I've always been a little curious about the whole "I want to run Windows on my Mac". I understand it from the "lets see if we can make it work" engineering challenge point of view. But from a Mac user point of view, have Mac owners really been pining away for the ability to boot into Windows? I dual booted Windows and Linux on my PC for a long time, using Windows for games. But that got to be such a PITA, since I regularly keep lots of applications running. The thought of "I'll just drop into such and such game for 10-15 minutes" is really hampered by dual booting, IMO. Because it's no longer a case of playing a game for a while, and then returning to your working environment to do "regular stuff", it's now a process of closing everything down, waiting for a reboot, logging back in, etc. It may not sound like much, but I found it irritating enough that I removed my Windows partition completely since I was in booted into it so rarely.
I would think the same thing would be true with Macs. If you have a number of applications open and you want to just "jump into Windows" for 10-15 minutes so you can run such and such app, having to first reboot would make it something that I would hardly ever want to do, even with Mac's significantly faster boot up time. Other than in the case of games, I would rather have a second box sitting on the network that I could remote desktop into and transfer files back and forth via a shared folder. Granted, you do have to have another system for that, but picking up some older system that somebody else is getting rid of because of an upgrade would be perfect, after all the system's whole existence would just be for a few apps.
The whole dual boot Mac thing is interesting, but I just don't see why people would want to use it. Of course what that really means is I can't see why I would want to use it.:)
When Marie Antoinette was told that the serfs didn't have any bread to eat, her response was "so, let them eat cake!". This wasn't supposed to be some sadistic afluent sneer against the poor and unwashed masses, but rather, her standard of living was so disconnected that from her perspective, if there wasn't bread to eat, then you could just have cake instead. To someone in such a position, the concept of starvation was very foreign.
I think the same thing might be said here. I have a hard time believing that Bill Gates can have any concept of what life is like for the extremely underprivileged, and consequently how he can have any relevant ideas on providing computer access to these same people.
I remember years ago, when 56K modems were the "speed kings" and the internet was heavy into its "boom" phase, I was having a conversation about the whole "internet phenomenon" with a favorite college professor of mine who was from Kenya. It was a very sobering moment when he said that where he came from it was considered a high luxury to have a telephone, much less a computer, or a "broadband connection". And he wasn't from the poorer regions of Kenya.
So while the concept of a "hand cranked computer with a small screen" might seem silly to people who have a "standard of computer living" that is very high, it's very likely that such a system is the very bread that is needed and can be sustainably incorporated into the culture. And to suggest big monitors and broadband is not much different than suggesting that these same groups, when they run out of bread, that they should just eat cake.
I've used RT in many different environments now, and am completely sold on it. The last place I was at I combined Nagios alerts with an Alert queue in RT. If a critical alert was generated by Nagios, then a ticket was created. If the issue went away by itself (network link was down temporarity, etc), then the "Status OK" alert sent by Nagios would close the specific ticket that it had opened. We also used it for tracking user account and priviledge requests. All of this played a critical role in our passing of our SOX 404 audits.
On a smaller scale, I now use RT for my own small business trouble ticket system. There is now an O'Reilly book out there about RT, "RT Essentials", that has a real good content spread about how to use and customize the RT system. Short story is I've had very good luck with RT, and would definitely reccomend it, for whatever that's worth.
Well the simple fact is that _everybody_ does stuff that's wrong. The average American breaks countless rules (i.e. laws) every single day. Everytime a law is passed just so it can be selectively enforced, this problem is just amplified. And for those who are thinking "well, I certainly don't ever do anything illegal", when's the last time your car went over the speed limit. Would you not have any problems with law enforcement putting devices in you car that made it possible for you to get ticket as soon as you went 1 mph over the speed limit on any road you were driving on? Of course you would.
This is no different.
I also find it telling that the mainstream press is more interested in a very mundane hunting accident than they are about law enforcement officials suggesting that citizens be monitored inside their homes.
Is anybody else completely tired of the way whenever something comes up that the politicos think the public won't like that it instantly involves "pornography" (particularly "child porography") and (these days) terrorism?
