On *nix systems, you must run the spoofer as root (in order to create the raw socket) with no arguments, e.g.
#./spoofer On Windows, simply double-click on the spoofer executable after downloading.
That may be your opinion, but it's contradicted by plenty of studies and empirical evidence. But note this is NOT the same thing as "no new roads should be built," which seems to be what you're arguing against.
We don't/can't (with a few exceptions, like recently in central London) charge for road access, or for preferential access (again, with some exceptions like HOV lanes); as a result demand is not well matched to supply (in an economic sense). "Rationally," when faced with high demand we'd build bigger roads and raise the price of driving. But this second part doesn't happen.
Serious online hiccups could be as irritating, and potentially economically damaging, as persistent L.A. traffic jams."
That's a really interesting analogy. It's taken us (the U.S.) fifty years to figure out that if you build more, and higher-capacity, roads, it alleviates congestion temporarily but ultimately results in...more traffic and more congestion. Does something similar apply to networks? Adding more bandwidth may be expensive, but unlike roads, (i) usage is easy to monitor and thus charge for, increasing companies' incentive to invest, and (ii) the many damaging externalities (i.e., costs like air pollution that traditionally aren't factored into the "price" of roads and cars) seem to be absent for computer networks.
2) It will be switching time for everyone - current Windows users will be thinking - should I move to Vista? If there is another viable option visible at the same time, then they might consider that too.
This is insightful (hint, hint, mods!) and not something I've seen noted before. Sure, for most people (with pre-2004 computers) moving to Vista will require a new box--in practice if not in theory; at the very least, a PITA clean install--and this presents an opening for Apple. If a bunch of reviewers have headlines like "Vista: Better, But Still Not A Mac," so much the better.
The cynic in me suspects that Virtual PC version Vista, running full-speed on Intel under Mac OS, will not appear until this transition period has safely passed.
Oh, boo fucking hoo. I know basically nothing about "programming javascript for client-side error checking of complex forms," but I bet there are other options. Lots of other organizations and companies seem to accomplish this task, using browser-agnostic methods (server-side checking...).
Sorry, I file this under "FEMA, Incompetence of, Further Examples."
Though likely subtle at first, the implications of Apple Computer dropping IBM as its chip vendor in favor of Intel, announced earlier this week, will straddle the broader computing landscape.
So, uh, the implications start subtle but end by straddling, somehow putting their metaphorical legs on either side of a landscape? And who knew Intel was only announced earlier this week?
Oh, please. My attention span is just fine, and obviously you and others spending years on this aren't idiots.
Understand that I wasn't intending to be rude or dismissive about CBS--my apologies if it appeared that way--but you presented it as a way to secure a browser that only needed to draw its window, basically. That I questioned, ignorantly but honestly.
How does this relate to web browsers? Well, a web browser really only needs the capability to render to its GUI window, read its install files, and read/write its config and cache. So don't give it any capabilities beyond that. Voila, now it does not matter what malicious program takes over your web browser, because it can't do a thing to your system.
OK, I'll take the bait. I really like the ability to download files via my browser--so now it needs write access, somewhere. Also, gee, uploading is pretty darn useful, so arbitrary read access. So now the disk APIs are exposed. Also, it's really handle to be able to auto-install necessary content renderers...
I appreciate your point, but not many people are going to use a browser that only has the capabilities you list.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data," as they say.
The problem with generalizing from your woes--as much as I'm sure they've sucked--is that Apple consistently is very highly ranked in customer satisfaction surveys (though I don't have a link for this). Unless you have some data to back up your anecdote, I'm going to stick with my personal experience: Apple makes really good machines, typically much higher quality than Dell et al., and supports them well.
Can this possibly be true? Corporate employees spend twelve minutes of every hour just looking for shit?!? Wow. At that point, use paper and a filing cabinet--it'll improve your productivity.
The fact that this tool hasn't been released to other developers is proof that they unfairly compete.
What? How is that unfair? They must document and release all APIs, sure, but all their in-house development tools too? That's quite a standard, and I bet not one you'd put on any other company in any other industry. Assuming those tools use some clever coding and those same public APIs, what's to stop anyone else from making their own super-DLL-optimizer?
I agree with the basic subject of this post ("Microsoft Unfairly Competes"), but this seems ridiculous.
