OSS is also a chain reaction, which they fear. Imagine OSS does 99,5% of what a company needs to do. So they write the other 0,5% (as OSS, not their core business + they get community support and maintenance). [Emphasis added]
Point made but you're missing the shift in equilibrium. They write the other 0,5% for what they need to do. They write another 5% for what they want to do.
The equilibrium point of what is worth writing and how well it is worth writing shifts. It's a slow and persistent process. They fear it because they don't know how far it'll go. I don't think anyone does. OSS is not a cheaper replacement for existing software. (Although it does succeed at that). OSS is the only means of producing software that would otherwise be exhorbitantly expensive. My guess is that the TCO of Linux is greater than that of Microsoft Windows, but the Linux will be doing stuff that simply is not economically feasible with Microsoft Windows.
Some people buy things from spammers, but I doubt that enough people buy enough stuff from spammers to account for the sophistication of the spamming business.
using anything but windows update for updating a machine is the domain of super-l33t windows geeks. Not normal people.
I'm sure you're right, but that's enough to ensure that Microsoft stays a security nightmare. It's real easy to download RedHat or OpenBSD updates from an NT box. If I desperately need to download an update, I need to be able to do so easily from something else. Anything else!
I suspect that if you actually try to match the reliability, throughput, and dependability of Linux on a mainframe with Microsoft on Intel that the cost of the mainframe will be substantially lower. More relevant would be the TCO of Linux on a junker to Windows on a dual Xeon.
If someone can use a keystroke logger to find out what your passphrase is, then it is a Winzip vulnerability. That doesn't mean that Winzip can do anything about it, but the inability to counteract an attact does not make that attack go away.
Although, I would think that this method requires the blacking out to begin and end exactly at the edge of the blacked-out word
plain-text-1 white-space-1 blacked-out-text white space-2 plain-text-2 Measure from the end of plain-text-1 to the start of plain-text-2. This includes exactly two white-spaces plus the blacked-out-text. It doesn't matter how accurate the black Sharpie is.
The goal of anti-competition law is to make anti-competative behaviour unprofitable. So they continue to abuse their monopoly position, there are more anti-trust cases
Simpler and more effective would be largish excess profits tax on monopolies.
To contrast that I've found Fedora far more like the "old" RedHat in terms of support, stability and longevity....not quite what the original RedHat press releases implied.
Not blind faith, but I would expect: MSN would sell personal information often and cheaply. Google would sell personal information rarely if ever, and quite expensive if it did so.
There is also the possibility that the best long-term prospects for Google have to do with indexing information on corporate intranets. For this to be effective, Google's discretion pretty well has to something that is above suspicion. Maybe not as extreme as Swiss bankers, but definitely aiming in that direction.
Re:IE users: don't click above links!
on
A Worm's Worm
·
· Score: 1
Hmmph, NT4 and all I got was a blank screen. (of course I've got most all the run-viruses stuff turned off;)
Gee, I just learned that if you take a sheet of A3 and cut it in half, that's A4.
If you take a D-size sheet of drafting paper, cut into halves, you have two sheets of C-size drafting paper cut into quarters, you have four sheets of B-size drafting paper, aka quarto cut into eight pieces, you have eight sheet of A-size, aka letter, aka octavo.
The metric sizes preserve aspect ratio, the english sizes do not.
Sturgeon's Law is certainly not a "law" in any scientific sense.
Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.
Gross generalization of everything, but pretty accurate. If you measure almost anything, some of the stuff is more important than others. If you define crap as everything below the 90%-tile, then the law is accurate. 90% of the time is due to 10% of the code. 90% of the trouble is due to 10% of the bugs.
It's useful in that if you can get the 10% that matters down cold, the 90% crap will more or less take care of itself. A lot better results with a lot less effort. You can't get rid of the 90% crap, but it doesn't have to be done very well.
