This isn't a case of lack of knowledge of the technology. It's a case of the law being absurd, and the judges hands being tied. It's absurd that sharing a couple dozen songs can carry a greater liability than murdering someone (I'm talking civil law here).
The punishment certainly does not fit the crime, but that law allows these kinds of damages.
Nice weasel word there. Blatant. What makes you think that if there are backdoors in Windows they're blatent?
Think back to the AARD code, they went way out of their way to obfuscate it. Microsoft would not be so stupid as to put a well commented backdoor in there.
Of course, I'm sure someone will bring up the NSAKEY incident, which various security researches (such as Bruce Schneier) have dismissed as merely allowing the NSA to install their own key to be install for their internal systems without having to have MS sign it.
You do know that backdoors have been inserted into Linux distro's in the past, and some of them took a great deal of time to be discovered. Then of course, one never really knows if a security vulnerability is intentional or not (on any platform).
There have also been some near calls as well in the kernel itself. For instance, who remembers this doozy?
Yes, it was caught, but not because of "many eyes". It was because the attacker chose to try to modify the version control file directly. Had it gone in by some other means, it may not have been caught at all.
Why would you need to annotate a PDF when you're reading an epub? Why would you need to zoom and crop a novel that has been reflowed with whatever text size you have chosen?
the e-ink readers are designed for just that.. reading. Expecting one to be a PDF editor is pretty retarded.
The comment was about e-ink readers not being useful in the dark, that was what my reply was in response to. Moving the goalposts doesn't make you look smarter, it makes it clear you're not.
I see someone shit in your Wheaties this morning. It wasn't me.
It was completely obvious that I was referring to the statement about an e-ink reading being useless in the dark. What's more, virtually every article about the new kindles, including the summary and the article referenced *DO* mention it, even though you can't be arsed to pay attention enough to a) notice the obvious context and b) understand the words in the summary and article.
There's not Reading TFA, and then there's pretending you read it just so you can fly off the handle.
When trying to assess the market share of an OS in a given situation (such as web hosting), "fussing about the number of underlying OSes" is kind of the point, is it not?
That ars technical article makes the same mistake so many others do. It confuses hostnames with servers. It assumes a 1:1 ratio of servers to host names, and that is nowhere near the case. It also confuses "apache" and "iis" with windows and non-windows. There are lots of apache servers running on Windows out there (mostly because they have apps that require a java application server like tomcat and apache is typically used on the front end of tomcat, although IIS can be used as well).
The fact is, Windows web servers tend to have fewer domain names per server than Apache because Windows is used more commonly in enterprise environments while Apache is used more commonly in web hosting environments.
What that all boils down to is that any technical "journalist" who quotes Netcraft's host survey as evidence of server installation numbers is a moron.
sensing damage is not the same thing as causing pain. Animals are wired up such that pain causes emotional trauma. A sensor in a robot cannot do that, and likely cannot until such time as a robot has emotion.
"Excuse me sir, but i'm detecting damage to my outer exoskeleton, please submit a repair order so I may be serviced"
Is not the same thing as:
"Holy fucking shit that HURTS! Make it stop! For the love of all that holy or unholy please kill me and put me out of my misery".
That's just it. There is no functional difference now between Standard and Enterprise. They all have the exact same features. The only difference is how many virtual machines you can run. $800 for standard vs $4000 for enterprise.
If you don't want virtualization at all, then there's Essentials.
Exactly, until such time as Robots have consciousness and feel pain from abuse, there is nothing inhumane about damaging a robot.
Now, you might have violated someone elses property rights by doing so, but if you own the robot, then there's nothing morally reprehensible about robot death matches.
No. The problem with Rockstar developers is that the requirements are usually such that it requires Rockstars to get it done. Unreasonable time lines, unfinished specifications that require constant changes as it's being written, Psychic coding (I know I *said* I wanted this, but I meant that), Managerial changes mid-project in which the new manager changes everything.... etc..
Insane measures are required to meet insane expectations, and that is ALWAYS managements fault.
