So you are proposing an arms race then? I always have felt safer in a smaller, more agile car in which I have a better chance of avoiding accidents rather than putting sheer weight and steel between me and something. That's just how I feel. If I understand you correctly in saying "If you know that there is a more than likely chance of getting creamed by an SUV's bumper, in an accident the be proactive, safe and get yourself and SUV." you are touting that SUVs are safer. While this is true in some cases (head on accidents with walls and what not), it is not true in other cases (being able to shift lanes at 70mph without fishtailing, spinning, even on slick roads to avoid an accident). Do you have data to back up your claim? I'd like to see under which conditions you are discussing.
"why would anybody sign up for this kind of 'service' at all? Isn't it just a matter of running some OS program on either end of a net connection?"
Yes, and no. If everyone one wanted to communicate with had the same configuration, there would be no need for any service beyond a network drop. See Voice in Yahoo! Messenger, MSN Messenger, etc. The 'service' they are providing is a bridge from the existing telephone infrastructure to a new, network based protocol. Until there are solid international standards in place and the majority of the people with whom one wants to communicate jump on the bandwagon, VoIP type technology is less useful than service and a device compatible with the existing infrastructure. Only then will OSS solutions be viable enough to ditch the telecommunications companies for any service beyond a network drop. Of course regulations will stand in the way, as well as adoption barriers.
Here at my office, we use Windows machines for pretty much everything. We use Exchange and Outlook for email. We use Sharepoint for collaboration. We use IE for web browsing. We use a corporate issued virus scanner. I have had zero problems regarding viruses, spyware, crashes (other than the code I'm actively developing and the occasional application crash), and I think I got two spam messages all last year, which might have actually not been spam but I couldn't determine from the content. We run a well maintained IT ship here, and every developer gets administrator access on his or her boxes, but certain policies are enforced, like running the built-in firewall, virus scanner with updated definitions, and keeping the machines patched. So, Microsoft solutions can be done right, and we are living testament.
It's hard (but not impossible) to deliver ads over FTP. Probably not as effective as web-based electronic mail anyhow. These services aren't really for free; they're partially funded by advertising revenue.
Have you used Windows XP for any length of time with proper (tested) drivers? I see *far* more application crashes than OS crashes. I can't even recall the last OS crash I've witnessed on XP.
Have you ever heard of defense in depth? A patch will plug the vulnurability. Some users patch, some don't. Many exploits are worms that require administrator rights. Some users run as an administrator, some don't. Even a patched system that doesn't get exploited might still be able to spread the infection to other systems, but AV software could stop this. Some users run AV, some don't. Read any good book on designing secure software, and defense in depth will be pounded into your thought process repeatedly.
A private entity not providing continued free distribution of one's IP is not censorship. For a government to provide a medium and then to permit certain messages but not others is censorship. Storing your only copy of your original work on someons free server, with whom you have no contract or agreement is just plain irresponsible.
Value as defined by a business is not the same as valuable to mankind. You placed a qualifier on the value that businesses do not, hence your disconnect on meaning.
Eventually, people will catch on and stop speeding. That will really lower their revenues. Also, most likely people will bitch for either 1) higher speed limits, or 2) removal of such devices. With a pissed off municipality, some local hero will get elected on one of those two grounds.
First of all, they have run experiments that support it, so it really is a theory.
Second of all, this is hard because theory also has the meaning "In loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion." (from OED 2nd Ed., entry Theory^1, def. 6). In non-scientific writing (as a slashdot posting for example), theory has been accepted to differentiate the body of knowledge about and art from the practice of the art. So it depends on if you read Slashdot in a strict scientific sense or as a bunch of interested nerds from all walks of life and training in all sort of disciplines posting redundant stuff.
"I'll think you'll find there are many companies and organisations whose IT staff are responsible and on-the-ball, but the shocking mess that is Windows, means that this crap beats them anyway. Honestly - I'm not one to bash Microsoft, but after this run of worms, I've realised that the state of OS security is inexcusable. Literally - there are no excuses for it, whatsoever."
Do responsible and on-the-ball IT staffs use SMS to patch their workstations in case individuals forget. Do responsible and on-the-ball IT staffs use a domain policy to enforce firewall rules on individual workstations. Do responsible and on-the-ball IT staffs enforce the running of up-to-date antivirus software on each workstation. Do responsible and on-the-ball IT staffs use external firewalls, IDSes, etc? Is there an excuse *not* to? Is it not due diligence on MSFTs part to release the patch (a month ago), supply a domain policy controlled firewall for each workstation, SMS servers for patch distribution, and leave it up to the IT staffs to deploy them properly. I think MSFT did it's due diligence here, and the IT staffs of infected networks did not.