I suspect that Google's spot on top is pretty secure provided they don't do something stupid and alienate their loyal customer/user base. Google makes money to be a good search engine rather than using the search engine to make money. There is a difference. Any competitor to Google is likely to go the way of the examples you cited. Why bother to switch if any gains will be only momentary? For privacy concerns, I'd put a lot more faith in what Google considers acceptable behavior than in whatever legalese (with loopholes) happens to be in any privacy statement. Since you mentioned MSN Search, do you really think they won't sell out your private information to make a buck or two here or there?
Re:Clifford Stoll's two books
on
The Flickering Mind
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In fact, even shell scripting skills and knowledge of the unix filesystem are important skills in medicine. So, as others have pointed out, it's not so simple as saying we shouldn't emphasize computer skills.
Computers are good for automating what you understand. They are not a substitute for that understanding. In fact doing something with computers requires more understanding than without computers to just break even.
Computers are good for automating things that are tedious, monotonous, and repetitious. This works after you understand just what you are automating (which also defines what you are not automating.
An accurate summation of inaccurate numbers does not make an accurate sum, regardless of how much snake oil you buy.
There was a joke ruuning in China a few years back. Something like: Russian leader, US leader, and Chinese leader driving down a road leading to a T-intersection. Russian leader: Signals left. Turns left. US leader: Signals right. Turns right. Chinese leader: Signals left. Turns right.
"the chaos after a revolution" can't be good for growing anything worthwhile. the paradoxical conclusion he gave was that the few countries who succesfully changed into democratical society were the ones where a dictator stayed in place, forcing things to evolve slowly You need a dictator who is working himself out of a job. The US got something of that effect with Washington who refused a third term. After the war, he could easily have made himself King George I of the United States of America.
i>I just cant understand why all this is allowed to happen? someone please explain?
(From an old fart, and no, I'm not really all this disgruntled)
"allowed" is the wrong term. Everything in the industry is aiming to ensure that things are that way, and if it was ever different, it has been that way since at least the 60's.
First look at what has survived and what hasn't. And why. PC's. At least they're cheap. Burroughs now dead at least in part due to bombing out on "debugged" programs that were doing illegal stuff. Enterprise mainframes may be a better grade than PC's, but they're closer to PC level than to actually doing things right. Multics now pretty much dead. People not that interested in security. Storage tube CAD stations now a thing of the past. Give up 4096x3072 resolution for the new raster graphics.
There are some fundamental differences between mainframes and PCs. You use mainframes because you have to. You use PCs because you want to. If the PC isn't fun or entertaining it won't be used.
Screensavers. Green monochome monitors really need screensavers, or a static display will literally etch itself into the screen. Amber still needs it, but not as bad. Color monitors are very hard to etch the screen. But it's only the color monitors that get the attention. The use of the term "screensaver" pretty well ensures that bad things will happen.
When "WOW!" sells and quiet competence does not, what do you expect?
"Trusted Zone" In order to allow one page to do something I must allow all to do most everything. "This site is trying to access important parts of your system, if you trust this site click OK" Since the system delivers the message it must know what is trying to do what with what. I'm supposed to blindly OK everything??? There is an important document you must sign. Without reading it, click OK to sign this document (and all the other documents that came along with it). This is user-friendly???
Slashdot Mirror
Honestly, what use does one have for such a large mailbox?
Mail. Every letter you've sent or received.
Years and decades of mail.
How big can it get before you have to throw out the old stuff?
Cut and try.
Cut and try.
Lots of work.
Repeat after me: 3 volts do not arc. 3 volts do not arc. 3 volts do not arc.
A 1-1/2 volt dry cell will arc on make/break.
Not much, but it doesn't take much.
OSS is also a chain reaction, which they fear. Imagine OSS does 99,5% of what a company needs to do. So they write the other 0,5% (as OSS, not their core business + they get community support and maintenance). [Emphasis added]
Point made but you're missing the shift in equilibrium.
