Not sure why that was modded Funny, when space elevators are probably the only real solution to getting a lot of mass into space in a cost-effective manner.
Bad or not, if its code, its software, and it is 3rd party.
Personally, I would have modded the grandparent "Funny" if anything. Its the same thing I thought. Technically, it is all 3rd party software that's being downloaded...
Don't know if this is relevant in your relatives' case, but they may only need to change a few file permissions.
As an example, you may know that many educational games keep track of kids' names and progress. They seem to want to save this info within a directory buried within that applications own directory. The problem is, at least with Mac OS X, when you install an application in the global "Applications" directory, non-admins only have read access, meaning they can't write to the directory keeping track of their progress. This leads to all kinds of crazy things happening.
The solution, in these cases, is not to grant admin status, but to enable write access for them to those specific directories. For example give them write access to/Applications/Disney Interactive/Pooh's Great Adventure/userinfo.
Like I said though, don't know if it will work in their cases.
Are there other ways in which Spotlight goes "WAY beyond"
Spotlight indexes music and image files based not only on file name, but on the metadata within the files.
It allows you to save your search results, one method being as "smart folders" that update themselves in real time.
Plug-in archetecture and API support to make it easier for developers to write a plug in allowing Spotlight to index their potentially proprietary file formats.
More control over how results are sorted and presented (at least as far as I can see based on the Google screen shots and descriptions).
I'm still trying to figure out how this is anything different than searching by content on Mac OS X? Iff you've allowed Finder to index your hard drive that is.
The reason BetaMax failed is that Sony would not license it to anyone.
IMO it failed because 1) it was more expensive, partly because of 2) the tapes were one hour long (needed twice as many tapes). Nobody wanted to record a movie and have to split it across two tapes.
Even when beta reached parity pricewise, the 1 hr vs 2 hr tape length was a big factor when it came to buying a machine -at least based on what I remember from that time. How many here actually went to a store and had to make that decision? Just to put it in perspective, cable was just starting out and most people were taping over-the-air broadcasts. From a practical standpoint, the "quality' was a tossup considering the source signal.
Then about the time Sony was going to get that fixed, VHS tapes jumped to six hours and they were already way behind in market (and mind) share.
Any technology can be and has been abused. I think we have gotten caught up in the tech is bad routine.
Possibly, but I don't think it hurts to be cautious.
My wife worked for a time at Barnes and Noble stores. On occasion they have to go through the shelves of books with a scanner, often pulling them off one by one to scan, keeping in mind that bar codes aren't always in the same place so some hunting has to go on. Then they either replace the book or put them on a cart if something else needed to be done with them. Just think how much easier and faster that would be with RFID tags.
You carry your licence so that people know who you are, and this would just provide a better way to verify that information.
How is it any better than the magnetic strip on the license? Because its high tech?
IMO its a lot like the story last week about the tokens to be used to verify the "kid" online is really a kid. All it does is wrap the high tech mantle around security which makes people think its safer, when really its not.
So how does using an RFID tag make it any more secure? IMO it would be less secure because it would be much easier to spoof an RFID than a magnetic stripe.
Hey Marge! I done tried to kill the tag like they told me to on that thar slashydot place so the aliens can't track me no more. But I'll be darned if they didn't go and beam it up right out of the microwave! All they left behind was a puddle of goo.
I might agree, except for the fact (according to the article) that the biggest manufacturers been licensing the IP. Though I don't know if they just started licensing it, or if they've been doing it since day 1.
Why not go after the people who are actually infringing? IE. the manufacturers of these devices?
Well, "The two largest LCD manufacturers, LG.Philips LCD and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., have previously taken licenses under this fundamental patent."
So, me not knowing the market, I'm wondering who the remaining manufacturers are. From the list of companies, I get the feeling their going after companies that have made products using smaller LCD displays (Apple - iPod, camera manufacturers, etc). So who's making those displays?
Because, just like for the last several years, we all know that MS will have all those nasty vulnerabilities fixed any day now. So its really not worth it to jump ship just when they're about to get it right!
