Just use Excel. The development time is quicker and faster than building a database in Oracle or Foxpro or whatever. Just use a spreadsheet row for each row in your table and reimplement all the useful functions like SUM(), COUNT(), INSERT, WITH UPDLOCK etc in Visual Basic. If it gets corrupted just hire some cheap data entry people to type it all in again.
Because the script kiddies they refer to don't have the skills to fix anything. Like the vandals who daub graffiti on historic monuments, these people know nothing of constructing something useful or interesting or artistic. They just want to destroy.
.. there is an active effort underway to build a national wireless network. It's over at consume.net. Unfortunately the uptake seems rather slow with too many people just interested and not active.
Okay, you go explain to the average user what COM objects and proxy servers are.
That has about as much relevance as explaining to the 'average user' what XUL is. You seem to be misunderstanding my point -- I'm not saying that non-technical users should have to write or understand such software.
Usenet is a more integral part of the Internet than even the web is. It was there first (I know, I made my first posts back around 1990). If a product called "Internet Explorer" can't explore all of the Internet, what possible good is it?
It is irrelevant whether it was there first. So was gopher, and look how popular that is now. Yes, "Internet Explorer" can be misleading if you want to be pedantic. "URL Explorer" may be more appropriate, given that IE is just a shell that looks for the most appropriate program for the given URL type and runs that.
That's right. Microsoft made Internet Explorer to please Microsoft. The people made Mozilla to please people.
Incorrect - their business model (and indeed, most successful business models) are based on pleasing as many people as viable/possible with their products.
If there is so little demand, how come Mozilla and Netscape are gaining market share over IE?
Perhaps because they've finally, after four years, released a half-decent version of the browser?
It depends. For users who really have no insight into the capabilities of the machine then yes, you are correct.
But many times I've known people who wanted to do something on their machines but didn't know how. Then they would get someone more knowledgable to give advice and maybe do it for them.
If they can ask the question "how do I get rid of these pop up ad things?" to someone who knows how, then there really is no practical difference to setting it up themselves.
You have some good points there, but I disagree with:
... gives AOL... a lever into the embedded market space
There is more to embedded devices than web kiosks, and there is certainly more to web kiosks than a simple web browser.
I see what you mean about competition though. But on the other hand if they worked within the framework of IE then they could give Microsoft some serious competition. AFAIK there is no current method of just plugging in Galeon to handle all web rendering needs on Windows.
A COM interface compatible with the one IE uses would be superb for competition.
The unfortunate result of these sorts of devices is that is takes out of practice the social skills of those who use them.
Like the stereotypical pale-skinned nerd masterbating over Linux in his mother's basement, people who tend to use these new PDA technologies are seriously missing out on the more traditional forms of human contact.
A wink, a nod and a smile can convey so much more than "asl?"
While you are correct, this reason for defending IE is incredibly insane. Are you suggesting that people setup a proxy server / gateway in all thier homes because of the failings of the browser they use? I'd LOVE to watch my Grand Ma setup a Proxy Server... heh.
I was referring to proxy server software like Junkbuster, not a separate physical machine.
Did you by any chance think that they haven't been implemented becuase no one knows IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE, or even knows there is a problem? People have been using IE for years, and most of the people using it have a hard time even turning their computer on ("What OS are you running?" "Ummm... Windows 97 I think." Y'all know THAT converstaion...).
Pretending that Windows users barely know how to use their computers doesn't really support your argument. After all, it's not those you describe who would be writing such software anyway.
Yes, you are 100% correct, though; no demand, no code. That is indeed the M$ way of thinking.
That 'way of thinking' isn't limited to Microsoft. It's a pretty standard observation of people in general. I don't see your point here.
I'm just saying that instead of wasting 4.5 years making something that isn't really on par with IE7, they could have spent time extending the more popular and stable browser instead.
All the features you've described could theoretically be added to IE by replacing the IE COM object with one that extends the existing one, and/or using proxy servers.
There are already proxy servers that filter malicious or annoying Javascript before it even reaches your browser. And newsgroup readers really shouldn't be an integral part of your web browser (note that OE is a separate program to IE) whatever anyone claims. Mozilla just isn't componentised enough, so they had to tack everything in they could to please people.
As for the other features, the fact that no-one has done it yet indicates that there is very little demand for these extra features.
Well, if the ISPs charged customers on what they use, rather than gamble on what they expect them to use then they wouldn't have this problem.
The core problem is false advertising. If every customer took up maximum capacity on their line they'd have something to say about that too -- but why should we be dealt a bad hand just because of their initial dishonesty?
