Here's the really evil thing about the MSN search feature in IE:
If in Internet Options: Advanced Settings you check the "Do no search from address bar" box, and then type an incorrect URL such as mappquest.com, you will still be taken to the MSN search page. Furthermore, your setting in Advanced Option will have changed to "Just display restults in the main window".
In order to really disable the MSN search, apart from the obvious HOSTS autosearch.msn.com = 127.0.0.1 you have to be more clever. What better than to map it to Google instead ?
In IE, press Ctrl+E to enable the Search toolbar. Select Customize, and you will find the settings the OVERRIDE what is setup in Internet Options. At the bottom of Customize Settings window there is a Autosearch Settings which is the culprit. Change it to point to Google instead. Even if you select Do Not Search From Address Bar, it will search from address bar, however.
> If My company can make our OS do exactly what we want it to, that's a win, not a loss.
Agreed, but if your company HAD to make changes to the OS, then you would have to employ personell for that purpose. That would make OSS very popular, very soon wouldn't it ?
"In heaven, the Italians do the cooking, the Swiss do the accounting, the German fix the cars, the French are the lovers, and the British are the police.
In hell, the English do the cooking, the Italians do the accounting, the French fix the cars, the Swiss are the are the lovers, and the Germans are the police".
I guess we can add something about who's in charge of cyber security in either places... and I'm pretty sure where Microsoft has a bigger footprint.
Paging never was big in Europe, actually. But maybe they should give out pagers to people whose phones are rining in the lobby.
Sounds like Nero Wolfe
on
Kiln People
·
· Score: 1
" Instead, each day he rises and imprints specialized dittos to do his legwork, review the evidence, meet others, and run errands while he stays home, tends his garden..."
This sounds pretty much how TV detective Nero Wolfe worked. And wasn't that much what "Jake and the Fatman" was all about ?`
"and keeps his real body in good physical condition."
I think you got it all wrong. Filthy rich people always have "friends", real or pretended, that will say shallow things like 'Did you catch Letterman last night?'.
Think Osama Bin Laden would have any friends without his millions ? Mike Tyson ?
My company provides mission-critical systems at the core of its customers business. Needless to say, data cannot MUST NOT be lost, so therefore backing up both transactional and referential data is an essential part of the setup.
Some 10 years ago, we weren't as good with this. We usually let our customers handle their backups themselves, maybe on our recommendations. One company had a tape backup running every night, backing up the essential parts of the database. After they'd been up and running for a few years, they had a failure and lost the disk with the database. Fine, just retrieve it from the tape backup. Well, it turns out they had run the same tape all along. It had effectively been polished blank by the magnetic heads over years, and not a trace of their database could be found.
They didn't have any other recent backups, so they were pretty much screwed. I think we lost their business after that.
> Anyway you look at it, I win. I get entertained, my number removed from their calling list, > and a laugh from the telemarketer sometimes.
You only win if your time and what your were doing at the time means nothing to you. That's what bothers me the most about telemarketers, they never ask whether they are disturbing or not.
...howabout they figure out how to make it virtual ? We need online grocery shopping with deliveries so that we don't have to spend our time doing the neverending shopping ourselves.
There has got to be a way to arrange it so that the customers can share the delivery costs and still save money compared to driving their own vehicle to the supermarket.
I can't believe WebVan blew a billion dollars on this.
>Apparently you've never heard of Harry Potter. >This series has brought more people [back] to >reading than any other. I almost never read >books and I've read Harry Potter. I can name >about 10 adults and even more kids with the same >experience.
You can always trust the/. crowd to present Real Facts and then support it with anectdotal evidence...
The article is a nice read, but it is obvious that the author have little experience in commercial software production.
Quality and security of a commercial software product is a financial decision, not a technical. Much like how software architecture is a strategic and not a technical decision, which many software developers do not realize.
When the cost of continuing to improve quality and security exceeds the income from support contracts, you have to draw the line. If you don't provide or charge for support, you draw the line when your investment exceeds your targeted income projections.
