Hmm, I thought the actual name was "the Moon", and Luna a term rarely used to distinguish it from other moons whenever necessary. Why would people rarely use an actual name?
That it's the actual name is as debatable as Sol is the actual name for the Sun, something I also can't really say, even if we have "solar".
I guess both these names can be said to be occasionaly used to personify these celestial bodies though.
It just occurred to me that, as Google changes its algorithms, it'll just create more business for the Search Engine Optimization consultant. When web sites drop in the Google rankings, they'll want to make changes to move back up, and will hire the SEO again to do so.... that is, until they realize they might be able to save some money by kicking the SEO and hire a good webmaster creating a good and informational site. They'll gain a good PageRank assuming the algorithm works properly, and also a pretty site attracting customers better, instead of an artifically constructed piece of junk exploiting PageRank problems.
Nah, now I'm living in my dream world again; people aren't that smart.
"the default behavior of the desktop shell, explorer, now restarts instead of dumping core."
BSOD's dump the core by default when they happen. By default it's 64K "minidumps" to %SystemRoot%\Minidump\, but this can be changed or disabled in the settings, like the autorestart thing.
Don't tell me; I'm already a Slashdot visitor. But I can assure you a few of the 50 million users need telling "don't be so bloody stupid", though. At least as long as this update feature is as unreliable as it seem to be. (I'm not told 1.0.3 is available for example)
You're right, I'm gonna have real difficulty pressing those little green and red arrows in the corner of the window when the time comes for the new release. Oh boy, I'm sweating at the thought of the trials that await me! I'll probably need to lie down after that, it being so difficult and complicated and all.
Woe is us.
You may care about this, but not the user that doesn't monitor security sites or Slashdot, and just cares if s/he can browse CNN.com properly, and so on.
Well, if you call a test of the deployment system a spacecraft...
Why wouldn't you? They tested a solar sail by launching it. And this soon-to-be-launched "spacecraft" will likely not leave Earth's orbit and is said to be more like a "proof of concept". Sort of like that one, in other words.
Eh... OK, since the article wasn't clear enough, let's spell it out:
User A and User B use this Web Accelerator.
User A may suddenly get logged in as User B on a forum both of them visits, or vice versa. Especially for popular forums this can end up as a huge security problem. People get randomly logged in as others, and can view all their account settings and post in their name, etc.
And although Google doesn't do this to https, I can sure think of even worse scenarios than simple forums.
It's good to see them acknowledging that their app design on Windows sucks. They're often trying to give them an Aqua-style GUI (see also QuickTime, iTunes) and failing miserably when it's not... well, an OS using Aqua.
I'd rather have them use standard Windows design guidelines. At least the XP UI is skinnable with visual styles, so if they stick to the native UI, they'd deliver skinnable apps that are uniform with the others instead of forcing on their own crap on us.
Heck, then even those of the Windows users that wished to give it an Aqua look could. And others could give it another look, if they're really into these things and care for it.
Anyway, don't kid yourselves. Google is really an advertisement vendor -- their customers are increasingly ad agencies and big corporations. They want this data to build consumer profiles on you (and probably governmental profiles too), which they will sell in one form or another.
Uhh, have you any support for what you're saying? I can't believe an AC getting modded up like this just because s/he's rambling on about Google, picking "facts" out of thin air.
The only thing I know is that Google has an AdWords program, and their advertisers pay more if Google's services are more widely used, since then their ads reach a wider audience. However, there's no data collection necessary here for Google to increase profits. Actually, that's part against their business model. The day Google lose in PR if something like this would be revealed (selling collected data), they would both breach their own privacy policy in some cases:
Gmail:
We only use personal data to enhance Gmail by providing you with highly relevant, unobtrusive ads. Your personal information will not be sold or given to any third party, including advertisers and/or business partners. Ever. If you'd like to know more, read our Privacy Policy.
And they'd also lose users, and thereby lowering the value of their AdWords.
OK, so now I've explained in general how the AdWords idea works, can someone explained where it was revealed Google was selling collected data?
Google offering to proxy the web for everyone cannot make sense unless they're planning to make a lot of money from your personal browsing records.
Hmm, money? Yes, in the end of course they need to profit from it. Google is not charity organization, and have a ton of expenses. However,money how? is a more interesting question.