(i) Curiosity. Xgrid was new, and looked interesting. (ii) Potential. Xgrid (final version) is going to be bundled with the upcoming 10.4 release of the Mac OS. That's an awful lot of machines that will have Xgrid preinstalled, with the user basically just needing to click "start."
Our research group (at UW-Madison) has been experimenting extensively with Xgrid, and right now (with the generally available version, the beta TP2) our conclusion is: not ready for prime time. Lots of promise, pairing Apple interface simplicity with powerful (and open source) underpinnings. But in its current form, there are too many bugs. You have to implement a lot of your own code and do a bunch of workarounds to really get a big, workable grid going.
Oh, please. This is the same argument people use as to why Mac OS X can't be a good server OS. The fancy-pants antialiased drop-shadowed GUIs consume a small fraction of the CPU...when being used...which is, practically speaking, never. The rest of the time it's all paged out and not affecting performance at all.
I guess this is why they say "YMMV." I regularly use word for OS X (1.25 GHz Powerbook) with large (40-75 page) documents with lots of tables, figures, etc., and can't remember the last time it crashed on me. Excel, occasionally; Word, never. I will agree that its speed, while generally OK, can be sluggish.
Apparently H&R Block has already called up Ken and offered him free financial services for life...just so he never again forgets about them. (From NYT article.)
Seriously offtopic, but this problem was recognized and written about by Isaac Asimov in one his early "Foundation" stories. The Foundation (good) never got destroyed by the Empire (bad), because
A weak general could never have endangered us, obviously. A strong general during the time of a weak Emporer would never have endangered us, either; for he would have [overthrown the emporer]. So it is only the combination of strong Emporer and strong general that can threaten the Foundation...but, what keeps the Emporer strong? He is strong because he permits no strong subjects [and so he had to destroy his successful general]...There is not a conceivable combination of events that does not result in the Foundation winning.
Slashdot Mirror
So is Apple breaking it's prommisses?
Now we know what username Gollum posts under.
I use rsync, and it's great. Note however that rsync won't copy all file metadata (I'm thinking specifically on the Mac):
See http://iwiring.net:8000/papers/DoYouCopy.pdf
B
From TFA:
./spoofer
On *nix systems, you must run the spoofer as root (in order to create the raw socket) with no arguments, e.g.
#
On Windows, simply double-click on the spoofer executable after downloading.
Classic.
because it came on a new PC I bought
And right there is why this argument doesn't hold water.
egarland, you might be interested in this re gas tax:
n dex.html#009278
http://www.prospect.org/weblog/archives/2006/02/i
B
That may be your opinion, but it's contradicted by plenty of studies and empirical evidence. But note this is NOT the same thing as "no new roads should be built," which seems to be what you're arguing against.
We don't/can't (with a few exceptions, like recently in central London) charge for road access, or for preferential access (again, with some exceptions like HOV lanes); as a result demand is not well matched to supply (in an economic sense). "Rationally," when faced with high demand we'd build bigger roads and raise the price of driving. But this second part doesn't happen.
B
Serious online hiccups could be as irritating, and potentially economically damaging, as persistent L.A. traffic jams."
That's a really interesting analogy. It's taken us (the U.S.) fifty years to figure out that if you build more, and higher-capacity, roads, it alleviates congestion temporarily but ultimately results in...more traffic and more congestion. Does something similar apply to networks? Adding more bandwidth may be expensive, but unlike roads, (i) usage is easy to monitor and thus charge for, increasing companies' incentive to invest, and (ii) the many damaging externalities (i.e., costs like air pollution that traditionally aren't factored into the "price" of roads and cars) seem to be absent for computer networks.
Out of curiousity, did any of the above posters actually read the article?
You must be new here.
This is insightful (hint, hint, mods!) and not something I've seen noted before. Sure, for most people (with pre-2004 computers) moving to Vista will require a new box--in practice if not in theory; at the very least, a PITA clean install--and this presents an opening for Apple. If a bunch of reviewers have headlines like "Vista: Better, But Still Not A Mac," so much the better.
The cynic in me suspects that Virtual PC version Vista, running full-speed on Intel under Mac OS, will not appear until this transition period has safely passed.
Oh, boo fucking hoo. I know basically nothing about "programming javascript for client-side error checking of complex forms," but I bet there are other options. Lots of other organizations and companies seem to accomplish this task, using browser-agnostic methods (server-side checking...).
Sorry, I file this under "FEMA, Incompetence of, Further Examples."