Hell, I remember when the pornography card was played back during the PMRC hearings. Anybody remember those? One of the many memorable quotes from Mr. Zappa being:
"While the wife of the Secretary of the Treasury recites "Gonna drive my love inside you" and Senator Gore's wife talks about "Bondage!" and "oral sex at gunpoint" on the CBS Evening News, people in high places work on a tax bill that is so ridiculous, the only way to sneak it through is to keep the public's mind on something else: 'Porn rock'."
I used to think the "I like ice cream, and children like ice cream, do you like ice cream", "umm, no I really don't like ice cream", "WHAT?!?! You HATE children? Why do you hate children?" was funny. Now I just think it's ominously sad as I see the same technique used over and over and over again.
Does IE7 support transparent PNGs yet? I still have a webpage up out there that has to you a _very_ nasty CSS img tag hack to rerender transparent PNGs using the Windows alpha channel if the visitor is using IE.
While IE7 doesn't mean I'd get to remove the hack anytime soon, at least it'd be a light at the end of the tunnel.
The comment:
"...[Microsoft] has also expressed fears that making its source code public could allow hackers to find security holes in Microsoft products..."
reminded me of something I've often thought while glacing over the "who has more security holes/patches" diatribe that flops around periodically. Back when the whole Linux thing was still relatively new, I remember seeing many conversations about how having all that source code for the main system publically available means it will be eaiser for people to find and exploit that software. Microsoft tends to bolster this view, stating that one purpose of its closed source code is increased security. But you don't seem to ever seem to see this concept followed through on. Linux and BSD based systems are all over the place (i.e. the internet) these days, and the majority of web servers out there are running Apache. The code for all this software has been publically available for a very long time now, but there don't seem to be (from my perspective, at least) the increased security issues that there "should" be based on the "closed proprietary" security argument.
Nothing earth shattering, just a small observation. Take it for what you will.:)
That's a bit of a minomer, I think. Technically neither Firefox, Opera, or Internet Explorer are vulnerable. The Windows.dll that handles the rendering of.wmf files is vulnerable. So any program, be it a web browser, a google indexing app, or a recipie maker, that calls the exploitable Windows.dll in order to load an infected.wmf file will end up opening the Pandora's Box.
Maybe they'll be able to outsource most of the work to GeekSquad! They're already skilled in paratroopoing down into residential neighborhoods to fix up Joe Sixpack's computer.;)
The surface of Mars is quite obviously a redistribution of dirt over the surface of oceans made solid by the ill fated use of ice-9 long ago in the Martian past.
Does this mean that we'd better check up on the Humpback whale situation before the cylinder with the glowing phallic communication rod heads this way to destroy us all?
[Evidently {less than sign}text means that everything after the {less than sign} doesn't show up. Here's what was supposed to have posted]
This seems competely out of sync with the movie rating system. Granted, IANAL, but it looks to me like a 17 year old is allowed to go see the latest violence packed "Terminator 15" feature film, but then isn't allowed to subsequently go across the Mall and buy the video game that was released with the movie.
I've never understood this kind of thinking, and often wonder what rules like these are really supposed to accomplish. What do the law makers expect these laws to achieve? Do they honestly think that assuming all less than 18 year old kids were never exposed to violent video games that somehow they would all become peaceful law abiding citizens eager to give their all for the betterment of mankind? Sometimes I wonder how many times things like "well, I sure hope this gets my constituents to shut up about it".
Personally, I think treating people like idiots is the fastest way to bring out their negative mean side. I'm sure 17 year old Johnny who saw his best friend gunned down in the street is sure going to benefit from not seeing cartoons blow away other cartoons.
This seems competely out of sync with the movie rating system. Granted, IANAL, but it looks to me like a 17 year old is allowed to go see the latest violence packed "Terminator 15" feature film, but then isn't allowed to subsequently go across the Mall and buy the video game that was released with the movie.
I've never understood this kind of thinking, and often wonder what rules like these are really supposed to accomplish. What do the law makers expect these laws to achieve? Do they honestly think that assuming all
My biggest concern would be the privacy and "ownership" rights of the documents. While gmail is awesome, I _only_ use it for mailing lists. My personal email is handled by a server of my own. I'm not a big fan of having another company have full access to the information in my email, much less any office-style documents.
