Yeah, What I said was "I need MSIE for work" when what I really meant was "I don't need it" Give me a break.
It's one of the many reasons I stay on windows right now. If it were the ONLY reason, I would probably find a way to make things work some other way.. but it's not.
There are many pages I *NEED* to use that, for better or worse, don't work if I don't use MSIE. Either they use ActiveX components, or shit javascript, or simply don't render properly.
I probably COULD figure out how to use them all with mozilla; I'm sure I could, but why would I bother when IE is ALREADY there and gets the job done?
Keep in mind the topic here is "what keeps you using windows".. not "What open source software do you use in windows".
If they limit the spread to 2.4Mhz, almost 10 times less spectrum, then the data rates would drop and the succeptability to outside interference from other 2.4Ghz radiators would go way, way, way up.
It has nothing to do with how precise they can make the equipment, and everything to do with playing nice in the 2.4Ghz spectrum.
The reason there is channel overlap is because channel overlap is NOT as bad as everyone makes it seem.. poeple still tend to think in terms of normal radio bands.. where overlap destroys the signal. This is direct sequence spread spectrum, it can handle some level of noise.. hence the overlap.
Where did you read that this is about spatial separation?
What kind of real business are you in where you think 802.11b can only handle 10 users "doing work". Network intensive work, perhaps, but many, many businesses use their network for email and surfing only.
The article says they are talking about acceptable levels of interefernece that do not degrade performance... which is entirely possible with some channel overlap.. that's one of the benefits of direct-sequence spread spectrum, it's inherently redundant, many times over.
and the hundreds of RF engineers who have already spoken and said that only 3 channels do not overlap are still correct.
802.11b Channels are 22Mhz wide, and spaced 5Mhz apart.... grab a pencil and paper and figure it out. You can't get more than 3 channels without overlap.
The article lacks any real detail, other than a brief but accurate (typo aside, channel 1 goes to 2423MHz, not 2433Mhz) description of the 802.11b channel scheme.
One of the benefits of DSSS is that you can deal with interference to a good degree. If you use four channels, as widely spaced as possible, instead of three, you narrow your bandwidth, but not by too much. I imagine the overlap could be reduced to between 2Mhz for the end channels, and 4Mhz for those in the middle, possibly only 2 for those in Europe where the spectrum allocated is wider. Given how DSSS works, this may not affect data rates noticeably... this is what they are probably going to talk about in the alleged whitepaper.
Not sure why it's an article yet... there's no info yet.
They are very qualified to write code, just as a junior mechanic is very qualified to start throwing nuts and bolts together.
They are not qualified to engineer software, just as a junior mechanic does not design the latest automobile from Mercedes Benz.
I can't imagine paying someone who says that programming for windows is out of the question and so is using C or C++ should be making six figures. The article is totally personal opinion, and some basic facts... not a great solution tos ecurity.
but I doubt most businesses would pay what it would cost for truly hardcore audited applications to be written for them.
If a company is going to be liable, think about maybe 10x the development time, and 10x the cost. Will you pay $3000 for a single licence of XP Pro that won't crash, as long as you only run applications that microsoft guarantees are bug free? (Audited Office will run you another $3000-$5000, many apps will be out of the question or you will void your policy, etcetera).
That's why.
All those statements the open source world would love to have won't change the fact that systems will still be broken into and software will still have flaws.
It's like this. A hypothetical business has 200 windows workstations. They need an application for their staff; they want you to write it.
Telling them to "switch to linux" means they have to change a ton of OTHER applications, and that's a big disruption to workflow; they already PAID for windows. So either you develop the app for them on windows, or they go somewhere else.
First, background.. I've been using linux since the wee versions...96 or so, 1992-ish. I was fluent in SunOS well before that. I've been through the whole zealotry phase, and used linux on just about every concievable machine I've touched.
I use windows on my laptop. Here is why.
