you may have. (The fact that these packages exist does not, however mean that I advocate them. You can do your own homework and discuss it yourself with ADP).
Did you honestly not know these, or just don't want to believe it becuase you don't care for Microsoft software on personal level?...or were you just trolling, because you didn't really say anything.
Sadly, Linux just isn't there yet when it comes to enterprise IT. Unless you're rolling your own core business applications, you're pretty much stuck with Windows. Want to run an integrated payroll/HRIS system from a shrinkwrapped package? No luck with Linux.
Further, IMO, while Suse's OpenExchange appears to be a compelling package (which I'd love to deploy in lieu of Exchange Server), I've had a very difficult time finding a local 3rd party vendor to support it.
The point of my post is not to denigrate Linux. I am generally a Linux advocate, and will still deploy it wherever it is practical (practical being the operant word here). The issue, however, is that much of these services are inside of niche markets where it doesn't make sense for the vendor to develop Linux support. Others are very bleeding edge and not commercially supported. If you don't have a very large IT department to support the services that you want to run, they're nearly useless -- that is, unless you've got gobs of free time on your hands.
OTOH; if you're rolling a custom app (and thus already have the staff you need), need a webserver, or a database backend, Linux may be an excellent choice. One way to look into it is to find out how Linux is most widely deployed and supported as a solution (ie web servers, database backends, etc). If you go the other way, choosing whatever solution you find that's "out there", you may find yourself in a heap of trouble -- looking for a new job. I supppose that this applies to all software, commercial or otherwise. Always ensure that you can support it...but it's something that one has to be especially cautious about when getting into a bleeding edge F/OSS package that is new enough where there is either no commercial support, or inadequate support for your needs...and unfortunately, there are currently quite a few of these out there.
What awesome news! I've been into old games lately (such as Star Control II/Ur Quan Masters). I wonder if Paul Reiche III had anything to do with this (since he had quite a bit to do with the free release of SC2/Ur Quan Masters) and was on the design team for each of these games. Man, Archon was a sweet game. I can't wait until they release it...with network support, noless!
We are downloading images from *CRIMINAL* fake banks after having tried to contact the hoster and shut down these *CRIMINALS* in vain at least two times or mopre. Then, and then only, do we actually start trying to deliberately exceed the allowed bandwidth of these *CRIMINALS*, so they cant use their bogus banks to prey on unsuspecting victims. It is *NOT* an attack on the servers, but on the *CRIMINAL* websites only.
Oh come on, man. First of all, who made you a cop? Are you sworn to uphold the law? I still don't trust you -- I don't trust cops all that much anyway, but vigilantes are unaccountable to any due process of law...dumb. Furthermore, although you may intend to only attack the websites, are you taking any precautions to ensure that it doesn't also affect the servers?...or do the ends justify the means? Finally, is it OK for other vigilantes to DDoS you since you're breaking the law by DDoS'ing other's sites? What if they went further than DDoS'ing you (it's ok, because you're *CRIMINALS*)? What if a lynch mob came by your house, becuase you're breaking the law?
I don't need a lecture from some ass I don't even know.
But it's OK for you to sit on your soapbox and talk about what a shame it is for consumers to spend $80 mil on a show that they really like?...and then call a stranger politely partaking in a public conversation an ass? Shame on you.
One significant difference is that Firefox (1.0) uses a non-modal section for this sort of thing, so the user is much more likely to completely ignore it. Additionally, the section appears in the same area that the browser offers to let you see pop-ups, so users will quickly be trained to ignore that section as being for getting ads. It won't stop users from getting spyware, but the users will actually have to pay attention to figure out how to get it, rather than being bombarded with offers for it and having to refuse them intentionally.
Hmm, a really good point. These are all things that I took for granted when I started using Firefox. I was coming from the "fix the user, fix the problem" camp -- but this is a way to slightly alter the user experience around the user's issues. Very smart.
But for spyware writers to care, wouldn't the browser need a market share of 50% or more.