Patching is more akin to getting an immunization, not a checkup. If someone was not to get a malaria shot (patch their box), and then go out to a malaria infested jungle (connect to the internet) without wearing proper clothing (running a firewall), and they got malaria, who are you going to blame? (I couldn't come up with the analogy for the OS vendor here, but was thinking the jungle itself).
The patch has been available for a month, and the built-in firewall prevents it too. Two layers of defense. Did they not do their due diligence? And don't give me the "there shouldn't be bugs in the first place" because as anyone who writes code knows, there are always bugs.
Microsoft came along and offered some better features such as a decent GUI and Object Linking and Embedding(OLE) as well as a competitive price and people started switching.
Yes, so a new suite would need to offer a large benefit of new and useful features to cause a mass exodus, not just the same amount of (or smaller amount of) functionality as the incombant. IMHO. MS Office 2003 adds Tablet PC inking functionality, task panes, research panes, SharePoint services, and more.
GPRS isn't cheap and would probably cost the city an significant amount of cash to do this. Which is not to say they shouldn't, since it's not *that* expesive or network intesive and does do something good for society. Part of the parking fees can go to run this effort. But I would think that something biological would be of better use and more tangible (justifiable for politicians).
It keeps a running loop recording of the last (probably more than four) seconds and when it senses a sudden deceleration it stops recording. What's left is about the last four seconds before impact.
Their list move supported movies seems to a bit on the fluffy side anyhow. About the most interesting one on there was Chinatown. But, I must give them credit that they don't seem to cut "all" the bits, but just what they think is gratuitous. I still prefer art to be unaltered, but I respect the right of other's to chose how to consume their art, so long as it's not forced upon them. Would you look at a Botticelli painting with aliasing effects covering bits, for example? Would you like to be forced to only see "edited" versions?
There are plenty of new features in SP2. I guess when Microsoft adds features to say Wireless networking, they are not new "because they should have been there before". It's a very nice interface. As is the IE pop-up blocker. As are the new handwriting recognizers for Tablet PC based systems. As is the new in-place TIP. Read all about it http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dntablet/html/hwrecog.asp?_r=1. Disclaimer: I work for the Tablet group.
Slashdot Mirror
So you are proposing an arms race then? I always have felt safer in a smaller, more agile car in which I have a better chance of avoiding accidents rather than putting sheer weight and steel between me and something. That's just how I feel. If I understand you correctly in saying "If you know that there is a more than likely chance of getting creamed by an SUV's bumper, in an accident the be proactive, safe and get yourself and SUV." you are touting that SUVs are safer. While this is true in some cases (head on accidents with walls and what not), it is not true in other cases (being able to shift lanes at 70mph without fishtailing, spinning, even on slick roads to avoid an accident). Do you have data to back up your claim? I'd like to see under which conditions you are discussing.
"why would anybody sign up for this kind of 'service' at all? Isn't it just a matter of running some OS program on either end of a net connection?"
Yes, and no. If everyone one wanted to communicate with had the same configuration, there would be no need for any service beyond a network drop. See Voice in Yahoo! Messenger, MSN Messenger, etc. The 'service' they are providing is a bridge from the existing telephone infrastructure to a new, network based protocol. Until there are solid international standards in place and the majority of the people with whom one wants to communicate jump on the bandwagon, VoIP type technology is less useful than service and a device compatible with the existing infrastructure. Only then will OSS solutions be viable enough to ditch the telecommunications companies for any service beyond a network drop. Of course regulations will stand in the way, as well as adoption barriers.
Here at my office, we use Windows machines for pretty much everything. We use Exchange and Outlook for email. We use Sharepoint for collaboration. We use IE for web browsing. We use a corporate issued virus scanner. I have had zero problems regarding viruses, spyware, crashes (other than the code I'm actively developing and the occasional application crash), and I think I got two spam messages all last year, which might have actually not been spam but I couldn't determine from the content. We run a well maintained IT ship here, and every developer gets administrator access on his or her boxes, but certain policies are enforced, like running the built-in firewall, virus scanner with updated definitions, and keeping the machines patched. So, Microsoft solutions can be done right, and we are living testament.
I don't understand what your choice to not own a DVD drive for your computer yet has to do with Gate's logic. Could you please explain?
Have you used Tablets with SP2 installed? The handwritting recognition is par none.
It's hard (but not impossible) to deliver ads over FTP. Probably not as effective as web-based electronic mail anyhow. These services aren't really for free; they're partially funded by advertising revenue.
Have you used Windows XP for any length of time with proper (tested) drivers? I see *far* more application crashes than OS crashes. I can't even recall the last OS crash I've witnessed on XP.
Have you ever heard of defense in depth? A patch will plug the vulnurability. Some users patch, some don't. Many exploits are worms that require administrator rights. Some users run as an administrator, some don't. Even a patched system that doesn't get exploited might still be able to spread the infection to other systems, but AV software could stop this. Some users run AV, some don't. Read any good book on designing secure software, and defense in depth will be pounded into your thought process repeatedly.