- I like the way Windows XP looks. Cleartype rules on my laptop. - All the flash readers, usb devices, and everything else I can get my hands on just WORKS most of the time. - Games work better. All the games I play appear to be available on linux, but they just don't work as well.. this is most likely related to video drivers. - Software compatability. Sorry, but in this modern world, I NEED MS Internet Explorer. - Windows is NOT as bad as everyone makes it out to be; yes linux is far more open, but many, though not all, of the things that people whine about not being able to diagnose in windows are simply because they don't know how; they only know the unix way. - Windows 2000 was a large improvement, I believe in a large way because of the pressure the Linux threat put on MS. Windows Xp even moreso from a personal workstation perspective.
thanks to a free market. Taiwan will use what they need to to get the job done; if having the source is a requirement, Microsoft will either provideit, or lose the sale to some other company or product that meets their requirements, or, of course, cut them a deal they can't refuse sans source.
Please don't mention security through obscurity.. you know that if MS released the windows source openly, it would drive up the number of windows clones and aid in reverse engineering all their weird apis.. it wouild spell their undoing, currently. They do have a valid reason not to release it, their business currently depends on it.
Okay.. if this spyware is a java applet.... can someone explain what the problem is? It's an applet; it should be gone when you close your browser, and not come back until you visit a site that uses it.
The java security model should prevent an applet from spying on you.. or am I mistaken?
What supposed dangers? Everyone talks about it, yet nobody can show a half decent reason why the emissions from a cellphone are dangerous.
The rason people think cellphones are dangerous are twofold: one, because it's an obvious conspiracy, and two, because they call it microwave, and they think that means it's just like their microwave oven.
For that matter.. we have everyone whining about cellphones, who's whining about 802.11b? That's the same frequency your microwave oven works at... shouldn't you be scared? (yes I'm being sarcastic)
are overgeneralizing... it depends heavily on the energy level involved.
Tritium (Hydrogen-3) is a pure beta emitter, and a very low energy one at that; it's emissions can be stopped by a sheet of paper, or your first layer of skin, etcetera. It's quite safe to use..
Unless you ingest it, breathe it in quantity, etcetera... then it will STILL cause cancer even at such low energies.
I spent years wearing a wristwatch with tritium gas lights on it... I read up, and the radiation cannot penetrate the glass tubes that contain the gas.
Obviously tritium in this form and quantity is not really dangerous... but the point is that adequate shielding is all that is required.
The small size of things was due to a lack of raw materials.. they didn't have the same kind of supply of metals and such, so they had to make things as efficient and tiny as possible.
No, you aren't a cracker... the admin would perhaps be responsible.. but either way, if it's personal information that shouldn't be there, the company should report the breach.
I believe the assumption is that if there is any kind of personal/private information on customers stored there, people should have a right to know that it has been potentially stolen.
If the video store is broken into, and someone steals some tapes, I don't care.
If their database of customers and credit card info, identification, lending habits, etcetera, is stolen, I want to know about it.
A site like this, the cost for dealing with each artist is minimal. Simply signing over the right to sell the music for $x per track (or maybe per minute of audio) and pay the artist $y with little or no up-front costs, and the right for either party to cancel outright with a reasonbale notice period (to keep business running smoothly) is all it should take.
The other point is, this isn't an exclusive deal like with a normal recording contract where the record company wants to own all your music, your thoughs, your image, and the name of your band so you CANT leave... it's just a distribution service. They are still free to go sign any deal they want.
The #1 reason your boss, or your IT dept, has for turning you down has nothing to do with performance, and everything to do with stability (Talking about Windows here)
Simply, us IT folk generally don't want anyone running anything they don't NEED to run on a daily basis on their computer, period, because every additional thing adds complexity.
8 years ago it wasn't hard to have filter sets that could be selectively applied PER ACCOUNT on a livingston portmaster w/ radius. I doubt it's any harder today.
The filters were applied when the user signed in, removed when they signed out.
You make tracking ip addresses sound HARD or something.