Of course, I tend to err on the side of paranoia...:)
Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but doesn't this place the incentive on insecure code. Maximizing the number of "security patch releases" will also help (potentially) maximize revenue by quickly identifying "pirated" versions of Windows, causing said "offenders" to purchase legit versions.
If Windows were to become secure and relatively bug free, this would cause their "pirate detection" system to become very inefficient, as there wouldn't be a great need for using Windows Update.
I may be completely off base, but it does seem plausible. Perhaps we need Mythbusters;)
I wonder what the chances are that it will support transparent PNG's. This is one of the most annoying left out features of IE, IMO. There is an ugly CSS tag hack that lets them be used currently, but it's _really_ nasty. It would be nice if the 256 gif colormap could finally be put to rest.
So I guess if anyone on capital hill had any value for independenant creative thought, the thousands of senseless software patents would have been denied.
The pathetic thing about this is it is yet another display of how utterly ignorant the patent office is. They didn't strike this down because of science or law, they struck it down because of politics. It's sadly ironic that the sancticty of almost human life is given more credence than human ideas and creativity, the very things that define our species in the first place.
Who doesn't run their internet through a proxy these days?
While my browser may be vulnerable, the page never makes it past the proxy (squid):
ERROR The requested URL could not be retrieved
While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.www.p%D0%B0ypal.com/
The following error was encountered:
* Invalid URL
Some aspect of the requested URL is incorrect. Possible problems:
* Missing or incorrect access protocol (should be `http://'' or similar)
* Missing hostname
* Illegal double-escape in the URL-Path
* Illegal character in hostname; underscores are not allowed
Seems to me the problem with high speed internet isn't so much the speeds available but rather the draconian contracts that you must deal with. If my service can be shut off when I've exceeded my undisclosed bandwidth by an undisclosed amount, then faster speeds just means that I can reach my unpredictable shut off time faster than before.
Slashdot Mirror
I've always been a little curious about the whole "I want to run Windows on my Mac". I understand it from the "lets see if we can make it work" engineering challenge point of view. But from a Mac user point of view, have Mac owners really been pining away for the ability to boot into Windows? I dual booted Windows and Linux on my PC for a long time, using Windows for games. But that got to be such a PITA, since I regularly keep lots of applications running. The thought of "I'll just drop into such and such game for 10-15 minutes" is really hampered by dual booting, IMO. Because it's no longer a case of playing a game for a while, and then returning to your working environment to do "regular stuff", it's now a process of closing everything down, waiting for a reboot, logging back in, etc. It may not sound like much, but I found it irritating enough that I removed my Windows partition completely since I was in booted into it so rarely.
:)
I would think the same thing would be true with Macs. If you have a number of applications open and you want to just "jump into Windows" for 10-15 minutes so you can run such and such app, having to first reboot would make it something that I would hardly ever want to do, even with Mac's significantly faster boot up time. Other than in the case of games, I would rather have a second box sitting on the network that I could remote desktop into and transfer files back and forth via a shared folder. Granted, you do have to have another system for that, but picking up some older system that somebody else is getting rid of because of an upgrade would be perfect, after all the system's whole existence would just be for a few apps.
The whole dual boot Mac thing is interesting, but I just don't see why people would want to use it. Of course what that really means is I can't see why I would want to use it.
... and they have a plan.
When Marie Antoinette was told that the serfs didn't have any bread to eat, her response was "so, let them eat cake!". This wasn't supposed to be some sadistic afluent sneer against the poor and unwashed masses, but rather, her standard of living was so disconnected that from her perspective, if there wasn't bread to eat, then you could just have cake instead. To someone in such a position, the concept of starvation was very foreign.
I think the same thing might be said here. I have a hard time believing that Bill Gates can have any concept of what life is like for the extremely underprivileged, and consequently how he can have any relevant ideas on providing computer access to these same people.
I remember years ago, when 56K modems were the "speed kings" and the internet was heavy into its "boom" phase, I was having a conversation about the whole "internet phenomenon" with a favorite college professor of mine who was from Kenya. It was a very sobering moment when he said that where he came from it was considered a high luxury to have a telephone, much less a computer, or a "broadband connection". And he wasn't from the poorer regions of Kenya.