I doubt it...and since browser-malware is a relatively new concept, there are probably no real rules to this. I'd guess that the critical mass doesn't have to be nearly as high as 50%. If a malware writer can turn a buck on a 5% target market (and nobody else can touch that 5%), a profit is a profit, right?
IE's spyware problems were largely due to exploits. Someone not up to date with patches could visit a website and have something remotely installed pretty easily.
For you and I, I'd say that exploits are the issue...but in my experience, most average users don't get a malware infestation via browser exploits (mainly because when you and I see the words Gator or Newnet, we say hell no). They simply click "yes" when asked if they'd like to install a piece of software. I don't know if the mentality is "yeah I want more functionality" or "yeah yeah, just show me the damn webpage!". One way or the other (antecdotally), most of the users whom I deal with tend to install the malware themselves. FWIW, these users tend to be on the low end of the learning curve.
It would be interesting to see a permission based system for this...maybe even registering approved plugins with a crypto signature/hash.
If you had a mobile system, you could keep a telescope in the dark constantly going a mere 10 mph or less (10 mph would be needed to circumnavigate the moon at its equator in a month).
I don't mean to jump on this, but it sorta stuck with me that something like this sounds like a physicist's dream...and an engineer's nightmare. Do you think there's cheaper and easier way than developing a mobile lunar telescope which travels at a constant speed? Perhaps building 2 (or 3) stationary telescopes would be cheaper, easier, and far less complex, and keep one in the dark at all times.
So sorry, there is not one part of the fable that is accurate. NASA did not invent teflon, did not invent the idea of applying it to machinery and cerainly not to saucepans.
But they did give us velcro. Now, I can fasten my shows without having to know how to tie them!;)
Seriously though, so PTFE wasn't NASA...whoopdedoo. They really are still at the bleeding edge of materials science. They helped to provide us with quite a few ceramics, composites, and alloys. Further, they helped to provide us with new ways to work/form those materials.
However, I'll agree that materials alone don't justify NASA's existence. Trickle-down technology in general, however, may get us much of the way there. Most of what's left of it is science. Is NASA pure, unadulterated, 100% science? Probably not. But for a popular program to succeed, I think that there needs to be a bit of the pie-in-the-sky stuff. Part of this program goes beyond science -- it captures the public's imagination.
I don't think that there is much chance that the shuttle will ever launch again. The degree of political risk is huge, so far they are talking about May/June but its one of those dates that just keeps slipping a month each month.
There's been enough press in this (as well as enough dollars and man hours) that I'd be really surprised if the shuttle didn't launch this summer.
That is the closest that scientists get to making recommendations, or proposals, until they become politicians or managers, which these authors are not.
You mean, closer to a recommendation than something like a grant proposal for to fund an experiment or study? I disagree. This is exactly the kind of pie-in-the-sky what-if stuff that NASA does all the time. Also, I didn't find the study where you linked it. The only studies I could find were "Atmosphere of Callisto", "Nucleation studies in the Martian atmosphere", and "Three decades of Martian surface changes". Also, I'm not a subscriber, and can't get past the abstracts. You subscribe to lots of scientific journals, or are close enough to a school to have access to them? This one is pretty obscure too...hard to find, or would any university have it on-hand?
Not to address, even by mere mention, the risks of doing it again on Mars is irresponsible. Not just with Mars at stake, but our own planet.
You have yet to address what's at stake (maybe it's the author's job) -- and "doing it again" is an unscientific nod to an assertion that, as much as you want to believe it, it's simply not conclusively proven. I also didn't say untrue, just unproven. For the sake of respect for scientific process (as much as you want to believe it as true), it's important to recgonize this. Again, should science that does not jibe well with popular ideals be banned? Further, I still disagree that this was "proposed" -- but we can leave this one alone for now.
...It relies on the creation of a "runaway Greenhouse effect", which is still "controversial" among polluters and their clients...we'll get the same petrocorps denying the Greenhouse we're creating on Earth...Any climatologist knows their research is interpreted in the current volatile political context of human contributions to the Greenhouse...