A private entity not providing continued free distribution of one's IP is not censorship. For a government to provide a medium and then to permit certain messages but not others is censorship. Storing your only copy of your original work on someons free server, with whom you have no contract or agreement is just plain irresponsible.
So Microsoft should be an honest business and support dishonest consumers? Bizarre.
Apple does not compete in the Console space. Not to mention it's probably not going to be the name marketed externally.
Value as defined by a business is not the same as valuable to mankind. You placed a qualifier on the value that businesses do not, hence your disconnect on meaning.
A googleplex is finite, yet your code is infinite. And there doesn't appear to be much calculation involved.
Eventually, people will catch on and stop speeding. That will really lower their revenues. Also, most likely people will bitch for either 1) higher speed limits, or 2) removal of such devices. With a pissed off municipality, some local hero will get elected on one of those two grounds.
First of all, they have run experiments that support it, so it really is a theory.
Second of all, this is hard because theory also has the meaning "In loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion." (from OED 2nd Ed., entry Theory^1, def. 6). In non-scientific writing (as a slashdot posting for example), theory has been accepted to differentiate the body of knowledge about and art from the practice of the art. So it depends on if you read Slashdot in a strict scientific sense or as a bunch of interested nerds from all walks of life and training in all sort of disciplines posting redundant stuff.
When dealing with an entity made up of individuals and referring to the members of the group (as I believe he is referring to the individuals), it is indeed correct to use the plural. See http://www.learnenglish.org.uk/grammar/archive/col lective_nouns.html
"I'll think you'll find there are many companies and organisations whose IT staff are responsible and on-the-ball, but the shocking mess that is Windows, means that this crap beats them anyway. Honestly - I'm not one to bash Microsoft, but after this run of worms, I've realised that the state of OS security is inexcusable. Literally - there are no excuses for it, whatsoever."
Do responsible and on-the-ball IT staffs use SMS to patch their workstations in case individuals forget. Do responsible and on-the-ball IT staffs use a domain policy to enforce firewall rules on individual workstations. Do responsible and on-the-ball IT staffs enforce the running of up-to-date antivirus software on each workstation. Do responsible and on-the-ball IT staffs use external firewalls, IDSes, etc? Is there an excuse *not* to? Is it not due diligence on MSFTs part to release the patch (a month ago), supply a domain policy controlled firewall for each workstation, SMS servers for patch distribution, and leave it up to the IT staffs to deploy them properly. I think MSFT did it's due diligence here, and the IT staffs of infected networks did not.
Patching is more akin to getting an immunization, not a checkup. If someone was not to get a malaria shot (patch their box), and then go out to a malaria infested jungle (connect to the internet) without wearing proper clothing (running a firewall), and they got malaria, who are you going to blame? (I couldn't come up with the analogy for the OS vendor here, but was thinking the jungle itself).
The patch has been available for a month, and the built-in firewall prevents it too. Two layers of defense. Did they not do their due diligence? And don't give me the "there shouldn't be bugs in the first place" because as anyone who writes code knows, there are always bugs.
Microsoft came along and offered some better features such as a decent GUI and Object Linking and Embedding(OLE) as well as a competitive price and people started switching.
Yes, so a new suite would need to offer a large benefit of new and useful features to cause a mass exodus, not just the same amount of (or smaller amount of) functionality as the incombant. IMHO. MS Office 2003 adds Tablet PC inking functionality, task panes, research panes, SharePoint services, and more.
GPRS isn't cheap and would probably cost the city an significant amount of cash to do this. Which is not to say they shouldn't, since it's not *that* expesive or network intesive and does do something good for society. Part of the parking fees can go to run this effort. But I would think that something biological would be of better use and more tangible (justifiable for politicians).
Yes, because we need to evaluate new technology on the possibility of it empowering criminals rather than the massive amount of good it could do.
It keeps a running loop recording of the last (probably more than four) seconds and when it senses a sudden deceleration it stops recording. What's left is about the last four seconds before impact.
Their list move supported movies seems to a bit on the fluffy side anyhow. About the most interesting one on there was Chinatown. But, I must give them credit that they don't seem to cut "all" the bits, but just what they think is gratuitous. I still prefer art to be unaltered, but I respect the right of other's to chose how to consume their art, so long as it's not forced upon them. Would you look at a Botticelli painting with aliasing effects covering bits, for example? Would you like to be forced to only see "edited" versions?
There are plenty of new features in SP2. I guess when Microsoft adds features to say Wireless networking, they are not new "because they should have been there before". It's a very nice interface. As is the IE pop-up blocker. As are the new handwriting recognizers for Tablet PC based systems. As is the new in-place TIP. Read all about it http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url= /library/en-us/dntablet/html/hwrecog.asp?_r=1. Disclaimer: I work for the Tablet group.