Speaking as a circumcised male, I have never felt a loss for a bit of useless skin. Most of the women I've talked to about it say they find foreskins to be "ooky" anyways, particularly the ones that enjoy fellatio.
But of course this is just one mans opinion, and those of his partners over the years.
I agree. Not everyone can work in pairs. And certainly there are many people who cannot work in pairs with certain other people. It really requires a good friendship to make it work.
I actually stumbled across this myself in 1994 when I was forced due to time constraints to work with another programmer to finish a project... we sort of accidentally did pair programming and it was very effective.
But i'm not sure I could recreate that kind of synergy again.. I've tried and it didn't work.
But we're talking about how to POWER OFF the computer. If your argument that powering off the computer is too difficult because you have to climb down under your desk, then certainly powering it back on is just as difficult.
Retail versions of Windows no longer allow you to install them without a code, so you would enter the code at install time. Normal end users will never ever need to change their key like that.
Enterprise version does allow installation without a key, but enterprise customers should be knowledgeable enough to know how to use a command line for a one-time activity.
Your argument is pretty stupid regarding installation. Installation requires a long list of tasks to accomplish, so it needs a program to do it. Changing a product key is a single task that doesn't need a UI to do it. If changing the key required 25 different steps, you might have a point, but it doesn't.
There's no reason you should have to change your product key just to virtualize an install, or do a hardware upgrade. You may have to re-activate, but your key is your key.
The default action of Windows 8 is to shut down when the power button is pressed momentarily. You can configure it to sleep if you want, but it has always been that the power button completely shuts down.
Now, it's possible some OEM's might have reconfigured that, but I doubt it. Shutting the lid on a laptop is sleep in the default configuration.
I have never heard of the power button rebooting the computer, except in cases where the bios was buggy (this happened a lot in the late 90's, early 2000's, but hasn't been a problem in ages).
The OS gives up any cached memory if it's needed, by the way.
Who cares? What tiny percentage of the population would need to change their activation key that doesn't know how to do it from a CLI?
I've seen this argument from others, and it's completely moronic. It's something you do *ONCE* in the lifetime of the computer. There is no reason to build a UI for it.
For crying out loud. How you shut down the machine hasn't changed since windows XP. You press the freaking power button. It shuts down. This worked in XP, this worked in Vista. This worked in 7. This works in 8. Microsoft has hidden the onscreen shutdowns because they want you to use the power button as the single way to shut things down, because that's how you do it with tablets and phones and other hardware devices.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the 10GB of RAM. I have 12GB and the OS never uses more than 2 of it.
No, some of their perceived "screw ups" were intentional, certainly not all of them. Bob was not a success commercially, but it gave them a lot of technology that they reused in later products.
Vista had many things that were intentional. For example:
Re:Let the bitching begin....
on
Windows 8 Is Ready
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
First, Microsoft usually doesn't view much of anything as a total failure. Like many, they view their mistakes as market research. When they do something really wrong, they learn from it.
Bob may have been a failure, but they learned a lot from it, and it lead to other products like the (also abhorred but largely successful) MS Agent technology (aka clippy, fido, etc..)
Neither ME or Vista were failures per se. ME was never intended to be anything other than a stopgap. MS had intended to transition Windows 9x users to Windows 2000, but when that got pushed back to XP, MS had to come up with a stopgap for OEM's to provide new hardware support. It was held together with chewing gum and twine, to try and extend the life for just a few months more...
Vista, likewise, was not a failure either, in that it was never intended to be a success. It was a "hatchet man", that was put out in order to get ISV's and OEM's to follow the new security rules. It was also intended to be really annoying so that vendors would fix their software to be UAC friendly. MS knew Windows 7 would come along and replace it, and by then the issues would be solved both in vendors and software.
Slashdot Mirror
Hmmm.. Interesting sidebar. If "actual harm" is impossible to calculate, is it actually harm?
This isn't a case of lack of knowledge of the technology. It's a case of the law being absurd, and the judges hands being tied. It's absurd that sharing a couple dozen songs can carry a greater liability than murdering someone (I'm talking civil law here).