You've made your opinion clear on global warming (again), and it's also clear to me that you are using this thread/topic to push your agenda. First you say that it's a bad thing, because a (non Phd) NASA-funded scientist thought it was a good idea (I think you called it "totally irresponsible")...but then it's a good thing, which you would "prioritize it beyond any other national or international program", but just as long as it will support your personal beliefs (just as long it proves your almost dogmatic ideal right). From all of this, I think you're emotional enough about this that it's unlikely we'll able to have a rational discussion. It's like trying to have a rational discussion with a religious zealot -- and the response will likely be the same "you just can't handle the truth, so you're calling me a zealot". Maybe that's right -- maybe I can't handle the truth. OTOH, maybe I'm open to much more than what I want to believe. I have seen evidence on both sides of this issue, and I am not declaring a winner. This issue is so emotional that even by my unwillingness to take a side has labelled me a pawn of the corporations and/or the great conservative (and/or Republican) conspiracy. I have nothing to prove -- but let's not bullshit ourselves; our discussion will ultimately come down to your assertion that global warming is the fault of humans and you're pissed off about it. I'm neither angry nor convinced that you're right...so I think it's best that we agree to disagree on the root basis of your comment and walk away amicably. Cool?
If I were to choose software protecting my company, I would use commercial software. Why? Because if something does go wrong, it is the vendors fault and not yours. With free software, it is your fault.
What commercial software package have you used that doesn't have an indemnification clause in it, protecting the vendor from any damages that the software caused?
Is there any more reason to believe that the indemnification clause will hold up better for a business than, say, the FSF? I'd also wager that most businesses have a larger legal fund/team than the FSF.
If you have a good manager whom you report to...wouldn't that manager be quick to point it out that it was your fault for choosing that vendor? The person who chose the vendor is still reponsible for their poor decision-making, right? If you worked for me, and you recommended any bad software without properly evaluating it, I'd hold you responsible for it (regardless of the licensing model). If you work somewhere with bad management (anywhere, including at the Board of Directors), I guess that all of the normal rules are out the window.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that this attorney bears a far greater responsibility than anyone else named in the suit, with the exception of the kid who gained control of the police officer's gun and murdered those people.
What this man is doing is further eroding the concept of personal responsibility in thie United States. He is participating in the "training" of potential murderers by helping them believe that their actions were someone else's fault.
If it weren't so hypocritical, I'd be all about suing Jack Thompson.
An excellent point; however, in some cases, it can go the other way. At our office, we've dropped it into all of our Ghost images. For a single download, a few dozen machines now run Firefox.
We're a few breaths away from requiring it's use for all applications where MSie is not specifically required...which would tack it onto a few hundred other systems for that single download.
Not like this small-business instance is statistically significant in any way, but we may not be the only ones.
When Peter Jennings asks about Firefox:
I have to agree -- the whole global warming topic is very aggrivating to me...not because the world's supposedly gonna end in about 2 weeks, but because of the total lack of objectivity in the general discussion. The environmentalists are just as guilty as the oil companies (maybe even worse, since they're the ones making accusations, sometimes even personal, of anyone who thinks differently than they do). Most people involved in the discussion just want to be right, without any regard for discovering a greater truth.
Environmentalists (as well as geological resource research consultants/oil companies) are more interested in finding data that proves their case than uncovering the truth. It's a very emotional issue, which makes much of the "science" that comes out of the debate questionable in and of itself. It's akin to scientific data coming from a church. For example: How many /. environmentalists would welcome conclusive news that global warming is just a natural trend that has absolutely nothing to do with humankind's Co2 emissions? Maybe 1 in 1000, at best. I don't mention the oil industry, because their agenda is a bit more obvious...but the same goes for them.
Maybe someday, we'll be able to put emotion aside and allow our scientists to be objective again, but with this issue, it's pretty unlikely. A sad state of affairs.