I can't believe Google will simply sell the results to some third party -- that would look pretty bad PR-wise, and Google has so far tried to avoid these things as well as possible. Something more commonly seen with Google is beating the competition by providing good and accurate search services. If they do that, they gain a larger market share since they're simply better, and that will make companies willing to pay more for AdWords. Tadaa, Google in a nutshell, and how they've always worked.
So I basically think it may have something to do with this. What better foundation for a TrustRank system can you get, than one where you know how visited sites are? Scam sites would only get sporadic visitors from fooled Internet users and have their PageRank drop like a rock, while news sites, popular gaming sites, and so on, would get large numbers of returning users. Cross-linking scam sites would find out that their exploits wouldn't work very well anymore, and Google could possible tune their rank system to let both PageRank and TrustRank have an influence on the final rank. Sounds like the regular Google philosophy of conquering by improving. And they'd need our browsing habits to pull it off.
According to AnandTech, the 512MB card can't outperform its 256MB counterpart and costs 50% more.
Can that have anything to do with texture resolution not being there yet? They'll no doubt be there in the future though, so I can only see this as the first 512 MB card with more to come. I don't think it's really "bad", just a little bit ahead of its time.
If you select yes, expect everything from font selection, to headers and footers, to paragraphs, photo layout, etc., will need re-done in the other simplistic software.
Huh? It isn't even this bad with the limited RTF format.
As much as it pains me to say this, Microsoft has such a strangle-hold over the most common document formats that this attempt will be largely useless unless they come on board.
Which they, most obviously, won't.
However, I applaud this group for at least trying.
Well, "this group" has Microsoft as a sponsor organization.
Actually, they're quite a bit involved in OASIS and standardization.
You're correct, it's the Microsoft that doesn't allow recent Longhorn shots to be posted anymore (and retroactively force webmasters to pull old ones), and the same Microsoft that doesn't allow users to download the latest build to try it out, and the same Microsoft that started backporting formerly exclusive Longhorn techs like Avalon/Indigo/WinFX, and the same Microsoft that pulled WinFS from Longhorn, and the same Microsoft that... baah, I give up.
But one thing do I know -- if I were a blogger, even if I was a Microsoft fan, I would have no clue on what to be 1) allowed and 2) able to blog about regarding Longhorn.
... but you may NOT post screenshots of Longhorn builds in your blogs!
... and you may NOT download and talk about the most recent Longhorn pre-beta build!
... and Longhorn's feature set is still mostly undisclosed, with major stuff earlier revealed to be backported into XP + 2003.
... and of course not just anyone can easily be allowed to get any insight in the actual development to be able to comment on that. Jeez, what were you thinking!
So, what are Microsoft thinking bloggers should write about?
"WOW I JUST SAW THIS NEW UI AND LONGHORN LOKS SO COL AND IT WIL KIK APLAS BUTT SO HARD!11!1!!1 WTF DID U HAAR ABOUT TEH NEW COOL DOT NET TECHS!!111!!1 WHAT F3ATURAS THERE PLANNIG?????!!?? OMG I HAEV NO IEDA YET BUT IMM SURA ITL B AEWSOM31111 OMG WTF"
Francis deSouza, chief executive of computer security provider IMLogic, said 'It just generated a flood of instant messages, so it suddenly slowed down the network for legitimate traffic. This is certainly a wake-up call, IM is just like any other communication media. The media needs to go hand in hand with security.'
Yes, and a good start is to not use closed source solutions where few people can give input to security issues. Yes, a pretty much default comment on Slashdot, but reallly... Using MSN Messenger is like handing your postal mail to a person where it's secret to you how the mail is delivered and all you know is "well, it'll get through". Would you do that too? It's surprising how common it is to use closed source solution in security critical systems like instant messengers, e-mail applications, web browsers, and so on.
They can also expect the OSS community to cooperate more if they released the source. And no, I'm not talking about their stupid "Shared Source" initiative that's anything but open source.
Seriously, I don't understand why they're even asking this when they're doing little to even try.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose there must be something like that for Windows.
:-o
Yeah, and Firefox is released in this package format already -- MSI.
I'm pretty sure they have at least networking support enough to solve his problems of updating 100+ individual installs.
True, but one need to realise the differences are small but still exist; it's like running Firefox on different tyres. :-)
"actual name"?