Personally, I think MS should get a lifetime achievement award in the Vaporware category for "Trustworthy Computing".
Didn't see many of those but it was intriguing. Their use of bad science at times turned me off in the end.
Some of the "test" I saw were:
Do you get less wet if you run through the rain? Could you actually kill someone with a bullet made of ice? Can you be electrocuted by peeing on the "hot" subway rail?
Combining this with earlier articles I've read, one could conclude its safe to eat food dropped on the floor, but not on your desk. Of course, based on those stories, about the best place to accidently drop your food is on the toilet seat.
"Surprisingly, toilet seats consistently had the lowest bacteria levels of the 12 surfaces tested in the study."
"We don't think twice about eating at our desks, even though the average desk has 100 times more bacteria than a kitchen table and 400 times more bacteria than the average toilet."
I guess since 7 Up used to advertise as the "Un-Cola", this just takes it a little further. Now its the "Un-Sweetened, Un-flavored, Un-Cola" (with added salt).
Hmmm. I was always told that you should not drink the Milli-Q water.
IIRC the problem is really that it doesn't have enough impurities -causing an outrageously huge osmotic pressure difference when you drink it. Think of the huge driving force for water aborption into, and also salt extraction from, the cells lining the stomach. Picture the cells swelling lika a balloon and popping.
That's why even "normal" water is best consumed slowly.
If you remember the antitrust trial with regard to browsers there were hearings on how far MS went to prevent Netscape from being pre-loaded on computers. They went from the "don't do it or you'll lose your friendly pricing" (which was terminated by the antitrust trial) to "you can't change the way Windows looks or acts on first boot without infringing our copyright." which was used to keep an OEM from bunding Netscape and putting an icon for it on the desktop for the user (OEMs weren't allowed to change the "look and feel"). This at a time when Netscape was offering to pay manufacturers to put their browser on PC's. OEMs could still put it on, but the user had to find it on their own (not a problem for IE -it was still the default).
This whole affair not only caused a lot of trouble for Netscape, but anyone else (like hard drive utility, anti-virus and game companies) who used to cut deals with OEMs or even pay to have demos installed.
As the poster below points out, OEMs have slowly been trying to regain this ability. Their success is only because of the antitrust settlement and MS not wanting to cause too many waves.
Windows has managed to make fully computer-illiterate masses of people to think they are all-knowing computer geeks.
IMO its more like MS has taught the masses that if you're having trouble using your computer its because you're an idiot and if the OS crashes its because you did something wrong. Oh, and BTW, writing software is hard so just accept the fact that operating systems are buggy and full of security holes.
But its still your fault if you run into a problem -because users are idiots.
It was several Office versions ago that this first showed up. Basically, there's a hidden cache of all the files used that can be used to "heal" an Office app when a user "unintentianlly" deletes a required resource. They don't seem to consider the idea that users may actually delete these things on purpose.
How would "Joe New Computer" go about doing so? Should he just fire up ftp from the command line and let his insticts guide him?
Personally, I'd like to see it go back to the way it used to be. It used to be that computer makers (Dell, Gateway, etc) bundled and preinstalled the software they chose as being what their customers wanted. Imagine software companies competing to have their software preinstalled on a given computer manufacturer's machines. Imagine computer manufacturers being able to actually do what was suggested above and ask the user on first boot what browser they would prefer. That's the way it used to be. Computer makers set up the computer with the software they thought their customers wanted and they competed on their offerings.
Then MS came along and said, "Thou shalt bundle the software MS says you will bundle or thou shalt not get a discount on pre-installed Windows."
The rest is history. That's where MS used its monopoly illegally and did the most damage IMO.
Slashdot Mirror
This planets got three moons,
So you were at that party too?
Not sure why that was modded Funny, when space elevators are probably the only real solution to getting a lot of mass into space in a cost-effective manner.
viruses and spyware are not "software"
Well, they're sure not hardware...
They are peices of bad code
Bad or not, if its code, its software, and it is 3rd party.