In the end, it's down to marketing. They advertise high bandwidth connections knowing that very few people are going to use anywhere near the total capacity.
Sharing your access with others increases the probability that you're going to use near total capacity. And upstream, it just can't be sustained reasonably.
It sounds to me like they need to revise what they promise customers rather than blame the customers for taking advantage of the advertised capabilities of the service.
If you look at the US Trademarks database, you'll notice that Unix was first registered by AT&T back in 1986, predating the 1993 registration of "unix.com" by almost a decade.
I think the problem there is that the Unix trademark has been passed around quite a lot through different organisations with differing opinions on how the use of the trademark should be enforced.
The point is, though, that it has been a trademark for years -- even if X/Open only acquired it relatively recently.
Also, probably even more importantly is the usage of such a domain name for email communications. While a website such as www.unix.com carries some weight as an official Unix source, email sourced from that domain carries an even higher regard.
It's easy to forget that a domain name can represent the whole public image on the Internet, not just the website.
Although many cases of domain disputes are clear cut, such as the one between etoy and etoys, where one should be allowed to keep their domain, this is quite different.
You'll notice that the unix.com domain was registered by these people in May 2000. Obviously they knew the word "Unix" has been a trademark of the X/Open group for many years.
For them to register unix.com is incredibly misleading to anyone who may expect an offical Unix company website there.
The administrators of unix.org and unix.net have more rights to their domain names as they are not flying under the banner of a "Unix company".
So, it's another stupid domain resolution. They just seem to have it completely backwards!
Wow, actually I see what you mean. That's pretty damn sneaky.
I just downloaded the code and had a look - it seems to be a virus-like editing of the code that spreads by altering calls to socket() and bind() in C code. Bizarre.
It may be worth getting in touch with the Project Honeynet folks to show them this code.
Slashdot Mirror
Just use Excel. The development time is quicker and faster than building a database in Oracle or Foxpro or whatever. Just use a spreadsheet row for each row in your table and reimplement all the useful functions like SUM(), COUNT(), INSERT, WITH UPDLOCK etc in Visual Basic. If it gets corrupted just hire some cheap data entry people to type it all in again.
What could be easier?
Because the script kiddies they refer to don't have the skills to fix anything. Like the vandals who daub graffiti on historic monuments, these people know nothing of constructing something useful or interesting or artistic. They just want to destroy.
I suppose next they'll be suggesting that thieves be allowed to break into my house, just to see if it is secure.
This is a slippery slippery slope, folks.
If hackers break into my systems, I want them prosecuted like another type of criminal!
I messed up the link. Should have been http://consume.net/
.. there is an active effort underway to build a national wireless network. It's over at consume.net. Unfortunately the uptake seems rather slow with too many people just interested and not active.
Well, I'm about as excited for this as I was when cold fusion 'may' have been proved viable.
Come on, this is just flimsy.
- Okay, you go explain to the average user what COM objects and proxy servers are.
That has about as much relevance as explaining to the 'average user' what XUL is. You seem to be misunderstanding my point -- I'm not saying that non-technical users should have to write or understand such software.- Usenet is a more integral part of the Internet than even the web is. It was there first (I know, I made my first posts back around 1990). If a product called "Internet Explorer" can't explore all of the Internet, what possible good is it?
It is irrelevant whether it was there first. So was gopher, and look how popular that is now. Yes, "Internet Explorer" can be misleading if you want to be pedantic. "URL Explorer" may be more appropriate, given that IE is just a shell that looks for the most appropriate program for the given URL type and runs that.- That's right. Microsoft made Internet Explorer to please Microsoft. The people made Mozilla to please people.
Incorrect - their business model (and indeed, most successful business models) are based on pleasing as many people as viable/possible with their products.- If there is so little demand, how come Mozilla and Netscape are gaining market share over IE?
Perhaps because they've finally, after four years, released a half-decent version of the browser?It depends. For users who really have no insight into the capabilities of the machine then yes, you are correct.
But many times I've known people who wanted to do something on their machines but didn't know how. Then they would get someone more knowledgable to give advice and maybe do it for them.
If they can ask the question "how do I get rid of these pop up ad things?" to someone who knows how, then there really is no practical difference to setting it up themselves.
- ... gives AOL
... a lever into the embedded market space
There is more to embedded devices than web kiosks, and there is certainly more to web kiosks than a simple web browser.I see what you mean about competition though. But on the other hand if they worked within the framework of IE then they could give Microsoft some serious competition. AFAIK there is no current method of just plugging in Galeon to handle all web rendering needs on Windows.