I know all about the relative price of internet connections; that wasn't my point. My point was that residential internet service should still be internet service; it's bandwidth that costs, let them charge for it if they like, but don't filter shit if I don't want it. You don't block my phone and tell me I can't call some people; you charge different rates depending on what resources I'm using (where I am calling).
So you basically think "go get a better connection" is the answer? I already KNOW I can do that; what we are talking about is having consumer ISPs clean up their act, and to give clean, pure Internet access to EVERYONE. Why? So application developers don't have to deal with a bazillion STUPID FILTERS.
we don't KNOW anything about history; it's all speculation. For that matter, you don't KNOW what happened yesterday, because you only have your memories, which could be wrong.
The article is ABOUT people who dreamed something up and it turned out to seem relatively true; they in no way tried to "discover" anything or state it as fact.
Yes.. and I don't dipsute that a network provider taking action to prevent a widespread problem, like trying to stop a worm, is good. If people are vulnerable, it's good...
but I should be able to tell them to TURN OFF any filtering on MY connection if I want; or better, I should be able to turn it off myself.
Wht I mean it it should not be forced on me without question.
If some new worm is going rampant, heck, I might be vulnerable... I don't mind if they do something about it to try to help... along the lines of "traffic N is being filtered on your connection due to blah blah, go to this url to turn it off when you have corrected the problem"
But.. transparent web proxies screw up queries, blocking ports to make it a pain to use some apps is wrong, and forbidding "servers" is rediculous. If they want to charge for bandwidth, let them.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, What I said was "I need MSIE for work" when what I really meant was "I don't need it" Give me a break.
It's one of the many reasons I stay on windows right now. If it were the ONLY reason, I would probably find a way to make things work some other way.. but it's not.
There are many pages I *NEED* to use that, for better or worse, don't work if I don't use MSIE. Either they use ActiveX components, or shit javascript, or simply don't render properly.
I probably COULD figure out how to use them all with mozilla; I'm sure I could, but why would I bother when IE is ALREADY there and gets the job done?
Keep in mind the topic here is "what keeps you using windows".. not "What open source software do you use in windows".
Channels are 22MHz wide, not 27...
If they limit the spread to 2.4Mhz, almost 10 times less spectrum, then the data rates would drop and the succeptability to outside interference from other 2.4Ghz radiators would go way, way, way up.
It has nothing to do with how precise they can make the equipment, and everything to do with playing nice in the 2.4Ghz spectrum.
The reason there is channel overlap is because channel overlap is NOT as bad as everyone makes it seem.. poeple still tend to think in terms of normal radio bands.. where overlap destroys the signal. This is direct sequence spread spectrum, it can handle some level of noise.. hence the overlap.
Where did he say frequencies don't overlap?
Where did you read that this is about spatial separation?
What kind of real business are you in where you think 802.11b can only handle 10 users "doing work". Network intensive work, perhaps, but many, many businesses use their network for email and surfing only.
The article says they are talking about acceptable levels of interefernece that do not degrade performance... which is entirely possible with some channel overlap.. that's one of the benefits of direct-sequence spread spectrum, it's inherently redundant, many times over.
and the hundreds of RF engineers who have already spoken and said that only 3 channels do not overlap are still correct.
802.11b Channels are 22Mhz wide, and spaced 5Mhz apart.... grab a pencil and paper and figure it out. You can't get more than 3 channels without overlap.
The article lacks any real detail, other than a brief but accurate (typo aside, channel 1 goes to 2423MHz, not 2433Mhz) description of the 802.11b channel scheme.
One of the benefits of DSSS is that you can deal with interference to a good degree. If you use four channels, as widely spaced as possible, instead of three, you narrow your bandwidth, but not by too much. I imagine the overlap could be reduced to between 2Mhz for the end channels, and 4Mhz for those in the middle, possibly only 2 for those in Europe where the spectrum allocated is wider. Given how DSSS works, this may not affect data rates noticeably... this is what they are probably going to talk about in the alleged whitepaper.