So while the concept of a "hand cranked computer with a small screen" might seem silly to people who have a "standard of computer living" that is very high, it's very likely that such a system is the very bread that is needed and can be sustainably incorporated into the culture. And to suggest big monitors and broadband is not much different than suggesting that these same groups, when they run out of bread, that they should just eat cake.
Just my 2c.
Since it's the number of cups that makes a difference, I guess I just need to switch to a bigger cup .....
I've used RT in many different environments now, and am completely sold on it. The last place I was at I combined Nagios alerts with an Alert queue in RT. If a critical alert was generated by Nagios, then a ticket was created. If the issue went away by itself (network link was down temporarity, etc), then the "Status OK" alert sent by Nagios would close the specific ticket that it had opened. We also used it for tracking user account and priviledge requests. All of this played a critical role in our passing of our SOX 404 audits.
On a smaller scale, I now use RT for my own small business trouble ticket system. There is now an O'Reilly book out there about RT, "RT Essentials", that has a real good content spread about how to use and customize the RT system. Short story is I've had very good luck with RT, and would definitely reccomend it, for whatever that's worth.
"... if you are not doing anything wrong ..."
Well the simple fact is that _everybody_ does stuff that's wrong. The average American breaks countless rules (i.e. laws) every single day. Everytime a law is passed just so it can be selectively enforced, this problem is just amplified. And for those who are thinking "well, I certainly don't ever do anything illegal", when's the last time your car went over the speed limit. Would you not have any problems with law enforcement putting devices in you car that made it possible for you to get ticket as soon as you went 1 mph over the speed limit on any road you were driving on? Of course you would.
This is no different.
I also find it telling that the mainstream press is more interested in a very mundane hunting accident than they are about law enforcement officials suggesting that citizens be monitored inside their homes.
Is anybody else completely tired of the way whenever something comes up that the politicos think the public won't like that it instantly involves "pornography" (particularly "child porography") and (these days) terrorism?
Hell, I remember when the pornography card was played back during the PMRC hearings. Anybody remember those? One of the many memorable quotes from Mr. Zappa being:
"While the wife of the Secretary of the Treasury recites "Gonna drive my love inside you" and Senator Gore's wife talks about "Bondage!" and "oral sex at gunpoint" on the CBS Evening News, people in high places work on a tax bill that is so ridiculous, the only way to sneak it through is to keep the public's mind on something else: 'Porn rock'."
I used to think the "I like ice cream, and children like ice cream, do you like ice cream", "umm, no I really don't like ice cream", "WHAT?!?! You HATE children? Why do you hate children?" was funny. Now I just think it's ominously sad as I see the same technique used over and over and over again.
Does IE7 support transparent PNGs yet? I still have a webpage up out there that has to you a _very_ nasty CSS img tag hack to rerender transparent PNGs using the Windows alpha channel if the visitor is using IE.
While IE7 doesn't mean I'd get to remove the hack anytime soon, at least it'd be a light at the end of the tunnel.
Ahhhh .. so _that's_ what the Bene Gesserit Reverend Mother used to turn the Baron into such a large fellow!
The comment: :)
"...[Microsoft] has also expressed fears that making its source code public could allow hackers to find security holes in Microsoft products..."
reminded me of something I've often thought while glacing over the "who has more security holes/patches" diatribe that flops around periodically. Back when the whole Linux thing was still relatively new, I remember seeing many conversations about how having all that source code for the main system publically available means it will be eaiser for people to find and exploit that software. Microsoft tends to bolster this view, stating that one purpose of its closed source code is increased security. But you don't seem to ever seem to see this concept followed through on. Linux and BSD based systems are all over the place (i.e. the internet) these days, and the majority of web servers out there are running Apache. The code for all this software has been publically available for a very long time now, but there don't seem to be (from my perspective, at least) the increased security issues that there "should" be based on the "closed proprietary" security argument.
Nothing earth shattering, just a small observation. Take it for what you will.
Time for all the overclocking hot rods to turn down their 10GHz CPUs and return all those heavy copper heatsinks. ;)
That's a bit of a minomer, I think. Technically neither Firefox, Opera, or Internet Explorer are vulnerable. The Windows .dll that handles the rendering of .wmf files is vulnerable. So any program, be it a web browser, a google indexing app, or a recipie maker, that calls the exploitable Windows .dll in order to load an infected .wmf file will end up opening the Pandora's Box.