Hmm, I thought the actual name was "the Moon", and Luna a term rarely used to distinguish it from other moons whenever necessary. Why would people rarely use an actual name?
That it's the actual name is as debatable as Sol is the actual name for the Sun, something I also can't really say, even if we have "solar".
I guess both these names can be said to be occasionaly used to personify these celestial bodies though.
... unsually large particle in Saturn's ring system??
It just occurred to me that, as Google changes its algorithms, it'll just create more business for the Search Engine Optimization consultant. When web sites drop in the Google rankings, they'll want to make changes to move back up, and will hire the SEO again to do so. ... that is, until they realize they might be able to save some money by kicking the SEO and hire a good webmaster creating a good and informational site. They'll gain a good PageRank assuming the algorithm works properly, and also a pretty site attracting customers better, instead of an artifically constructed piece of junk exploiting PageRank problems.
Nah, now I'm living in my dream world again; people aren't that smart.
Also, regarding
"the default behavior of the desktop shell, explorer, now restarts instead of dumping core."
BSOD's dump the core by default when they happen. By default it's 64K "minidumps" to %SystemRoot%\Minidump\, but this can be changed or disabled in the settings, like the autorestart thing.
Oh, don't be so bloody stupid.
Don't tell me; I'm already a Slashdot visitor. But I can assure you a few of the 50 million users need telling "don't be so bloody stupid", though. At least as long as this update feature is as unreliable as it seem to be. (I'm not told 1.0.3 is available for example)
I'm running Firefox 1.0.2 and it displays:
1. No update notification
2. No red blob in a corner.
3. No dialog box telling something new is available.
The feature seems unreliable at best.
Why would anyone run routinely with "Allow web sites to install software" enabled ?
Because it's enabled by default?
You're right, I'm gonna have real difficulty pressing those little green and red arrows in the corner of the window when the time comes for the new release. Oh boy, I'm sweating at the thought of the trials that await me! I'll probably need to lie down after that, it being so difficult and complicated and all.
Woe is us.
You may care about this, but not the user that doesn't monitor security sites or Slashdot, and just cares if s/he can browse CNN.com properly, and so on.
Woe is them.
Well, if you call a test of the deployment system a spacecraft...
Why wouldn't you? They tested a solar sail by launching it. And this soon-to-be-launched "spacecraft" will likely not leave Earth's orbit and is said to be more like a "proof of concept". Sort of like that one, in other words.
Its a caching proxy server for crying out loud. It caches web pages and feeds you the cached version.
The problem isn't that. The problem is that it feeds you others cached cookies as well.
I can't recall many web proxies stupid enough to do that...
Anyway, get onto this WA and check your cookies. Chances are you'll find some very interesting stuff not meant for your eyes!
What's the difference between this and your ISP?
Eh... OK, since the article wasn't clear enough, let's spell it out:
User A and User B use this Web Accelerator.
User A may suddenly get logged in as User B on a forum both of them visits, or vice versa. Especially for popular forums this can end up as a huge security problem. People get randomly logged in as others, and can view all their account settings and post in their name, etc.
And although Google doesn't do this to https, I can sure think of even worse scenarios than simple forums.
It's good to see them acknowledging that their app design on Windows sucks. They're often trying to give them an Aqua-style GUI (see also QuickTime, iTunes) and failing miserably when it's not... well, an OS using Aqua.
I'd rather have them use standard Windows design guidelines. At least the XP UI is skinnable with visual styles, so if they stick to the native UI, they'd deliver skinnable apps that are uniform with the others instead of forcing on their own crap on us.
Heck, then even those of the Windows users that wished to give it an Aqua look could. And others could give it another look, if they're really into these things and care for it.
It would not take much for them to connect them to create an accurate picture of your hobbies, interests, and buying habits.
Ehh, among other things, it would breach their own privacy policy in many cases.
Uhh, have you any support for what you're saying? I can't believe an AC getting modded up like this just because s/he's rambling on about Google, picking "facts" out of thin air.
The only thing I know is that Google has an AdWords program, and their advertisers pay more if Google's services are more widely used, since then their ads reach a wider audience. However, there's no data collection necessary here for Google to increase profits. Actually, that's part against their business model. The day Google lose in PR if something like this would be revealed (selling collected data), they would both breach their own privacy policy in some cases:
Gmail:
And they'd also lose users, and thereby lowering the value of their AdWords.