Here's what I don't get though...a Hummer weighs more than a Metro. Even if you drove a hybrid Hummer, it would get worse gas mileage than a hybrid Metro (or a normal ICE Metro), and due to the poorer fuel economy, you'll be paying more for gas. That's the nature of the beast. The lighter a car, the more economical it can be while still meeting performance standards (at highway speeds, aerodynamics and rolling resistance also play a role in mileage). You can't beat physics.
This is a lose-lose situation. If they nix or lower the gas tax, it will kill much of the incentive for people to buy more fuel-efficent cars. If they leave it in while introducing the use-tax on, they will be double-penalizing people (even those with hybrid vehicles).
It will also serve as a disincentive for people who use special-fuel-vehicles, which may not be taxed, but those people pay a higher premium on many of the fuels, due to a smaller distribution network than petrol.
There is also an obvious privacy concern.
I have a simple solution for CA. Stop spending so much damn money!
IP address?
This may be true in a Macintosh fan's wettest dreams. Superior hardware has almost nothing to do with viability as a gaming platform. It's all about market share. Go back to 1986, when the Amiga was the big thing. It had graphic and sound capability beyond any other home PC for it's time. It was not, however, the premier gaming platform becuase there simply wasn't enough market share for every game developer to start making Amiga games. 90% of the games on the shelf were for "MS-DOS". It will take far more than the Xbox's use of PPC chips for the Mac to be a viable gaming platform for any but the most successful and widely distributed games (let alone a dominant gaming platform).
Furthermore, the fact that the xbox ran on wintel hardware didn't mean that the xbox games were easily portable. They ran on a special version of DirectX that was incompatible with Windows DirectX. Games like Halo, which were ported to Windows were ported by third parties, and the backend was a ground-up port. It wasn't just a simple recompile.
The marketshare dictates other issues as well. For example, most peripherals are developed with Wintel in mind (not because Wintel is a technically better or worse platform...it has nothing to do with that -- it's all market share). So when nVidia or ATI crank out their latest graphics card, they have Wintel in mind. The Mac is sort of an afterthought and it tends to show in pricing. Apple went the extra mile by using open standards for their hardware, but you're still paying a premium for Macintosh verisons of Wintel hardware. It's not because they require many hardware tweeks to work -- the hardware is essentially identical. It's becuase the company has to expend the same amount on driver development and support, and the returns are limited. They'd rather stay competitive in the larger market (Wintel) than have to make the Wintel users subsidize the Mac development and support -- hence the premium on Mac graphics cards.
If you're buying a PC and honestly intend to use it with gaming in mind -- the Macintosh is probably the wrong PC for you. Forget about your allegiances for a second and just look at the software that's out there. I had to face this same issue when I finally ditched my Amiga in 1996. Maybe in 10 years, things could change, but buying a Mac today with the thought-in-mind that it's going to be a dominant (or even viable) gaming platform within its lifetime does not seem realistic to me. I strongly disagree with your statement that this removes the largest obstacle -- or really had anything to do with why Macintoshes aren't dominant gaming platforms.
Dude, this is Slashdot. If there was an article about Bill Gates wiping his nose, he'd be criticised here.
Trying to rationally discuss anything relating to Microsoft on Slashdot is an excercise in futility.
I'm hoping that one of the things that you love about Linux is its flexibility...most distributions can grow far beyond their packaging. :)
I believe that you're looking for ACL support (Access Control Lists). Check this out. Also, just do a google search for Linux ACL's. There are lots of projects in development, and considering how long these have been worked on, there are probably some implementations which are quite mature. YMMV.
It is. The original poster also implied that Windows is "enterprise class". This seems to just be generally implicit. You and I may or may not like Microsoft operating systems, but it doesn't change the fact that this is what they're in place for. You can see past your own agenda, right?
Yep...ADP'll sell you two different packages that will integrate. If you have any questions about it, I'm sure that they have a few sales people who would be glad to answer any questions you may have. (The fact that these packages exist does not, however mean that I advocate them. You can do your own homework and discuss it yourself with ADP).
Did you honestly not know these, or just don't want to believe it becuase you don't care for Microsoft software on personal level? ...or were you just trolling, because you didn't really say anything.