They write the other 0,5% for what they need to do.
They write another 5% for what they want to do.
The equilibrium point of what is worth writing and how well it is worth writing shifts. It's a slow and persistent process.
They fear it because they don't know how far it'll go. I don't think anyone does.
OSS is not a cheaper replacement for existing software. (Although it does succeed at that). OSS is the only means of producing software that would otherwise be exhorbitantly expensive. My guess is that the TCO of Linux is greater than that of Microsoft Windows, but the Linux will be doing stuff that simply is not economically feasible with Microsoft Windows.
And when it gets blacked out will the black out be two pixels shorter?
Irrelevant.
xxx person xxx
xxx in then xxx
The length of the blackout will be sloppy and very aproximate.
You measure the pixels from the first xxx to the last xxx.
Some people buy things from spammers, but I doubt that enough people buy enough stuff from spammers to account for the sophistication of the spamming business.
What you're saying that there are people so stupid that they won't notice that the products they're buying aren't working?
They buy Microsoft Windows, don't they?
xxx person xxx
xxx in then xxx
I count "in then" as two pixels shorter
12-pitch Times New Roman.
using anything but windows update for updating a machine is the domain of super-l33t windows geeks. Not normal people.
I'm sure you're right, but that's enough to ensure that Microsoft stays a security nightmare. It's real easy to download RedHat or OpenBSD updates from an NT box. If I desperately need to download an update, I need to be able to do so easily from something else. Anything else!
I suspect that if you actually try to match the reliability, throughput, and dependability of Linux on a mainframe with Microsoft on Intel that the cost of the mainframe will be substantially lower.
More relevant would be the TCO of Linux on a junker to Windows on a dual Xeon.
If someone can use a keystroke logger to find out what your passphrase is, then it is a Winzip vulnerability. That doesn't mean that Winzip can do anything about it, but the inability to counteract an attact does not make that attack go away.
All you need to do is use a fixed-width font, and then all the decrypter would be able to find out is how many letters in the given word
"In January, the State Department required that its documents use a more modern font, Times New Roman, instead of Courier"
That my friends is what is know as "progress".
Although, I would think that this method requires the blacking out to begin and end exactly at the edge of the blacked-out word
plain-text-1 white-space-1 blacked-out-text white space-2 plain-text-2
Measure from the end of plain-text-1 to the start of plain-text-2.
This includes exactly two white-spaces plus the blacked-out-text.
It doesn't matter how accurate the black Sharpie is.
You know it's a good bike when it's downhill both ways.
The goal of anti-competition law is to make anti-competative behaviour unprofitable. So they continue to abuse their monopoly position, there are more anti-trust cases
Simpler and more effective would be largish excess profits tax on monopolies.
To contrast that I've found Fedora far more like the "old" RedHat in terms of support, stability and longevity....not quite what the original RedHat press releases implied.
;)
Of course.
( but don't tell the suits
Not blind faith, but I would expect:
MSN would sell personal information often and cheaply.
Google would sell personal information rarely if ever, and quite expensive if it did so.
There is also the possibility that the best long-term prospects for Google have to do with indexing information on corporate intranets. For this to be effective, Google's discretion pretty well has to something that is above suspicion. Maybe not as extreme as Swiss bankers, but definitely aiming in that direction.
Hmmph, NT4 and all I got was a blank screen.
(of course I've got most all the run-viruses stuff turned off;)
Gee, I just learned that if you take a sheet of A3 and cut it in half, that's A4.
If you take a D-size sheet of drafting paper,
cut into halves, you have two sheets of C-size drafting paper
cut into quarters, you have four sheets of B-size drafting paper, aka quarto
cut into eight pieces, you have eight sheet of A-size, aka letter, aka octavo.
The metric sizes preserve aspect ratio, the english sizes do not.
Sturgeon's Law is certainly not a "law" in any scientific sense.
Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.