Personally, I would have modded the grandparent "Funny" if anything. Its the same thing I thought. Technically, it is all 3rd party software that's being downloaded...
Don't know if this is relevant in your relatives' case, but they may only need to change a few file permissions.
/Applications/Disney Interactive/Pooh's Great Adventure/userinfo .
As an example, you may know that many educational games keep track of kids' names and progress. They seem to want to save this info within a directory buried within that applications own directory. The problem is, at least with Mac OS X, when you install an application in the global "Applications" directory, non-admins only have read access, meaning they can't write to the directory keeping track of their progress. This leads to all kinds of crazy things happening.
The solution, in these cases, is not to grant admin status, but to enable write access for them to those specific directories. For example give them write access to
Like I said though, don't know if it will work in their cases.
I'm away from my Mac right now, but I'm a bit surprised it doesn't still have FBC.
It still does. Its just integrated into the Finder now.
Are there other ways in which Spotlight goes "WAY beyond"
Spotlight indexes music and image files based not only on file name, but on the metadata within the files.
It allows you to save your search results, one method being as "smart folders" that update themselves in real time.
Plug-in archetecture and API support to make it easier for developers to write a plug in allowing Spotlight to index their potentially proprietary file formats.
More control over how results are sorted and presented (at least as far as I can see based on the Google screen shots and descriptions).
Much nicer interface (IMO).
Many others.
I'm still trying to figure out how this is anything different than searching by content on Mac OS X? Iff you've allowed Finder to index your hard drive that is.
The reason BetaMax failed is that Sony would not license it to anyone.
IMO it failed because 1) it was more expensive, partly because of 2) the tapes were one hour long (needed twice as many tapes). Nobody wanted to record a movie and have to split it across two tapes.
Even when beta reached parity pricewise, the 1 hr vs 2 hr tape length was a big factor when it came to buying a machine -at least based on what I remember from that time. How many here actually went to a store and had to make that decision? Just to put it in perspective, cable was just starting out and most people were taping over-the-air broadcasts. From a practical standpoint, the "quality' was a tossup considering the source signal.
Then about the time Sony was going to get that fixed, VHS tapes jumped to six hours and they were already way behind in market (and mind) share.
Say goodbye to Beta in the consumer space.
Any technology can be and has been abused. I think we have gotten caught up in the tech is bad routine.
Possibly, but I don't think it hurts to be cautious.
My wife worked for a time at Barnes and Noble stores. On occasion they have to go through the shelves of books with a scanner, often pulling them off one by one to scan, keeping in mind that bar codes aren't always in the same place so some hunting has to go on. Then they either replace the book or put them on a cart if something else needed to be done with them. Just think how much easier and faster that would be with RFID tags.
Maybe showing my ignorance here, but how can it?
You "capture" the encrypted response, you play the same encrypted code back at a later time.
You carry your licence so that people know who you are, and this would just provide a better way to verify that information.
How is it any better than the magnetic strip on the license? Because its high tech?
IMO its a lot like the story last week about the tokens to be used to verify the "kid" online is really a kid. All it does is wrap the high tech mantle around security which makes people think its safer, when really its not.
So how does using an RFID tag make it any more secure? IMO it would be less secure because it would be much easier to spoof an RFID than a magnetic stripe.
Hey Marge! I done tried to kill the tag like they told me to on that thar slashydot place so the aliens can't track me no more. But I'll be darned if they didn't go and beam it up right out of the microwave! All they left behind was a puddle of goo.
I might agree, except for the fact (according to the article) that the biggest manufacturers been licensing the IP. Though I don't know if they just started licensing it, or if they've been doing it since day 1.
Why not go after the people who are actually infringing? IE. the manufacturers of these devices?
Well, "The two largest LCD manufacturers, LG.Philips LCD and Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., have previously taken licenses under this fundamental patent."
So, me not knowing the market, I'm wondering who the remaining manufacturers are. From the list of companies, I get the feeling their going after companies that have made products using smaller LCD displays (Apple - iPod, camera manufacturers, etc). So who's making those displays?