Not sure why it's an article yet... there's no info yet.
They are very qualified to write code, just as a junior mechanic is very qualified to start throwing nuts and bolts together.
They are not qualified to engineer software, just as a junior mechanic does not design the latest automobile from Mercedes Benz.
I can't imagine paying someone who says that programming for windows is out of the question and so is using C or C++ should be making six figures. The article is totally personal opinion, and some basic facts... not a great solution tos ecurity.
but I doubt most businesses would pay what it would cost for truly hardcore audited applications to be written for them.
If a company is going to be liable, think about maybe 10x the development time, and 10x the cost. Will you pay $3000 for a single licence of XP Pro that won't crash, as long as you only run applications that microsoft guarantees are bug free? (Audited Office will run you another $3000-$5000, many apps will be out of the question or you will void your policy, etcetera).
That's why.
All those statements the open source world would love to have won't change the fact that systems will still be broken into and software will still have flaws.
It's like this. A hypothetical business has 200 windows workstations. They need an application for their staff; they want you to write it.
Telling them to "switch to linux" means they have to change a ton of OTHER applications, and that's a big disruption to workflow; they already PAID for windows. So either you develop the app for them on windows, or they go somewhere else.
First, background.. I've been using linux since the wee versions.. .96 or so, 1992-ish. I was fluent in SunOS well before that. I've been through the whole zealotry phase, and used linux on just about every concievable machine I've touched.
I use windows on my laptop. Here is why.
- I like the way Windows XP looks. Cleartype rules on my laptop.
- All the flash readers, usb devices, and everything else I can get my hands on just WORKS most of the time.
- Games work better. All the games I play appear to be available on linux, but they just don't work as well.. this is most likely related to video drivers.
- Software compatability. Sorry, but in this modern world, I NEED MS Internet Explorer.
- Windows is NOT as bad as everyone makes it out to be; yes linux is far more open, but many, though not all, of the things that people whine about not being able to diagnose in windows are simply because they don't know how; they only know the unix way.
- Windows 2000 was a large improvement, I believe in a large way because of the pressure the Linux threat put on MS. Windows Xp even moreso from a personal workstation perspective.
thanks to a free market.
Taiwan will use what they need to to get the job done; if having the source is a requirement, Microsoft will either provideit, or lose the sale to some other company or product that meets their requirements, or, of course, cut them a deal they can't refuse sans source.
Please don't mention security through obscurity.. you know that if MS released the windows source openly, it would drive up the number of windows clones and aid in reverse engineering all their weird apis.. it wouild spell their undoing, currently. They do have a valid reason not to release it, their business currently depends on it.
Okay.. if this spyware is a java applet.... can someone explain what the problem is? It's an applet; it should be gone when you close your browser, and not come back until you visit a site that uses it.
The java security model should prevent an applet from spying on you.. or am I mistaken?
What supposed dangers? Everyone talks about it, yet nobody can show a half decent reason why the emissions from a cellphone are dangerous.
The rason people think cellphones are dangerous are twofold: one, because it's an obvious conspiracy, and two, because they call it microwave, and they think that means it's just like their microwave oven.
For that matter.. we have everyone whining about cellphones, who's whining about 802.11b? That's the same frequency your microwave oven works at... shouldn't you be scared? (yes I'm being sarcastic)
are overgeneralizing... it depends heavily on the energy level involved.
Tritium (Hydrogen-3) is a pure beta emitter, and a very low energy one at that; it's emissions can be stopped by a sheet of paper, or your first layer of skin, etcetera. It's quite safe to use..
Unless you ingest it, breathe it in quantity, etcetera... then it will STILL cause cancer even at such low energies.
those things are neat.
Ever researched how they really work?
Odds are that what your highschool teacher told you is 100% wrong... hint: it's not 'light pressure' or 'expanding gas' on the hot side.
I spent years wearing a wristwatch with tritium gas lights on it...
I read up, and the radiation cannot penetrate the glass tubes that contain the gas.