There are software products that are secure and virtually bug-free, but you and I can't afford them. They run nuclear plants, space shuttle command centers, etc etc. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on that software, and it is not a question about "the user is evil". It's about having a thorough and mature development process and organization, preferable at CMM level 5.
So, I really don't know where the article would apply. Maybe when writing simple VB games for your website. Absolutely not when writing commercial grade software.
Yes you are right in that Sony is much better at running a more profitable mfg plant and that they are recouping their investment both with the platform and the software, not to mention the assescories. But regardless, the price of the console is just a measure of the competition on the market, and MS had to face the fact that they're competing against well-established console companies and take their medicine.
Still, it doesn't make it wrong to market your product at a price in level or slightly below the competition just in order to get the products out to the consumers.
> It's amazing to me that MS is able to get away with the same thing without its competitors screaming more loudly at the US government.
What exactly are they getting away with ? Losing money isn't a crime.
There isn't one single corporation not trying to gain market shares by playing with prices, in order to increase demand for their products. Most companies also accept losses to parts of their operations in hope that the profits of others will more than make up for it. Selling X-Box at a net loss isn't a big deal if you can make up for it with the games, subscription fees etc. Gillette is practically giving away the razors, but the price on the blades borders to extortion.
I think your concern would be valid if in fact what Microsoft is doing is the de facto standard for the gaming console market; you start of selling the consoles at a huge "loss" (i.e. you write off the development costs the first years) and then you practically break even on them. Sony isn't selling PS1 at a loss now, I assure you. But the main income is the games. Microsoft gets royalties for each and every title, without them having to lift a finger. Of course they can afford to get rid of the consoles at a loss.
I think that "scams" are narrowly defined as the Nigerian kind of business proposals, i.e. people are actively trying to rip you off.
The source of the pie chart came from an anti-spam software maker. I wonder why they want us to believe that 96% of spam is legitimate offers.
Very interesting, but I still don't understand...
on
The Economics of Spam
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
...who actually reads the emails ? Even if I was so oblivious that I didn't filter my emails, I would never dream of supporting the spammer. Even if I accidently read a spam and then amazingly found the product/service interesting, I would not respond to anything in the spam.
> He also hunts for new ways to get around > software that tries to filter out spam and to > get people to open his e-mails.
With a response rate as low as 0.002%, do they expect that the people that install and run spam filters are the most likely to respond to spam ?
It's depressing to see how irresponsible the ISPs are, letting them off the hook so easily. They owe it to their customers to shut down the spammers, not just warn them if they get many complaints.
Like the "spam queen" said, It's a numbers game. If people bothered complaining, they'd really feel what people think about them.
I have two tips myself to solve the problem: 1) get an adjustable dest that you can stand or sit at and 2) make sit-ups each morning and evening to avoid back pains. These two points helped me!
The first tip is a great one, which will save you fro a lot of pain, if you have back problems. The second tip is a disaster, as any chiropractor will tell you. Don't do situps if you have a back condition.
But you wouldn't take medical advice from/. anyhow, would you ?
The difference is that computer software and sometimes hardware manufacturers have license terms that explicitly forbid it, which rarely is the case for consumer packaged goods.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's the really evil thing about the MSN search feature in IE:
If in Internet Options: Advanced Settings you check the "Do no search from address bar" box, and then type an incorrect URL such as mappquest.com, you will still be taken to the MSN search page. Furthermore, your setting in Advanced Option will have changed to "Just display restults in the main window".
In order to really disable the MSN search, apart from the obvious HOSTS autosearch.msn.com = 127.0.0.1 you have to be more clever. What better than to map it to Google instead ?
In IE, press Ctrl+E to enable the Search toolbar. Select Customize, and you will find the settings the OVERRIDE what is setup in Internet Options. At the bottom of Customize Settings window there is a Autosearch Settings which is the culprit. Change it to point to Google instead. Even if you select Do Not Search From Address Bar, it will search from address bar, however.