The punishment certainly does not fit the crime, but that law allows these kinds of damages.
If you don't like it, lobby your lawmakers.
Your argument is that because the burglar slipped on the icy sidewalk and broke his neck, it proves your security system works as expected.
Nice weasel word there. Blatant. What makes you think that if there are backdoors in Windows they're blatent?
Think back to the AARD code, they went way out of their way to obfuscate it. Microsoft would not be so stupid as to put a well commented backdoor in there.
Of course, I'm sure someone will bring up the NSAKEY incident, which various security researches (such as Bruce Schneier) have dismissed as merely allowing the NSA to install their own key to be install for their internal systems without having to have MS sign it.
You do know that backdoors have been inserted into Linux distro's in the past, and some of them took a great deal of time to be discovered. Then of course, one never really knows if a security vulnerability is intentional or not (on any platform).
There have also been some near calls as well in the kernel itself. For instance, who remembers this doozy?
http://www.securityfocus.com/news/7388
Yes, it was caught, but not because of "many eyes". It was because the attacker chose to try to modify the version control file directly. Had it gone in by some other means, it may not have been caught at all.
Or a better idea..
For $300 you buy a shitload of books, especially if you go to the used book store.
Why would you need to annotate a PDF when you're reading an epub? Why would you need to zoom and crop a novel that has been reflowed with whatever text size you have chosen?
the e-ink readers are designed for just that.. reading. Expecting one to be a PDF editor is pretty retarded.
The comment was about e-ink readers not being useful in the dark, that was what my reply was in response to. Moving the goalposts doesn't make you look smarter, it makes it clear you're not.
I see someone shit in your Wheaties this morning. It wasn't me.
It was completely obvious that I was referring to the statement about an e-ink reading being useless in the dark. What's more, virtually every article about the new kindles, including the summary and the article referenced *DO* mention it, even though you can't be arsed to pay attention enough to a) notice the obvious context and b) understand the words in the summary and article.
There's not Reading TFA, and then there's pretending you read it just so you can fly off the handle.
The new kindle paperwhite includes a page light, so this is no longer true.
When trying to assess the market share of an OS in a given situation (such as web hosting), "fussing about the number of underlying OSes" is kind of the point, is it not?
That ars technical article makes the same mistake so many others do. It confuses hostnames with servers. It assumes a 1:1 ratio of servers to host names, and that is nowhere near the case. It also confuses "apache" and "iis" with windows and non-windows. There are lots of apache servers running on Windows out there (mostly because they have apps that require a java application server like tomcat and apache is typically used on the front end of tomcat, although IIS can be used as well).
The fact is, Windows web servers tend to have fewer domain names per server than Apache because Windows is used more commonly in enterprise environments while Apache is used more commonly in web hosting environments.
What that all boils down to is that any technical "journalist" who quotes Netcraft's host survey as evidence of server installation numbers is a moron.
sensing damage is not the same thing as causing pain. Animals are wired up such that pain causes emotional trauma. A sensor in a robot cannot do that, and likely cannot until such time as a robot has emotion.
"Excuse me sir, but i'm detecting damage to my outer exoskeleton, please submit a repair order so I may be serviced"
Is not the same thing as:
"Holy fucking shit that HURTS! Make it stop! For the love of all that holy or unholy please kill me and put me out of my misery".
Get it?
That's just it. There is no functional difference now between Standard and Enterprise. They all have the exact same features. The only difference is how many virtual machines you can run. $800 for standard vs $4000 for enterprise.
If you don't want virtualization at all, then there's Essentials.
Exactly, until such time as Robots have consciousness and feel pain from abuse, there is nothing inhumane about damaging a robot.
Now, you might have violated someone elses property rights by doing so, but if you own the robot, then there's nothing morally reprehensible about robot death matches.
I think the person that submitted it was British, and they conflated Dollars for Pounds. No way millions of pounds could be transported...