Maybe they'll be able to outsource most of the work to GeekSquad! They're already skilled in paratroopoing down into residential neighborhoods to fix up Joe Sixpack's computer. ;)
The surface of Mars is quite obviously a redistribution of dirt over the surface of oceans made solid by the ill fated use of ice-9 long ago in the Martian past.
So that's what they meant by OS/2 *Warp*!
.... couldn't resist. ;P
Sorry
Does this mean that we'd better check up on the Humpback whale situation before the cylinder with the glowing phallic communication rod heads this way to destroy us all?
[Evidently {less than sign}text means that everything after the {less than sign} doesn't show up. Here's what was supposed to have posted]
This seems competely out of sync with the movie rating system. Granted, IANAL, but it looks to me like a 17 year old is allowed to go see the latest violence packed "Terminator 15" feature film, but then isn't allowed to subsequently go across the Mall and buy the video game that was released with the movie.
I've never understood this kind of thinking, and often wonder what rules like these are really supposed to accomplish. What do the law makers expect these laws to achieve? Do they honestly think that assuming all less than 18 year old kids were never exposed to violent video games that somehow they would all become peaceful law abiding citizens eager to give their all for the betterment of mankind? Sometimes I wonder how many times things like "well, I sure hope this gets my constituents to shut up about it".
Personally, I think treating people like idiots is the fastest way to bring out their negative mean side. I'm sure 17 year old Johnny who saw his best friend gunned down in the street is sure going to benefit from not seeing cartoons blow away other cartoons.
This seems competely out of sync with the movie rating system. Granted, IANAL, but it looks to me like a 17 year old is allowed to go see the latest violence packed "Terminator 15" feature film, but then isn't allowed to subsequently go across the Mall and buy the video game that was released with the movie.
I've never understood this kind of thinking, and often wonder what rules like these are really supposed to accomplish. What do the law makers expect these laws to achieve? Do they honestly think that assuming all
My biggest concern would be the privacy and "ownership" rights of the documents. While gmail is awesome, I _only_ use it for mailing lists. My personal email is handled by a server of my own. I'm not a big fan of having another company have full access to the information in my email, much less any office-style documents.
... :)
Of course, I tend to err on the side of paranoia
Perhaps I'm just being cynical, but doesn't this place the incentive on insecure code. Maximizing the number of "security patch releases" will also help (potentially) maximize revenue by quickly identifying "pirated" versions of Windows, causing said "offenders" to purchase legit versions.
;)
If Windows were to become secure and relatively bug free, this would cause their "pirate detection" system to become very inefficient, as there wouldn't be a great need for using Windows Update.
I may be completely off base, but it does seem plausible. Perhaps we need Mythbusters
I wonder what the chances are that it will support transparent PNG's. This is one of the most annoying left out features of IE, IMO. There is an ugly CSS tag hack that lets them be used currently, but it's _really_ nasty. It would be nice if the 256 gif colormap could finally be put to rest.
So I guess if anyone on capital hill had any value for independenant creative thought, the thousands of senseless software patents would have been denied.
The pathetic thing about this is it is yet another display of how utterly ignorant the patent office is. They didn't strike this down because of science or law, they struck it down because of politics. It's sadly ironic that the sancticty of almost human life is given more credence than human ideas and creativity, the very things that define our species in the first place.
Who doesn't run their internet through a proxy these days?
While my browser may be vulnerable, the page never makes it past the proxy (squid):
ERROR
The requested URL could not be retrieved
While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.www.p%D0%B0ypal.com/
The following error was encountered:
* Invalid URL
Some aspect of the requested URL is incorrect. Possible problems:
* Missing or incorrect access protocol (should be `http://'' or similar)
* Missing hostname
* Illegal double-escape in the URL-Path
* Illegal character in hostname; underscores are not allowed
This is really a question for both camps. What would it take to allow Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian party to attend the presidential debates?
Seems to me the problem with high speed internet isn't so much the speeds available but rather the draconian contracts that you must deal with. If my service can be shut off when I've exceeded my undisclosed bandwidth by an undisclosed amount, then faster speeds just means that I can reach my unpredictable shut off time faster than before.