> I think I have to find a new job, because I think people are too stupid to use computers. Sad but true.
The problem isn't stupid people, it's that supposedly smart programmers can't write good enough software so that everyone can use it.
> they are counting on the inherent laziness of Americans.
> *I* for one, would NEVER goto walmart.com when I could drive the two minutes to go there.
You don't say.
> If My company can make our OS do exactly what we want it to, that's a win, not a loss.
Agreed, but if your company HAD to make changes to the OS, then you would have to employ personell for that purpose. That would make OSS very popular, very soon wouldn't it ?
It's news because now we know; we have the numbers to support the hypoht...hypthos... theories we've discussed earlier.
Yes, the idea of hard facts as opposed to speculation may seem un-/.-ish , but it does server a purpose.
"In heaven, the Italians do the cooking, the Swiss do the accounting, the German fix the cars, the French are the lovers, and the British are the police.
In hell, the English do the cooking, the Italians do the accounting, the French fix the cars, the Swiss are the are the lovers, and the Germans are the police".
I guess we can add something about who's in charge of cyber security in either places... and I'm pretty sure where Microsoft has a bigger footprint.
I don't know if this occurred to the the submitter, but America is offshore and a foreign country to most people in the universe.
From a global perspective, it is not necessarily better that the jobs are in the US as opposed to elsewhere.
Paging never was big in Europe, actually. But maybe they should give out pagers to people whose phones are rining in the lobby.
" Instead, each day he rises and imprints specialized dittos to do his legwork, review the evidence, meet others, and run errands while he stays home, tends his garden..."
This sounds pretty much how TV detective Nero Wolfe worked. And wasn't that much what "Jake and the Fatman" was all about ?`
"and keeps his real body in good physical condition."
Except for that part.
There will always be people who "have" to be reachable for one reason or another - on call, babysitter, etc etc.
A better idea would be to make people check their phone in the lobby, and having someone answer it for them.
Even worse, I could write a page myself using the same form names and action tags as in the original, but making the messageID an input field.
;
In there I could then put "47; drop table users; commit;"
This would execute
UPDATE forum
SET comment = "blablabla"
WHERE messageID = "47"
drop table users;
commit;
If form data parser can't handle this, you're in trouble.
I think you got it all wrong. Filthy rich people always have "friends", real or pretended, that will say shallow things like 'Did you catch Letterman last night?'.
Think Osama Bin Laden would have any friends without his millions ? Mike Tyson ?
My company provides mission-critical systems at the core of its customers business. Needless to say, data cannot MUST NOT be lost, so therefore backing up both transactional and referential data is an essential part of the setup.
Some 10 years ago, we weren't as good with this. We usually let our customers handle their backups themselves, maybe on our recommendations. One company had a tape backup running every night, backing up the essential parts of the database. After they'd been up and running for a few years, they had a failure and lost the disk with the database. Fine, just retrieve it from the tape backup. Well, it turns out they had run the same tape all along. It had effectively been polished blank by the magnetic heads over years, and not a trace of their database could be found.
They didn't have any other recent backups, so they were pretty much screwed. I think we lost their business after that.
> Anyway you look at it, I win. I get entertained, my number removed from their calling list,
> and a laugh from the telemarketer sometimes.
You only win if your time and what your were doing at the time means nothing to you. That's what bothers me the most about telemarketers, they never ask whether they are disturbing or not.
> Application is storage of large amounts of raw digital images 7-8MB each.
Gee, some people are serious about their pr0n aren't they ?
...howabout they figure out how to make it virtual ? We need online grocery shopping with deliveries so that we don't have to spend our time doing the neverending shopping ourselves.
There has got to be a way to arrange it so that the customers can share the delivery costs and still save money compared to driving their own vehicle to the supermarket.
I can't believe WebVan blew a billion dollars on this.
>Apparently you've never heard of Harry Potter.