A COM interface compatible with the one IE uses would be superb for competition.
The unfortunate result of these sorts of devices is that is takes out of practice the social skills of those who use them.
Like the stereotypical pale-skinned nerd masterbating over Linux in his mother's basement, people who tend to use these new PDA technologies are seriously missing out on the more traditional forms of human contact.
A wink, a nod and a smile can convey so much more than "asl?"
- While you are correct, this reason for defending IE is incredibly insane. Are you suggesting that people setup a proxy server / gateway in all thier homes because of the failings of the browser they use? I'd LOVE to watch my Grand Ma setup a Proxy Server... heh.
I was referring to proxy server software like Junkbuster, not a separate physical machine.- Did you by any chance think that they haven't been implemented becuase no one knows IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE, or even knows there is a problem? People have been using IE for years, and most of the people using it have a hard time even turning their computer on ("What OS are you running?" "Ummm... Windows 97 I think." Y'all know THAT converstaion...).
Pretending that Windows users barely know how to use their computers doesn't really support your argument. After all, it's not those you describe who would be writing such software anyway.- Yes, you are 100% correct, though; no demand, no code. That is indeed the M$ way of thinking.
That 'way of thinking' isn't limited to Microsoft. It's a pretty standard observation of people in general. I don't see your point here.I'm just saying that instead of wasting 4.5 years making something that isn't really on par with IE7, they could have spent time extending the more popular and stable browser instead.
All the features you've described could theoretically be added to IE by replacing the IE COM object with one that extends the existing one, and/or using proxy servers.
There are already proxy servers that filter malicious or annoying Javascript before it even reaches your browser. And newsgroup readers really shouldn't be an integral part of your web browser (note that OE is a separate program to IE) whatever anyone claims. Mozilla just isn't componentised enough, so they had to tack everything in they could to please people.
As for the other features, the fact that no-one has done it yet indicates that there is very little demand for these extra features.
Well, if the ISPs charged customers on what they use, rather than gamble on what they expect them to use then they wouldn't have this problem.
The core problem is false advertising. If every customer took up maximum capacity on their line they'd have something to say about that too -- but why should we be dealt a bad hand just because of their initial dishonesty?
In the end, it's down to marketing. They advertise high bandwidth connections knowing that very few people are going to use anywhere near the total capacity.
Sharing your access with others increases the probability that you're going to use near total capacity. And upstream, it just can't be sustained reasonably.
It sounds to me like they need to revise what they promise customers rather than blame the customers for taking advantage of the advertised capabilities of the service.
Are you saying this license excludes any other sort of wireless activity for their downstream users?
But in this case, sharing has been explicity given legitimatcy by the providers of the resource.
The problem is 'implicit' sharing, or rather, when people believe that they can share without asking permission.
If you're in the UK, consume.net is trying to create such a registry.
If you look at the US Trademarks database, you'll notice that Unix was first registered by AT&T back in 1986, predating the 1993 registration of "unix.com" by almost a decade.
- ... so this is a Good Thing.
Surely we can make up our own minds about that.Remember, everyone -- this is just some guy's opinion and not a fact.
I think the problem there is that the Unix trademark has been passed around quite a lot through different organisations with differing opinions on how the use of the trademark should be enforced.
The point is, though, that it has been a trademark for years -- even if X/Open only acquired it relatively recently.
Also, probably even more importantly is the usage of such a domain name for email communications. While a website such as www.unix.com carries some weight as an official Unix source, email sourced from that domain carries an even higher regard.
It's easy to forget that a domain name can represent the whole public image on the Internet, not just the website.
Although many cases of domain disputes are clear cut, such as the one between etoy and etoys, where one should be allowed to keep their domain, this is quite different.
You'll notice that the unix.com domain was registered by these people in May 2000. Obviously they knew the word "Unix" has been a trademark of the X/Open group for many years.
For them to register unix.com is incredibly misleading to anyone who may expect an offical Unix company website there.
The administrators of unix.org and unix.net have more rights to their domain names as they are not flying under the banner of a "Unix company".
So, it's another stupid domain resolution. They just seem to have it completely backwards!
Wow, actually I see what you mean. That's pretty damn sneaky.
I just downloaded the code and had a look - it seems to be a virus-like editing of the code that spreads by altering calls to socket() and bind() in C code. Bizarre.
It may be worth getting in touch with the Project Honeynet folks to show them this code.
You mean like this program?
Last time I took drugs, I vomited all over the carpet while the colors in the room oscillated between red and blue.
..?
I was in quite a state. And high. I guess that's what you mean by a "higher state"