The cookie management is completely primitive. I don't want much - I tell FF to force everything to session cookies with a whitelist for perma-cookies and a blacklist for scum like 2o7. Chrome won't do any of that. Kiss your privacy goodbye.
And I want NoScript or something reasonably like that.
The rest of it just rocks — I really really want to use this browser — but those two are showstoppers. I don't like handing over control of my browser to just anybody.
You know, there was a time when the American public education system was a wonder of the world.
Nations sent their best and brightest to be educated at public universities here, and those public universities got their pick of students from all over the world, and among the best were those educated at our public high schools.
Because our educational institutions, public and private, taught students to _think_.
Feynmann described the faults in other nations' educational systems this way, in "Surely You're Joking":
After the lecture, I talked to a student: "You take all those notes --
what do you do with them?"
"Oh, we study them," he says. "We'll have an exam."
That now describes our own grammar and high schools.
Perhaps you didn't know that it wasn't always that way, that the government you blame for poor public education produced the finest public education system in the history of the world.
Perhaps you also didn't know that that government (which many take as an article of faith to be incompetent at everything) also built the finest military in the history of the world?
And that it also built the finest public highway system in the history of the world?
And the finest public water supply in the history of the world?
And, if we start from the premise that government policy can have a major or even dominant effect on the health of an economy, that it built the most powerfuul economy in the history of the world?
If we don't admit that last premise, then why argue about tax rates at all?
Because during the era of all those roaring successes, the top marginal tax rate was up around ninety percent.
And that little paean to the things government is good at, is meant for, does right when supplied with faith and loyalty, relegates to the b-list other, more minor achievements.
Like taking humanity to the moon.
Like "the most unsordid act in history".
I could go on, of course, and on.
But the point remains: our government, its principles, its premise, its creed, is what made this nation great. Its constitution defines America.
So when you sneer at it, perhaps you'd like to consider the question of why you hate it so.
It's not the government's business to "invest" in particular companies, regardless of whether or not it uses their products
The first-named power of Congress is to collect money and with it provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
Anyone can disagree with the assessment of Congress as to how to spend it and how much to collect, but not with their authority and responsibility to do it at all.
The watchdogs are granted, first among other things,
Access during normal office hours to inspect any and all source code,
books, ledgers, accounts, correspondence, memoranda and other
documents and records in the possession, custody, or control of
Microsoft
"The whole document" is the evidence that got the Judge to do that.
Thousands of pages. Gigabytes of video.
Somehow, I think the Judge's response to that evidence is a bit... harsher... than your description would support.
Hmm. Whose assessment of the evidence should I rely on? Hmm. Hmmm.
I'm going with the newly-signed-up/. poster who read the whole case and weighed all the evidence in a case that took six months to present, overnight. I mean, speed-reading skills like that command respect.
When you get out of grammar school they'll teach you about reasoning in a little more detail, but for now, what you did there is called a "false dichotomy", arguing from the premise that only two alternatives are possible.
It works very well to trap the unwary, because the dishonest part is unspoken.
If this post is making you angry, perhaps you'd like to put more effort into detecting false premises in your own.
Us leftists just know they're being misled by the people at the top of that heap.
Eisenhower, Truman, MacArthur, Marshall -- you know, all those blatantly anti-USA guys -- took a whole batch of people and snugged ropes around their necks, nice and tight, then tied the other ends to something solid, and dropped the people until the rope snapped their necks, so at least they'd be unconscious while their bodies strangled to death.
Of course, doing it that way doesn't always work, and sometimes people strangle to death while they're still conscious no matter how careful you are.
Conscientious people try very hard and they almost always succeed, but that they don't just fire both barrels of a shotgun upwards from the base of the skull, that they do leave that possibility open, is part of the point.
That being to demonstrate exactly what decent people think of anyone who'd order people waterboarded.
Please, bring up Google News and count the ads on that page.
I don't do Google searches looking for news, nor does anyone I know. If I'm just keeping tabs on the news I sequence through the awesome bar: google news, ars, el reg,/. and the rest, with a sprinkling of the bbc or whathaveyou when there's time.