/. crowd to present Real Facts and then support it with anectdotal evidence...
>This series has brought more people [back] to
>reading than any other. I almost never read
>books and I've read Harry Potter. I can name
>about 10 adults and even more kids with the same
>experience.
You can always trust the
The article is a nice read, but it is obvious that the author have little experience in commercial software production.
Quality and security of a commercial software product is a financial decision, not a technical. Much like how software architecture is a strategic and not a technical decision, which many software developers do not realize.
When the cost of continuing to improve quality and security exceeds the income from support contracts, you have to draw the line. If you don't provide or charge for support, you draw the line when your investment exceeds your targeted income projections.
There are software products that are secure and virtually bug-free, but you and I can't afford them. They run nuclear plants, space shuttle command centers, etc etc. Hundreds of millions of dollars have been spent on that software, and it is not a question about "the user is evil". It's about having a thorough and mature development process and organization, preferable at CMM level 5.
So, I really don't know where the article would apply. Maybe when writing simple VB games for your website. Absolutely not when writing commercial grade software.
Yes you are right in that Sony is much better at running a more profitable mfg plant and that they are recouping their investment both with the platform and the software, not to mention the assescories. But regardless, the price of the console is just a measure of the competition on the market, and MS had to face the fact that they're competing against well-established console companies and take their medicine.
Still, it doesn't make it wrong to market your product at a price in level or slightly below the competition just in order to get the products out to the consumers.
> It's amazing to me that MS is able to get away with the same thing without its competitors screaming more loudly at the US government.
What exactly are they getting away with ? Losing money isn't a crime.
There isn't one single corporation not trying to gain market shares by playing with prices, in order to increase demand for their products. Most companies also accept losses to parts of their operations in hope that the profits of others will more than make up for it. Selling X-Box at a net loss isn't a big deal if you can make up for it with the games, subscription fees etc. Gillette is practically giving away the razors, but the price on the blades borders to extortion.
I think your concern would be valid if in fact what Microsoft is doing is the de facto standard for the gaming console market; you start of selling the consoles at a huge "loss" (i.e. you write off the development costs the first years) and then you practically break even on them. Sony isn't selling PS1 at a loss now, I assure you. But the main income is the games. Microsoft gets royalties for each and every title, without them having to lift a finger. Of course they can afford to get rid of the consoles at a loss.
Good point.
I think that "scams" are narrowly defined as the Nigerian kind of business proposals, i.e. people are actively trying to rip you off.
The source of the pie chart came from an anti-spam software maker. I wonder why they want us to believe that 96% of spam is legitimate offers.
...who actually reads the emails ? Even if I was so oblivious that I didn't filter my emails, I would never dream of supporting the spammer. Even if I accidently read a spam and then amazingly found the product/service interesting, I would not respond to anything in the spam.
> He also hunts for new ways to get around
> software that tries to filter out spam and to
> get people to open his e-mails.
With a response rate as low as 0.002%, do they expect that the people that install and run spam filters are the most likely to respond to spam ?
It's depressing to see how irresponsible the ISPs are, letting them off the hook so easily. They owe it to their customers to shut down the spammers, not just warn them if they get many complaints.
Like the "spam queen" said, It's a numbers game. If people bothered complaining, they'd really feel what people think about them.
>help keep the company in a (relatively) good position in the database server market
I guess that with a market share of 54%, "relatively" is the key word in that sentence...
I have two tips myself to solve the problem: 1) get an adjustable dest that you can stand or sit at and 2) make sit-ups each morning and evening to avoid back pains. These two points helped me!
/. anyhow, would you ?
The first tip is a great one, which will save you fro a lot of pain, if you have back problems. The second tip is a disaster, as any chiropractor will tell you. Don't do situps if you have a back condition.
But you wouldn't take medical advice from
The difference is that computer software and sometimes hardware manufacturers have license terms that explicitly forbid it, which rarely is the case for consumer packaged goods.