OK, so now I've explained in general how the AdWords idea works, can someone explained where it was revealed Google was selling collected data?
Nah, that would get them into a lawsuit crossfire and would be PR suicide by using their marketshare to advertise on a lot of non-Google sites.
Google offering to proxy the web for everyone cannot make sense unless they're planning to make a lot of money from your personal browsing records.
Hmm, money? Yes, in the end of course they need to profit from it. Google is not charity organization, and have a ton of expenses. However,money how? is a more interesting question.
I can't believe Google will simply sell the results to some third party -- that would look pretty bad PR-wise, and Google has so far tried to avoid these things as well as possible. Something more commonly seen with Google is beating the competition by providing good and accurate search services. If they do that, they gain a larger market share since they're simply better, and that will make companies willing to pay more for AdWords. Tadaa, Google in a nutshell, and how they've always worked.
So I basically think it may have something to do with this. What better foundation for a TrustRank system can you get, than one where you know how visited sites are? Scam sites would only get sporadic visitors from fooled Internet users and have their PageRank drop like a rock, while news sites, popular gaming sites, and so on, would get large numbers of returning users. Cross-linking scam sites would find out that their exploits wouldn't work very well anymore, and Google could possible tune their rank system to let both PageRank and TrustRank have an influence on the final rank. Sounds like the regular Google philosophy of conquering by improving. And they'd need our browsing habits to pull it off.
According to AnandTech, the 512MB card can't outperform its 256MB counterpart and costs 50% more.
Can that have anything to do with texture resolution not being there yet? They'll no doubt be there in the future though, so I can only see this as the first 512 MB card with more to come. I don't think it's really "bad", just a little bit ahead of its time.
If you select yes, expect everything from font selection, to headers and footers, to paragraphs, photo layout, etc., will need re-done in the other simplistic software.
Huh? It isn't even this bad with the limited RTF format.
As much as it pains me to say this, Microsoft has such a strangle-hold over the most common document formats that this attempt will be largely useless unless they come on board.
Which they, most obviously, won't.
However, I applaud this group for at least trying.
Well, "this group" has Microsoft as a sponsor organization.
Actually, they're quite a bit involved in OASIS and standardization.
You're correct, it's the Microsoft that doesn't allow recent Longhorn shots to be posted anymore (and retroactively force webmasters to pull old ones), and the same Microsoft that doesn't allow users to download the latest build to try it out, and the same Microsoft that started backporting formerly exclusive Longhorn techs like Avalon/Indigo/WinFX, and the same Microsoft that pulled WinFS from Longhorn, and the same Microsoft that... baah, I give up.
But one thing do I know -- if I were a blogger, even if I was a Microsoft fan, I would have no clue on what to be 1) allowed and 2) able to blog about regarding Longhorn.
So, what are Microsoft thinking bloggers should write about?
"WOW I JUST SAW THIS NEW UI AND LONGHORN LOKS SO COL AND IT WIL KIK APLAS BUTT SO HARD!11!1!!1 WTF DID U HAAR ABOUT TEH NEW COOL DOT NET TECHS!!111!!1 WHAT F3ATURAS THERE PLANNIG?????!!?? OMG I HAEV NO IEDA YET BUT IMM SURA ITL B AEWSOM31111 OMG WTF"
Francis deSouza, chief executive of computer security provider IMLogic, said 'It just generated a flood of instant messages, so it suddenly slowed down the network for legitimate traffic. This is certainly a wake-up call, IM is just like any other communication media. The media needs to go hand in hand with security.'
Yes, and a good start is to not use closed source solutions where few people can give input to security issues. Yes, a pretty much default comment on Slashdot, but reallly... Using MSN Messenger is like handing your postal mail to a person where it's secret to you how the mail is delivered and all you know is "well, it'll get through". Would you do that too? It's surprising how common it is to use closed source solution in security critical systems like instant messengers, e-mail applications, web browsers, and so on.
They can also expect the OSS community to cooperate more if they released the source. And no, I'm not talking about their stupid "Shared Source" initiative that's anything but open source.
Seriously, I don't understand why they're even asking this when they're doing little to even try.