Because, just like for the last several years, we all know that MS will have all those nasty vulnerabilities fixed any day now. So its really not worth it to jump ship just when they're about to get it right!
Personally, I think MS should get a lifetime achievement award in the Vaporware category for "Trustworthy Computing".
Conclusion: She's not your problem, but you are most certainly her's.
Didn't see many of those but it was intriguing. Their use of bad science at times turned me off in the end.
:
Some of the "test" I saw were
Do you get less wet if you run through the rain?
Could you actually kill someone with a bullet made of ice?
Can you be electrocuted by peeing on the "hot" subway rail?
Combining this with earlier articles I've read, one could conclude its safe to eat food dropped on the floor, but not on your desk. Of course, based on those stories, about the best place to accidently drop your food is on the toilet seat.
A couple choice quotes from here.
"Surprisingly, toilet seats consistently had the lowest bacteria levels of the 12 surfaces tested in the study."
"We don't think twice about eating at our desks, even though the average desk has 100 times more bacteria than a kitchen table and 400 times more bacteria than the average toilet."
One of the phrases I remember my father using now and then, "It's just good, clean dirt."
I guess since 7 Up used to advertise as the "Un-Cola", this just takes it a little further. Now its the "Un-Sweetened, Un-flavored, Un-Cola" (with added salt).
Unbelievable.
Hmmm. I was always told that you should not drink the Milli-Q water.
IIRC the problem is really that it doesn't have enough impurities -causing an outrageously huge osmotic pressure difference when you drink it. Think of the huge driving force for water aborption into, and also salt extraction from, the cells lining the stomach. Picture the cells swelling lika a balloon and popping.
That's why even "normal" water is best consumed slowly.
My solution is to just make more coffee.
If you remember the antitrust trial with regard to browsers there were hearings on how far MS went to prevent Netscape from being pre-loaded on computers. They went from the "don't do it or you'll lose your friendly pricing" (which was terminated by the antitrust trial) to "you can't change the way Windows looks or acts on first boot without infringing our copyright." which was used to keep an OEM from bunding Netscape and putting an icon for it on the desktop for the user (OEMs weren't allowed to change the "look and feel"). This at a time when Netscape was offering to pay manufacturers to put their browser on PC's. OEMs could still put it on, but the user had to find it on their own (not a problem for IE -it was still the default).
This whole affair not only caused a lot of trouble for Netscape, but anyone else (like hard drive utility, anti-virus and game companies) who used to cut deals with OEMs or even pay to have demos installed.
As the poster below points out, OEMs have slowly been trying to regain this ability. Their success is only because of the antitrust settlement and MS not wanting to cause too many waves.
Windows has managed to make fully computer-illiterate masses of people to think they are all-knowing computer geeks.
IMO its more like MS has taught the masses that if you're having trouble using your computer its because you're an idiot and if the OS crashes its because you did something wrong. Oh, and BTW, writing software is hard so just accept the fact that operating systems are buggy and full of security holes.
But its still your fault if you run into a problem -because users are idiots.
That's a feature -its called self-healing.
It was several Office versions ago that this first showed up. Basically, there's a hidden cache of all the files used that can be used to "heal" an Office app when a user "unintentianlly" deletes a required resource. They don't seem to consider the idea that users may actually delete these things on purpose.
How would "Joe New Computer" go about doing so? Should he just fire up ftp from the command line and let his insticts guide him?
Personally, I'd like to see it go back to the way it used to be. It used to be that computer makers (Dell, Gateway, etc) bundled and preinstalled the software they chose as being what their customers wanted. Imagine software companies competing to have their software preinstalled on a given computer manufacturer's machines. Imagine computer manufacturers being able to actually do what was suggested above and ask the user on first boot what browser they would prefer. That's the way it used to be. Computer makers set up the computer with the software they thought their customers wanted and they competed on their offerings.
Then MS came along and said, "Thou shalt bundle the software MS says you will bundle or thou shalt not get a discount on pre-installed Windows."
The rest is history. That's where MS used its monopoly illegally and did the most damage IMO.