No. The problem with Rockstar developers is that the requirements are usually such that it requires Rockstars to get it done. Unreasonable time lines, unfinished specifications that require constant changes as it's being written, Psychic coding (I know I *said* I wanted this, but I meant that), Managerial changes mid-project in which the new manager changes everything.... etc..
Insane measures are required to meet insane expectations, and that is ALWAYS managements fault.
Speaking as a circumcised male, I have never felt a loss for a bit of useless skin. Most of the women I've talked to about it say they find foreskins to be "ooky" anyways, particularly the ones that enjoy fellatio.
But of course this is just one mans opinion, and those of his partners over the years.
I agree. Not everyone can work in pairs. And certainly there are many people who cannot work in pairs with certain other people. It really requires a good friendship to make it work.
I actually stumbled across this myself in 1994 when I was forced due to time constraints to work with another programmer to finish a project... we sort of accidentally did pair programming and it was very effective.
But i'm not sure I could recreate that kind of synergy again.. I've tried and it didn't work.
But we're talking about how to POWER OFF the computer. If your argument that powering off the computer is too difficult because you have to climb down under your desk, then certainly powering it back on is just as difficult.
Retail versions of Windows no longer allow you to install them without a code, so you would enter the code at install time. Normal end users will never ever need to change their key like that.
Enterprise version does allow installation without a key, but enterprise customers should be knowledgeable enough to know how to use a command line for a one-time activity.
Your argument is pretty stupid regarding installation. Installation requires a long list of tasks to accomplish, so it needs a program to do it. Changing a product key is a single task that doesn't need a UI to do it. If changing the key required 25 different steps, you might have a point, but it doesn't.
There's no reason you should have to change your product key just to virtualize an install, or do a hardware upgrade. You may have to re-activate, but your key is your key.
The default action of Windows 8 is to shut down when the power button is pressed momentarily. You can configure it to sleep if you want, but it has always been that the power button completely shuts down.
Now, it's possible some OEM's might have reconfigured that, but I doubt it. Shutting the lid on a laptop is sleep in the default configuration.
I have never heard of the power button rebooting the computer, except in cases where the bios was buggy (this happened a lot in the late 90's, early 2000's, but hasn't been a problem in ages).
The OS gives up any cached memory if it's needed, by the way.
Who cares? What tiny percentage of the population would need to change their activation key that doesn't know how to do it from a CLI?
I've seen this argument from others, and it's completely moronic. It's something you do *ONCE* in the lifetime of the computer. There is no reason to build a UI for it.
For crying out loud. How you shut down the machine hasn't changed since windows XP. You press the freaking power button. It shuts down. This worked in XP, this worked in Vista. This worked in 7. This works in 8. Microsoft has hidden the onscreen shutdowns because they want you to use the power button as the single way to shut things down, because that's how you do it with tablets and phones and other hardware devices.
I'm not sure what you're talking about with the 10GB of RAM. I have 12GB and the OS never uses more than 2 of it.
No, some of their perceived "screw ups" were intentional, certainly not all of them. Bob was not a success commercially, but it gave them a lot of technology that they reused in later products.
Vista had many things that were intentional. For example:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/12/AR2008041201504.html
First, Microsoft usually doesn't view much of anything as a total failure. Like many, they view their mistakes as market research. When they do something really wrong, they learn from it.
Bob may have been a failure, but they learned a lot from it, and it lead to other products like the (also abhorred but largely successful) MS Agent technology (aka clippy, fido, etc..)
Neither ME or Vista were failures per se. ME was never intended to be anything other than a stopgap. MS had intended to transition Windows 9x users to Windows 2000, but when that got pushed back to XP, MS had to come up with a stopgap for OEM's to provide new hardware support. It was held together with chewing gum and twine, to try and extend the life for just a few months more...
Vista, likewise, was not a failure either, in that it was never intended to be a success. It was a "hatchet man", that was put out in order to get ISV's and OEM's to follow the new security rules. It was also intended to be really annoying so that vendors would fix their software to be UAC friendly. MS knew Windows 7 would come along and replace it, and by then the issues would be solved both in vendors and software.
DOS 4 was just a huge steaming pile, though.