Though likely subtle at first, the implications of Apple Computer dropping IBM as its chip vendor in favor of Intel, announced earlier this week, will straddle the broader computing landscape.
So, uh, the implications start subtle but end by straddling, somehow putting their metaphorical legs on either side of a landscape? And who knew Intel was only announced earlier this week?
Jeez.
Oh, please. My attention span is just fine, and obviously you and others spending years on this aren't idiots.
Understand that I wasn't intending to be rude or dismissive about CBS--my apologies if it appeared that way--but you presented it as a way to secure a browser that only needed to draw its window, basically. That I questioned, ignorantly but honestly.
B
How does this relate to web browsers? Well, a web browser really only needs the capability to render to its GUI window, read its install files, and read/write its config and cache. So don't give it any capabilities beyond that. Voila, now it does not matter what malicious program takes over your web browser, because it can't do a thing to your system.
OK, I'll take the bait. I really like the ability to download files via my browser--so now it needs write access, somewhere. Also, gee, uploading is pretty darn useful, so arbitrary read access. So now the disk APIs are exposed. Also, it's really handle to be able to auto-install necessary content renderers...
I appreciate your point, but not many people are going to use a browser that only has the capabilities you list.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data," as they say.
The problem with generalizing from your woes--as much as I'm sure they've sucked--is that Apple consistently is very highly ranked in customer satisfaction surveys (though I don't have a link for this). Unless you have some data to back up your anecdote, I'm going to stick with my personal experience: Apple makes really good machines, typically much higher quality than Dell et al., and supports them well.
Can this possibly be true? Corporate employees spend twelve minutes of every hour just looking for shit?!? Wow. At that point, use paper and a filing cabinet--it'll improve your productivity.
The fact that this tool hasn't been released to other developers is proof that they unfairly compete.
What? How is that unfair? They must document and release all APIs, sure, but all their in-house development tools too? That's quite a standard, and I bet not one you'd put on any other company in any other industry. Assuming those tools use some clever coding and those same public APIs, what's to stop anyone else from making their own super-DLL-optimizer?
I agree with the basic subject of this post ("Microsoft Unfairly Competes"), but this seems ridiculous.
It's a good question. We bothered because
(i) Curiosity. Xgrid was new, and looked interesting.
(ii) Potential. Xgrid (final version) is going to be bundled with the upcoming 10.4 release of the Mac OS. That's an awful lot of machines that will have Xgrid preinstalled, with the user basically just needing to click "start."
B
Our research group (at UW-Madison) has been experimenting extensively with Xgrid, and right now (with the generally available version, the beta TP2) our conclusion is: not ready for prime time. Lots of promise, pairing Apple interface simplicity with powerful (and open source) underpinnings. But in its current form, there are too many bugs. You have to implement a lot of your own code and do a bunch of workarounds to really get a big, workable grid going.
I almost fell of my chair laughing at that one...I know spelling isn't exactly highly prized on slashdot, but please.
"scenario"
Oh, please. This is the same argument people use as to why Mac OS X can't be a good server OS. The fancy-pants antialiased drop-shadowed GUIs consume a small fraction of the CPU...when being used...which is, practically speaking, never. The rest of the time it's all paged out and not affecting performance at all.
I guess this is why they say "YMMV." I regularly use word for OS X (1.25 GHz Powerbook) with large (40-75 page) documents with lots of tables, figures, etc., and can't remember the last time it crashed on me. Excel, occasionally; Word, never. I will agree that its speed, while generally OK, can be sluggish.
Apparently H&R Block has already called up Ken and offered him free financial services for life...just so he never again forgets about them. (From NYT article.)
A clarification (not a correction): the desktop G5 doesn't have ECC RAM, but the Xserve does.
Seriously offtopic, but this problem was recognized and written about by Isaac Asimov in one his early "Foundation" stories. The Foundation (good) never got destroyed by the Empire (bad), because
A weak general could never have endangered us, obviously. A strong general during the time of a weak Emporer would never have endangered us, either; for he would have [overthrown the emporer]. So it is only the combination of strong Emporer and strong general that can threaten the Foundation...but, what keeps the Emporer strong? He is strong because he permits no strong subjects [and so he had to destroy his successful general]...There is not a conceivable combination of events that does not result in the Foundation winning.
Hey, mods, either mod the parent Funny or Flamebait...but not insightful. Jeez.