Sadly, Linux just isn't there yet when it comes to enterprise IT. Unless you're rolling your own core business applications, you're pretty much stuck with Windows. Want to run an integrated payroll/HRIS system from a shrinkwrapped package? No luck with Linux.
Further, IMO, while Suse's OpenExchange appears to be a compelling package (which I'd love to deploy in lieu of Exchange Server), I've had a very difficult time finding a local 3rd party vendor to support it.
The point of my post is not to denigrate Linux. I am generally a Linux advocate, and will still deploy it wherever it is practical (practical being the operant word here). The issue, however, is that much of these services are inside of niche markets where it doesn't make sense for the vendor to develop Linux support. Others are very bleeding edge and not commercially supported. If you don't have a very large IT department to support the services that you want to run, they're nearly useless -- that is, unless you've got gobs of free time on your hands.
OTOH; if you're rolling a custom app (and thus already have the staff you need), need a webserver, or a database backend, Linux may be an excellent choice. One way to look into it is to find out how Linux is most widely deployed and supported as a solution (ie web servers, database backends, etc). If you go the other way, choosing whatever solution you find that's "out there", you may find yourself in a heap of trouble -- looking for a new job. I supppose that this applies to all software, commercial or otherwise. Always ensure that you can support it...but it's something that one has to be especially cautious about when getting into a bleeding edge F/OSS package that is new enough where there is either no commercial support, or inadequate support for your needs...and unfortunately, there are currently quite a few of these out there.
What are all of those colors? My brain can't interpret them all at once. I'll bet they even improved the sound. Pff. ;)
I'm with you on the emulation. I'm actually hoping that the network code adds something extra cool.
What awesome news! I've been into old games lately (such as Star Control II/Ur Quan Masters). I wonder if Paul Reiche III had anything to do with this (since he had quite a bit to do with the free release of SC2/Ur Quan Masters) and was on the design team for each of these games. Man, Archon was a sweet game. I can't wait until they release it...with network support, noless!
Oh come on, man. First of all, who made you a cop? Are you sworn to uphold the law? I still don't trust you -- I don't trust cops all that much anyway, but vigilantes are unaccountable to any due process of law...dumb. Furthermore, although you may intend to only attack the websites, are you taking any precautions to ensure that it doesn't also affect the servers? ...or do the ends justify the means? Finally, is it OK for other vigilantes to DDoS you since you're breaking the law by DDoS'ing other's sites? What if they went further than DDoS'ing you (it's ok, because you're *CRIMINALS*)? What if a lynch mob came by your house, becuase you're breaking the law?
But it's OK for you to sit on your soapbox and talk about what a shame it is for consumers to spend $80 mil on a show that they really like? ...and then call a stranger politely partaking in a public conversation an ass? Shame on you.
Hmm, a really good point. These are all things that I took for granted when I started using Firefox. I was coming from the "fix the user, fix the problem" camp -- but this is a way to slightly alter the user experience around the user's issues. Very smart.
I doubt it...and since browser-malware is a relatively new concept, there are probably no real rules to this. I'd guess that the critical mass doesn't have to be nearly as high as 50%. If a malware writer can turn a buck on a 5% target market (and nobody else can touch that 5%), a profit is a profit, right?
(Before the semantic jerks trample all over this, I should rephrase). I mean extending the existing signatures to show what the plugin's behavior is.
For you and I, I'd say that exploits are the issue...but in my experience, most average users don't get a malware infestation via browser exploits (mainly because when you and I see the words Gator or Newnet, we say hell no). They simply click "yes" when asked if they'd like to install a piece of software. I don't know if the mentality is "yeah I want more functionality" or "yeah yeah, just show me the damn webpage!". One way or the other (antecdotally), most of the users whom I deal with tend to install the malware themselves. FWIW, these users tend to be on the low end of the learning curve.
It would be interesting to see a permission based system for this...maybe even registering approved plugins with a crypto signature/hash.
It was a joke, sheesh! Hence the smiley-winkidoodle and the "but seriously"...or did you stop reading when you got to something you didn't like?