In all cases where I'm looking for content traditionally served by media publishers , the only ads I see are on the publishers' sites, not Google's.
Google doesn't show ads when you're looking for movie times. Type "movies, <your zipcode>".
Google doesn't show ads when you're looking for concerts. Type "concerts" etc.
Google doesn't show ads when you're looking for news.
So it isn't that
google has first go at ads
because google forgoes that opportunity.
As the summary points out,
Google, unlike any other search engine ever, goes to great pains to deliver the least-skewed results possible. Google is constantly on the hunt for people who game their system.
Murdoch's and many others' real objection to Google is that Google's service allows convenient comparison of their companies' product with the competition, and does so honestly. But they can't say that, of course.
Somebody said "it depends" with a certain level of sarcasm above, but I'm going to say it in all seriousness, and echo the "why was this posted" question, also coming from a different angle.
The headline says "open source apps" without qualification, so I'll address all open source apps first
The criteria for wanting an audit are the same, and not all software requires an in-house audit for various and I would have said obvious reasons.
But there are some observations that apply to open source that do not apply to closed source:
Every single proprietary-software vendor on the planet has a huge incentive to find major flaws in every competing product, but only with open source do they have the opportunity.
More specifically addressed to open-source security software, but still widely relevant:
The open-source security components are available for any use (BSD) or any open-source use (GPL). They get re-used. OpenSSL is surely among the most intensively-audited software components on the planet, not least because banks use it to protect financial transactions of all sizes. And OpenSSL is everywhere.
That leaves the following summary of my answer:
For applications where simply trusting that any broadly-used software is secure enough, there's no substantial difference in the considerations, and the answer is virtually always "no".
For applications that have major security implications — say, whole-disk encryption or multi-user system security or communications security — open source has a decided advantage because all of the many interested parties can audit at any time, and all have various motivations to publicize negative results. You might still want to do it anyway, but you'd want to do it for both kinds, because
And where human life and similarly vital considerations are involved, you are going to be doing one no matter what.
And now for something completely different:/. editors, don't you know that sometimes it actually matters?
This story scarcely have been intentionally constructed to more reliably produce a sales pitch for closed-source companies: "Here's a world-famous bastion of open-source advocates — ask any of your geeks, they'll know about slashdot — and look at this, almost everyone there says you have to audit open source. Do you have the resources to do that? No? That's what we thought, so we can dismiss that idea. Now, let's talk."
And that's precisely because the headline doesn't even mention the "security" part. It's "Open Source Apps". All of them. Even here, not reading the summary is rampant. How closely do you think a busy manager who starts out suspicious of the whole idea is going to examine this?
My experience has been very like that. I didn't grill them, I started on a $14/mo easy-out plan they had for a while, have upgraded several times since, and they've always delivered on their advertised rates. No cheating, they don't count link protocol overhead, I get my full data rate in both directions, pretty much always.
But their router keeps trying to connect to port 80 on my machine.
Yeah. If we don't pay off the rich people handsomely enough they won't pitch in to help save lives.
All the free-market advocates silently ignore one simple fact: if the seller is forced to sell and the buyers are not forced to buy, it's not a free market.
All Google is doing is refreshing its cache before entries expire.
Well, no, it isn't.
Did you miss the part where they're setting up a global network of public servers doing it free for everyone on the planet that wants it?
Or the part where doing it their particular
"nothing special" way is exactly what's needed to avoid letting entries go stale where it's possible at all?
Or the part where they say that they do it that way precisely because the entire point is they want their servers to respond fast, as if, somehow, not having a valid entry on hand would delay their servers' response?
Did you miss not just the whole point of the story but every little detail too?
I'm thinking "not heavily into reading comprehension" is the charitable explanation here.
Last jury I was on was a drug case. The state had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had it under his possession and control, he knew he had it under his possession and control, he knew what it was, and he intended to sell it. I could see why the case made it to trial, that wasn't easy. We voted to convict him and every time I revisit it the gut check comes back the same: we got it right.
Trusting any one-sided description of events strikes me as risky, but going on what's in the article I'd think it'd be hard to prove any sane sense of the word "possession", let alone conscious possession.
