What I loved is the paint ball gun funded by the LA Co. Sheriff's Dept. The balls contained a noxious substance that made the target immediately start to puke after they were hit.
They probably got the idea from Minority Report. Too bad they didn't make the gesture-operated display instead.
It's a bad call if it's the only authentication entry, but if it's in addition to something else it might be good. Many banks seem to be going for the 'something you know, and something you recognize' auth motif
My bank does this, but it's not to authenticate me -- rather it's so I can authenticate them as really being my bank and not a phishing site. TFA is talking about asking you to recognize something to prove who *you* are.
I heard the Russians used your guidance system on one of their newest subs and had a nuclear radiation leak, shortly after which they got torpedoed by an American sub which just 'happened' to figure out how to listen to their silent caterpillar drive.
Don't expect me to be running your system any time soon. I think you have a lot to answer for.
Go read the description of the attack. He used MySpace as a host for content which would have been harmless CSS were it not misinterpreted as Javascript by a buggy Internet Explorer, causing the compromised client to post a new copy of the malicious code. It's not MySpace's fault that IE has bugs. They were spammed, not exploited.
I don't like MySpace either, but that's no reason to speak falsely about what happened.
Our original plan was that this was a step to physically-based character animation, where the chararacters really balanced and moved because their feet had friction with the ground.... But the industry went off in a different direction - motion capture with interpolation. This provides a reasonably good look without having to solve all the control problems of robotics.
So what did we get from game physics engines? Dead bodies.
I don't understand why we don't just use motion capture there as well.
Yes, I cherry-picked the juiciest of your comments so as to serve my editorial purpose.
In my opinion, Microsoft's problems are not limited to lack of vision or direction (i.e. where they want to go) but also include implementation of that vision.
Microsoft has some very smart and committed people working there (I've met some of them) as well as some not so much (from what I've heard). And of course the ones at the top want to improve things, because that means more money. But I'm not convinced they know what's actually required to do that. I don't think they have the talent needed to bring about the necessary changes, whether we're talking actual code, process, or vision. Or perhaps it would require laying off certain people or numbers of people, and they're just not willing to do it.
To "find better ways to build more powerful software using modern tools and platforms" requires more than throwing lots of very skilled C programmers at the problem. Last decade's OOP doesn't cut it either. You need people who know the latest techniques and advances in theory, who program for the love of it, not just the paycheck and benefits. Of course, most of these people know better than to take a job at Microsoft -- which cares more about selling boxes than about quality. Many of them already work for Google. Those who do join are too few to make much difference.
I think Microsoft needs to recognize that its days as schoolyard bully (a) are over, and (b) have made it many enemies, or at least few friends. And now they need to figure out who the heck they're going to be instead of that.
Or maybe I just talk to the wrong Microsoft employees and don't really know shit.
For that he should go visit an electric company or a phone company. They'll give you a singular vision (more subscribers!).
Wouldn't that be a Cingular vision?:-)
But I'd be willing to bet a reasonable sum that the inefficient and frustrating and random and sometimes stupid darwinistic approach that MSFT takes to software development will keep the company relevant.
This is exactly the kind of attitude that concerns me. Microsoft recognizes that there are flaws in its software development process, but sees no reason to address them, and (apparently) even touts this waste as an advantage.
Slashdot Mirror
the military network environment I work with tends to very carefully evaluate these Microsoft patches before letting them lose on their systems.
Fixed that for you.
OSS is obsolete for listening to music. You should be using ALSA by now.
"Pretty usable"?!
I heard the Russians used your guidance system on one of their newest subs and had a nuclear radiation leak, shortly after which they got torpedoed by an American sub which just 'happened' to figure out how to listen to their silent caterpillar drive.
Don't expect me to be running your system any time soon. I think you have a lot to answer for.
We have always been at war with Microsoft.
Go read the description of the attack. He used MySpace as a host for content which would have been harmless CSS were it not misinterpreted as Javascript by a buggy Internet Explorer, causing the compromised client to post a new copy of the malicious code. It's not MySpace's fault that IE has bugs. They were spammed, not exploited.
I don't like MySpace either, but that's no reason to speak falsely about what happened.
In fact, it's N-P hard.
Yes, I cherry-picked the juiciest of your comments so as to serve my editorial purpose.
In my opinion, Microsoft's problems are not limited to lack of vision or direction (i.e. where they want to go) but also include implementation of that vision.
Microsoft has some very smart and committed people working there (I've met some of them) as well as some not so much (from what I've heard). And of course the ones at the top want to improve things, because that means more money. But I'm not convinced they know what's actually required to do that. I don't think they have the talent needed to bring about the necessary changes, whether we're talking actual code, process, or vision. Or perhaps it would require laying off certain people or numbers of people, and they're just not willing to do it.
To "find better ways to build more powerful software using modern tools and platforms" requires more than throwing lots of very skilled C programmers at the problem. Last decade's OOP doesn't cut it either. You need people who know the latest techniques and advances in theory, who program for the love of it, not just the paycheck and benefits. Of course, most of these people know better than to take a job at Microsoft -- which cares more about selling boxes than about quality. Many of them already work for Google. Those who do join are too few to make much difference.
I think Microsoft needs to recognize that its days as schoolyard bully (a) are over, and (b) have made it many enemies, or at least few friends. And now they need to figure out who the heck they're going to be instead of that.
Or maybe I just talk to the wrong Microsoft employees and don't really know shit.
This is exactly the kind of attitude that concerns me. Microsoft recognizes that there are flaws in its software development process, but sees no reason to address them, and (apparently) even touts this waste as an advantage.
Perhaps they simply lack the required talent.
This is the Broken Window Fallacy.
I think you're confusing Mark Cuban with Vin Diesel in XXX.
"The fact that they put the word copyright in the title doesn't make it a copyright law folks"
Then maybe we should call it the Downloading Music Criminalization Act.
if you multiply six by nine?
42.
I think you mean 'half-assed', unless your problem is getting rooted by script kiddies.
Ah. I stand corrected.