As I said, just because the internal app requires IE6 doesn't mean you have to use it for web browsing. It's a case of hating IE6 so much that one's common sense is disabled.
When programming for the Atari 2600 we sometimes jumped into the middle of a multi-byte 6507 instruction to save a byte or two. No excuse for that now, but plenty back then.
It's not going to happen, but the better solution is to design a new set of standards and protocols that include web apps capability as a first class design goal.
The problem is the "evolve" part. The current request->response model doesn't really work for web apps. An HTML5 "bag on the side" isn't a good solution.
Remember IE6 was released in 2001 when there were no web standard browsers that had any significant market share.
There's no reason why these companies can't update their applications or use another browser for their non-internal web browsing. Sounds like it's more of a problem for you than for them.
The problem with that definition is that people use the word more often to describe technologies that haven't yet proven themselves than they do for technologies that have stood the test of time.
Along with this is the idea that people oppose those technologies purely for hidebound reasons.
In those days you didn't waste expensive computer time for writing documents. There was an army of secretaries with typewriters. Speaker-independent voice recognition and intelligent spelling that was far more effective than today's computers. Best of all, you didn't have to touch a keyboard.
"Who said that the security process is _only_ fixing holes after you've been exploited?"
Certainly not me. I stated my interpretation of what the GP described. My point is that changing threats can't create holes that aren't already there. Thus if all security holes have been eliminated (however difficult), no "process" is then required.
So you saying that a group of people none of which have an innate ability to determine right from wrong come to better ethical decisions that an individual with the same limitation?
VCs fund with the hope of a big payday. They don't care if it's achieved through a product launch or not. As a condition to their contribution they will usually end up with the controlling interest and may replace the original executive team with their own people.
On the other hand, a fraction of a big payday is usually better than 100% of nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, dir was used in CP/M but that wasn't the first time.
Ugh, No. You didn't really think UNIX was the first OS did you?
I don't know if you're joking or I'm just too old to make relevant jokes around here.
As I said, just because the internal app requires IE6 doesn't mean you have to use it for web browsing. It's a case of hating IE6 so much that one's common sense is disabled.
When programming for the Atari 2600 we sometimes jumped into the middle of a multi-byte 6507 instruction to save a byte or two. No excuse for that now, but plenty back then.
It's not going to happen, but the better solution is to design a new set of standards and protocols that include web apps capability as a first class design goal.
The problem is the "evolve" part. The current request->response model doesn't really work for web apps. An HTML5 "bag on the side" isn't a good solution.
Hey if your going to mock, do it correctly. Need to output an integer? Use assembly instruction code to write to hard-coded address. Done.
We don't even imply that MS had any original ideas around here.
Remember IE6 was released in 2001 when there were no web standard browsers that had any significant market share.
There's no reason why these companies can't update their applications or use another browser for their non-internal web browsing. Sounds like it's more of a problem for you than for them.
I think the pioneers from DEC would dispute that it was UNIX that disrupted the mainframes.
The problem with that definition is that people use the word more often to describe technologies that haven't yet proven themselves than they do for technologies that have stood the test of time.
Along with this is the idea that people oppose those technologies purely for hidebound reasons.
Ultimately, the outcome will depend on the value of the "disruptive" technology. Remember, Microsoft Bob was once a disruptive technology too.
"is this really for real, i mean, am i actually reading this?"
No, you're writing it, I'm reading it. Well, OK, now I'm writing.
"And then there's the whole collaboration thing..."
Yes, people in the same office modifying common "documents" with the goal of avoiding any physical contact.
You're describing a particular implementation strategy, not the definition of "cloud computing".
ah you know the rest.
In those days you didn't waste expensive computer time for writing documents. There was an army of secretaries with typewriters. Speaker-independent voice recognition and intelligent spelling that was far more effective than today's computers. Best of all, you didn't have to touch a keyboard.
"Who said that the security process is _only_ fixing holes after you've been exploited?"
Certainly not me. I stated my interpretation of what the GP described. My point is that changing threats can't create holes that aren't already there. Thus if all security holes have been eliminated (however difficult), no "process" is then required.
I think you meant "UI through obscurity".
So you saying that a group of people none of which have an innate ability to determine right from wrong come to better ethical decisions that an individual with the same limitation?
"IQ is higher on /."
And more to the point: Hopefully the average intelligence is higher on /.
Sounds like your security process is to be ready to "evolve" once a new threat exploits the holes you've had for years but haven't found yet.
So the security "process" is only important to the extent that your security "status" is poor.
VCs fund with the hope of a big payday. They don't care if it's achieved through a product launch or not. As a condition to their contribution they will usually end up with the controlling interest and may replace the original executive team with their own people.
On the other hand, a fraction of a big payday is usually better than 100% of nothing.
I never understood why popular mechanics is talking about computers and electronics. Shouldn't they have articles about building doghouses and such?