So there's at least one of three things going on here: the public defender's recommendation to plead guilty is incompetent, the public defender knows something about the case that we don't, or the law is insane.
The TTL on a DNS cache entry is supplied by the record's owner, and is an authoritative statement by that owner that the contents will remain valid at least until the TTL has expired. No DNS server will ever return a reply whose TTL has expired simply because anything that does return such a reply isn't a DNS server.
So your Dad scenario, the "probably still good" reply, and of course your absolute assertion just now that you can "get an invalid entry", isn't just a little wrong, it's completely and blatantly ignorant.
Guess the mods aren't heavily into reading comprehension these days? Preemptive caching will mean querying upstream before the TTL expires even in the absence of a client request, so by the time Dad wants to see it Google has already fetched the new record. The only question is when to allow a RR to age out of the cache.
This is a full quote without comment of the parent to get it past AC filters.
Email isn't science but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting. If the email says "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations" that would say a lot about how the 'science' is being done.
Let's say you have three algorithmic models which all produce different, but similar data. Except for certain data points, where they wildly diverge.
A new model is created to resolve this ambiguity. It's run, and the results disagree with the other models, on *everything*, even the things that the other models all agree on, and which are thus non-controversial.
It could be that this new model is the holy grail, and all three others are wrong. Or, one could write to its author, saying "your model doesn't jibe with things we're pretty confident in -- you need to rework it so it matches up with our baseline expectations." Out of context? Stop the presses! In context? Boring, and correct.
Slashdot Mirror
And here I was thinking the content of the book was the most important part.
And of course it is. That's why it's important that ownership of copies be distributed as widely as possible.
Hunh. I didn't try that, I treat news.google.com as a newspaper not a search engine.
You're right about the searches. Thanks for correcting that.
The cookie management is completely primitive. I don't want much - I tell FF to force everything to session cookies with a whitelist for perma-cookies and a blacklist for scum like 2o7. Chrome won't do any of that. Kiss your privacy goodbye.
And I want NoScript or something reasonably like that.
The rest of it just rocks — I really really want to use this browser — but those two are showstoppers. I don't like handing over control of my browser to just anybody.
Nevermind, it's a fax-quality scan.
That's hilarious: it's real.
Hell, I own the book, the pdf might come in handy.
Don't follow the link until you've got a good mental image, k?
Go here and turn off absolutely every light, every appliance, everything.
Now, turn on just one nice bright lightbulb.
That's the sun.
You know, there was a time when the American public education system was a wonder of the world.
Nations sent their best and brightest to be educated at public universities here, and those public universities got their pick of students from all over the world, and among the best were those educated at our public high schools.
Because our educational institutions, public and private, taught students to _think_.
Feynmann described the faults in other nations' educational systems this way, in "Surely You're Joking":
That now describes our own grammar and high schools.
Perhaps you didn't know that it wasn't always that way, that the government you blame for poor public education produced the finest public education system in the history of the world.
Perhaps you also didn't know that that government (which many take as an article of faith to be incompetent at everything) also built the finest military in the history of the world?
And that it also built the finest public highway system in the history of the world?
And the finest public water supply in the history of the world?
And, if we start from the premise that government policy can have a major or even dominant effect on the health of an economy, that it built the most powerfuul economy in the history of the world?
If we don't admit that last premise, then why argue about tax rates at all?
Because during the era of all those roaring successes, the top marginal tax rate was up around ninety percent.
And that little paean to the things government is good at, is meant for, does right when supplied with faith and loyalty, relegates to the b-list other, more minor achievements.
Like taking humanity to the moon.
Like "the most unsordid act in history".
I could go on, of course, and on.
But the point remains: our government, its principles, its premise, its creed, is what made this nation great. Its constitution defines America.
So when you sneer at it, perhaps you'd like to consider the question of why you hate it so.
It's not the government's business to "invest" in particular companies, regardless of whether or not it uses their products
The first-named power of Congress is to collect money and with it provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States.
Anyone can disagree with the assessment of Congress as to how to spend it and how much to collect, but not with their authority and responsibility to do it at all.