Gross generalization of everything, but pretty accurate.
If you measure almost anything, some of the stuff is more important than others. If you define crap as everything below the 90%-tile, then the law is accurate.
90% of the time is due to 10% of the code.
90% of the trouble is due to 10% of the bugs.
It's useful in that if you can get the 10% that matters down cold, the 90% crap will more or less take care of itself. A lot better results with a lot less effort. You can't get rid of the 90% crap, but it doesn't have to be done very well.
I suspect that Google's spot on top is pretty secure provided they don't do something stupid and alienate their loyal customer/user base.
Google makes money to be a good search engine rather than using the search engine to make money. There is a difference.
Any competitor to Google is likely to go the way of the examples you cited. Why bother to switch if any gains will be only momentary? For privacy concerns, I'd put a lot more faith in what Google considers acceptable behavior than in whatever legalese (with loopholes) happens to be in any privacy statement.
Since you mentioned MSN Search, do you really think they won't sell out your private information to make a buck or two here or there?
In fact, even shell scripting skills and knowledge of the unix filesystem are important skills in medicine. So, as others have pointed out, it's not so simple as saying we shouldn't emphasize computer skills.
Computers are good for automating what you understand. They are not a substitute for that understanding. In fact doing something with computers requires more understanding than without computers to just break even.
Computers are good for automating things that are tedious, monotonous, and repetitious. This works after you understand just what you are automating (which also defines what you are not automating.
An accurate summation of inaccurate numbers does not make an accurate sum, regardless of how much snake oil you buy.
There was a joke ruuning in China a few years back.
Something like: Russian leader, US leader, and Chinese leader driving down a road leading to a T-intersection.
Russian leader: Signals left. Turns left.
US leader: Signals right. Turns right.
Chinese leader: Signals left. Turns right.
"the chaos after a revolution" can't be good for growing anything worthwhile.
the paradoxical conclusion he gave was that the few countries who succesfully changed into democratical society were the ones where a dictator stayed in place, forcing things to evolve slowly
You need a dictator who is working himself out of a job.
The US got something of that effect with Washington who refused a third term. After the war, he could easily have made himself King George I of the United States of America.
and your browser asks you "Would you like to allow this site to open 23 new windows?"
That's what the browser does if you click OK.
That's not what the browser asks. More like something about "may not display properly".
Basic security is labelling things as what they are.
i>I just cant understand why all this is allowed to happen? someone please explain?
(From an old fart, and no, I'm not really all this disgruntled)
"allowed" is the wrong term. Everything in the industry is aiming to ensure that things are that way, and if it was ever different, it has been that way since at least the 60's.
First look at what has survived and what hasn't. And why.
PC's. At least they're cheap.
Burroughs now dead at least in part due to bombing out on "debugged" programs that were doing illegal stuff. Enterprise mainframes may be a better grade than PC's, but they're closer to PC level than to actually doing things right.
Multics now pretty much dead. People not that interested in security.
Storage tube CAD stations now a thing of the past. Give up 4096x3072 resolution for the new raster graphics.
There are some fundamental differences between mainframes and PCs.
You use mainframes because you have to.
You use PCs because you want to.
If the PC isn't fun or entertaining it won't be used.
Screensavers. Green monochome monitors really need screensavers, or a static display will literally etch itself into the screen. Amber still needs it, but not as bad. Color monitors are very hard to etch the screen. But it's only the color monitors that get the attention. The use of the term "screensaver" pretty well ensures that bad things will happen.
When "WOW!" sells and quiet competence does not, what do you expect?
"Trusted Zone" In order to allow one page to do something I must allow all to do most everything. "This site is trying to access important parts of your system, if you trust this site click OK"
Since the system delivers the message it must know what is trying to do what with what. I'm supposed to blindly OK everything???
There is an important document you must sign. Without reading it, click OK to sign this document (and all the other documents that came along with it). This is user-friendly???