I don't mean to jump on this, but it sorta stuck with me that something like this sounds like a physicist's dream...and an engineer's nightmare. Do you think there's cheaper and easier way than developing a mobile lunar telescope which travels at a constant speed? Perhaps building 2 (or 3) stationary telescopes would be cheaper, easier, and far less complex, and keep one in the dark at all times.
But they did give us velcro. Now, I can fasten my shows without having to know how to tie them! ;)
Seriously though, so PTFE wasn't NASA...whoopdedoo. They really are still at the bleeding edge of materials science. They helped to provide us with quite a few ceramics, composites, and alloys. Further, they helped to provide us with new ways to work/form those materials.
However, I'll agree that materials alone don't justify NASA's existence. Trickle-down technology in general, however, may get us much of the way there. Most of what's left of it is science. Is NASA pure, unadulterated, 100% science? Probably not. But for a popular program to succeed, I think that there needs to be a bit of the pie-in-the-sky stuff. Part of this program goes beyond science -- it captures the public's imagination.
There's been enough press in this (as well as enough dollars and man hours) that I'd be really surprised if the shuttle didn't launch this summer.
You mean, closer to a recommendation than something like a grant proposal for to fund an experiment or study? I disagree. This is exactly the kind of pie-in-the-sky what-if stuff that NASA does all the time. Also, I didn't find the study where you linked it. The only studies I could find were "Atmosphere of Callisto", "Nucleation studies in the Martian atmosphere", and "Three decades of Martian surface changes". Also, I'm not a subscriber, and can't get past the abstracts. You subscribe to lots of scientific journals, or are close enough to a school to have access to them? This one is pretty obscure too...hard to find, or would any university have it on-hand?
You have yet to address what's at stake (maybe it's the author's job) -- and "doing it again" is an unscientific nod to an assertion that, as much as you want to believe it, it's simply not conclusively proven. I also didn't say untrue, just unproven. For the sake of respect for scientific process (as much as you want to believe it as true), it's important to recgonize this. Again, should science that does not jibe well with popular ideals be banned? Further, I still disagree that this was "proposed" -- but we can leave this one alone for now.
You've made your opinion clear on global warming (again), and it's also clear to me that you are using this thread/topic to push your agenda. First you say that it's a bad thing, because a (non Phd) NASA-funded scientist thought it was a good idea (I think you called it "totally irresponsible")...but then it's a good thing, which you would "prioritize it beyond any other national or international program", but just as long as it will support your personal beliefs (just as long it proves your almost dogmatic ideal right). From all of this, I think you're emotional enough about this that it's unlikely we'll able to have a rational discussion. It's like trying to have a rational discussion with a religious zealot -- and the response will likely be the same "you just can't handle the truth, so you're calling me a zealot". Maybe that's right -- maybe I can't handle the truth. OTOH, maybe I'm open to much more than what I want to believe. I have seen evidence on both sides of this issue, and I am not declaring a winner. This issue is so emotional that even by my unwillingness to take a side has labelled me a pawn of the corporations and/or the great conservative (and/or Republican) conspiracy. I have nothing to prove -- but let's not bullshit ourselves; our discussion will ultimately come down to your assertion that global warming is the fault of humans and you're pissed off about it. I'm neither angry nor convinced that you're right...so I think it's best that we agree to disagree on the root basis of your comment and walk away amicably. Cool?
What commercial software package have you used that doesn't have an indemnification clause in it, protecting the vendor from any damages that the software caused?
Is there any more reason to believe that the indemnification clause will hold up better for a business than, say, the FSF? I'd also wager that most businesses have a larger legal fund/team than the FSF.
If you have a good manager whom you report to...wouldn't that manager be quick to point it out that it was your fault for choosing that vendor? The person who chose the vendor is still reponsible for their poor decision-making, right? If you worked for me, and you recommended any bad software without properly evaluating it, I'd hold you responsible for it (regardless of the licensing model). If you work somewhere with bad management (anywhere, including at the Board of Directors), I guess that all of the normal rules are out the window.