The Judge granted Plaintiffs authority to personally watchdog Microsoft.
The watchdogs are granted, first among other things,
"The whole document" is the evidence that got the Judge to do that.
Thousands of pages. Gigabytes of video.
Somehow, I think the Judge's response to that evidence is a bit ... harsher ... than your description would support.
Hmm. Whose assessment of the evidence should I rely on? Hmm. Hmmm.
I'm going with the newly-signed-up /. poster who read the whole case and weighed all the evidence in a case that took six months to present, overnight. I mean, speed-reading skills like that command respect.
When you get out of grammar school they'll teach you about reasoning in a little more detail, but for now, what you did there is called a "false dichotomy", arguing from the premise that only two alternatives are possible.
It works very well to trap the unwary, because the dishonest part is unspoken.
If this post is making you angry, perhaps you'd like to put more effort into detecting false premises in your own.
when Microsoft gets shit for including a basic feature
Please, before repeating Microsoft's lies for them again, get the facts.
Because modern leftists define themselves by nothing but their opposition to the USA.
Modern rightists define the USA as everyone who agrees with them.
No, really. Start at 0:34.
Us leftists just know they're being misled by the people at the top of that heap.
Eisenhower, Truman, MacArthur, Marshall -- you know, all those blatantly anti-USA guys -- took a whole batch of people and snugged ropes around their necks, nice and tight, then tied the other ends to something solid, and dropped the people until the rope snapped their necks, so at least they'd be unconscious while their bodies strangled to death.
Of course, doing it that way doesn't always work, and sometimes people strangle to death while they're still conscious no matter how careful you are.
Conscientious people try very hard and they almost always succeed, but that they don't just fire both barrels of a shotgun upwards from the base of the skull, that they do leave that possibility open, is part of the point.
That being to demonstrate exactly what decent people think of anyone who'd order people waterboarded.
All the same, we're all Americans.
Please, bring up Google News and count the ads on that page.
I don't do Google searches looking for news, nor does anyone I know. If I'm just keeping tabs on the news I sequence through the awesome bar: google news, ars, el reg, /. and the rest, with a sprinkling of the bbc or whathaveyou when there's time.
In all cases where I'm looking for content traditionally served by media publishers , the only ads I see are on the publishers' sites, not Google's.
Google doesn't show ads when you're looking for movie times. Type "movies, <your zipcode>".
Google doesn't show ads when you're looking for concerts. Type "concerts" etc.
Google doesn't show ads when you're looking for news.
So it isn't that
google has first go at ads
because google forgoes that opportunity.
As the summary points out,
Google, unlike any other search engine ever, goes to great pains to deliver the least-skewed results possible. Google is constantly on the hunt for people who game their system.
Murdoch's and many others' real objection to Google is that Google's service allows convenient comparison of their companies' product with the competition, and does so honestly. But they can't say that, of course.
Somebody said "it depends" with a certain level of sarcasm above, but I'm going to say it in all seriousness, and echo the "why was this posted" question, also coming from a different angle.
The headline says "open source apps" without qualification, so I'll address all open source apps first
The criteria for wanting an audit are the same, and not all software requires an in-house audit for various and I would have said obvious reasons.
But there are some observations that apply to open source that do not apply to closed source:
Every single proprietary-software vendor on the planet has a huge incentive to find major flaws in every competing product, but only with open source do they have the opportunity.
More specifically addressed to open-source security software, but still widely relevant:
The open-source security components are available for any use (BSD) or any open-source use (GPL). They get re-used. OpenSSL is surely among the most intensively-audited software components on the planet, not least because banks use it to protect financial transactions of all sizes. And OpenSSL is everywhere.
That leaves the following summary of my answer:
And now for something completely different: /. editors, don't you know that sometimes it actually matters?
This story scarcely have been intentionally constructed to more reliably produce a sales pitch for closed-source companies: "Here's a world-famous bastion of open-source advocates — ask any of your geeks, they'll know about slashdot — and look at this, almost everyone there says you have to audit open source. Do you have the resources to do that? No? That's what we thought, so we can dismiss that idea. Now, let's talk."