Obviously tritium in this form and quantity is not really dangerous... but the point is that adequate shielding is all that is required.
Right.
The small size of things was due to a lack of raw materials.. they didn't have the same kind of supply of metals and such, so they had to make things as efficient and tiny as possible.
No, you aren't a cracker... the admin would perhaps be responsible.. but either way, if it's personal information that shouldn't be there, the company should report the breach.
I believe the assumption is that if there is any kind of personal/private information on customers stored there, people should have a right to know that it has been potentially stolen.
If the video store is broken into, and someone steals some tapes, I don't care.
If their database of customers and credit card info, identification, lending habits, etcetera, is stolen, I want to know about it.
A site like this, the cost for dealing with each artist is minimal. Simply signing over the right to sell the music for $x per track (or maybe per minute of audio) and pay the artist $y with little or no up-front costs, and the right for either party to cancel outright with a reasonbale notice period (to keep business running smoothly) is all it should take.
The other point is, this isn't an exclusive deal like with a normal recording contract where the record company wants to own all your music, your thoughs, your image, and the name of your band so you CANT leave... it's just a distribution service. They are still free to go sign any deal they want.
What's the best way to manage 100 windows 2000 workstations centrally.. if I want to do something like install folding@home on all of them at once.
The #1 reason your boss, or your IT dept, has for turning you down has nothing to do with performance, and everything to do with stability (Talking about Windows here)
Simply, us IT folk generally don't want anyone running anything they don't NEED to run on a daily basis on their computer, period, because every additional thing adds complexity.
It's a stability and a security risk.
Really. That's interesting.
Most of us measure how good a system is by whether or not it use useful to us.
Linux was very useful to many, and those people wanted more, so they kept adding more support and more applications.
Currently, hurd is not useful.
It has some neat features, in theory. but it's not useful to me or the guy next to me.
So what good is it?
8 years ago it wasn't hard to have filter sets that could be selectively applied PER ACCOUNT on a livingston portmaster w/ radius. I doubt it's any harder today.
The filters were applied when the user signed in, removed when they signed out.
You make tracking ip addresses sound HARD or something.
I know all about the relative price of internet connections; that wasn't my point. My point was that residential internet service should still be internet service; it's bandwidth that costs, let them charge for it if they like, but don't filter shit if I don't want it.
You don't block my phone and tell me I can't call some people; you charge different rates depending on what resources I'm using (where I am calling).
So you basically think "go get a better connection" is the answer? I already KNOW I can do that; what we are talking about is having consumer ISPs clean up their act, and to give clean, pure Internet access to EVERYONE. Why? So application developers don't have to deal with a bazillion STUPID FILTERS.
That is stretching it a bit; that's what the media often says when reading the theories on quantum phsycis... it's not what they mean, though.
We cannot prove or disprove that something exists until we observe it; does that mean we created it by observing?
At a quantum level, we simply cannot say... hence the theory that nothing exists until it is observed.
We can also say "if nobody observes it, it might as well not be there".
we don't KNOW anything about history; it's all speculation. For that matter, you don't KNOW what happened yesterday, because you only have your memories, which could be wrong.
The article is ABOUT people who dreamed something up and it turned out to seem relatively true; they in no way tried to "discover" anything or state it as fact.
Yes.. and I don't dipsute that a network provider taking action to prevent a widespread problem, like trying to stop a worm, is good. If people are vulnerable, it's good...
but I should be able to tell them to TURN OFF any filtering on MY connection if I want; or better, I should be able to turn it off myself.
Wht I mean it it should not be forced on me without question.
If some new worm is going rampant, heck, I might be vulnerable... I don't mind if they do something about it to try to help... along the lines of "traffic N is being filtered on your connection due to blah blah, go to this url to turn it off when you have corrected the problem"
But.. transparent web proxies screw up queries, blocking ports to make it a pain to use some apps is wrong, and forbidding "servers" is rediculous. If they want to charge for bandwidth, let them.