And that's precisely because the headline doesn't even mention the "security" part. It's "Open Source Apps". All of them. Even here, not reading the summary is rampant. How closely do you think a busy manager who starts out suspicious of the whole idea is going to examine this?
Bad money drives out good.
My experience has been very like that. I didn't grill them, I started on a $14/mo easy-out plan they had for a while, have upgraded several times since, and they've always delivered on their advertised rates. No cheating, they don't count link protocol overhead, I get my full data rate in both directions, pretty much always.
But their router keeps trying to connect to port 80 on my machine.
Well, that and Bing has been caught suppressing results unfavorable to Microsoft.
What do you think?
Think they'll do that for other commercial vendors?
Think they'll distort searches on political issues they favor or dislike?
I think they will.
Yeah. If we don't pay off the rich people handsomely enough they won't pitch in to help save lives.
All the free-market advocates silently ignore one simple fact: if the seller is forced to sell and the buyers are not forced to buy, it's not a free market.
All Google is doing is refreshing its cache before entries expire.
Well, no, it isn't.
Did you miss the part where they're setting up a global network of public servers doing it free for everyone on the planet that wants it?
Or the part where doing it their particular "nothing special" way is exactly what's needed to avoid letting entries go stale where it's possible at all?
Or the part where they say that they do it that way precisely because the entire point is they want their servers to respond fast, as if, somehow, not having a valid entry on hand would delay their servers' response?
Did you miss not just the whole point of the story but every little detail too?
I'm thinking "not heavily into reading comprehension" is the charitable explanation here.
Imaginary circumstances you made up on the spot "undermine his defense"?
Grand juries reject any but actually farcical allegations?
Last jury I was on was a drug case. The state had to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he had it under his possession and control, he knew he had it under his possession and control, he knew what it was, and he intended to sell it. I could see why the case made it to trial, that wasn't easy. We voted to convict him and every time I revisit it the gut check comes back the same: we got it right.
Trusting any one-sided description of events strikes me as risky, but going on what's in the article I'd think it'd be hard to prove any sane sense of the word "possession", let alone conscious possession.
So there's at least one of three things going on here: the public defender's recommendation to plead guilty is incompetent, the public defender knows something about the case that we don't, or the law is insane.
Kinda hard to tell what's going here.
No, I read it alright.
The TTL on a DNS cache entry is supplied by the record's owner, and is an authoritative statement by that owner that the contents will remain valid at least until the TTL has expired. No DNS server will ever return a reply whose TTL has expired simply because anything that does return such a reply isn't a DNS server.
So your Dad scenario, the "probably still good" reply, and of course your absolute assertion just now that you can "get an invalid entry", isn't just a little wrong, it's completely and blatantly ignorant.
I've pulled boners just as bad myself, mind.
Guess the mods aren't heavily into reading comprehension these days? Preemptive caching will mean querying upstream before the TTL expires even in the absence of a client request, so by the time Dad wants to see it Google has already fetched the new record. The only question is when to allow a RR to age out of the cache.
Maybe Microsoft will learn the distinction between money and value before the damage gets too bad.
Is this really the only way Microsoft can make their products look good, by overtly attempting to damage competitors' products?
The gist is that google, ms and yahoo can't do a damn thing about it.
Yes, they can. Google does. Microsoft doesn't.
Email isn't science but that doesn't mean it isn't interesting. If the email says "Hey Bob, your algorithm didn't produce the level of warming we were expecting, we need you to rework it so it is in line with our expectations" that would say a lot about how the 'science' is being done.
Let's say you have three algorithmic models which all produce different, but similar data. Except for certain data points, where they wildly diverge.
A new model is created to resolve this ambiguity. It's run, and the results disagree with the other models, on *everything*, even the things that the other models all agree on, and which are thus non-controversial.
It could be that this new model is the holy grail, and all three others are wrong. Or, one could write to its author, saying "your model doesn't jibe with things we're pretty confident in -- you need to rework it so it matches up with our baseline expectations." Out of context? Stop the presses! In context? Boring, and correct.