What's more, an "unsend" feature lets users cancel a message after it's been sent to another AOL or AIM Mail user -- if the message is unread.
Not bad, though hardly innovative - you can already do something close to that with Exchange and other mail systems. What I'd really like is the ability, within a certain time interval, to yank an IM off someone's window if I suddenly changed my mind about wanting them to see it. Anyone that's accidentally sent an IM to the wrong person knows what I'm talking about.:)
Judge Lenard said "any given customer who cross-shops TigerDirect and Apple, whether over the internet or in person at their retail local stores, will be able to distinguish their respective retail outlets due to the distinctive differences in their marketplaces' appearance and messages."
Need proof? Look at the shiny polished Slashdot logo at the top. When was the last time you looked at that and thought "Oh, I'm in the TigerDirect section of Slashdot!"
However, both systems come at a cost. Because the words are produced by a computer, the receiver of the call would hear the speaker talking with an artificial voice.
With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, I'd rather not have my friends/parents/S.O. all sound like him.
Please. N Korea is not going to last no more then another year or so.
They seem to have persisted pretty strongly these last few decades. Yes, they're the last Stalinist regime, propped up by foreign aid since they lack the resources or desire to take care of their own... but they have the one thing that will prevent an unprovoked invasion: weapinzamassdestrukshin. Anyone attacks, South Korea and Japan are dust. Which are unacceptable losses.
Because the Mac has no serious equivalent for things like ISA Server, SQL Server, Commerce Server, Content Management Server, Systems Management Server, Exchange Server, Operations Manager, or even the level of capability afforded by Windows Server 2003 or Windows 2000 Server. This utter lack of matching enterprise-level capability is part of what keeps Macs firmly out of my company's infrastructure.
(1) You ignore all the non-Microsoft groups that spend their time researching Windows vulnerabilities.
(2) OS X is ultimately under the judgment of Apple, who decides what does and does not go into the operating system. You mention lots of open-source fixes - what evidence do you have that every single fix that's been rolled out by every single one of the groups that you listed was in fact implemented in every iteration of OS X that Apple has released over the years? Heck, even most of them? Of course anything open-source has more people working on it, but it still falls to Apple to review and institute anything that comes its way, and we have no guarantee that they are in fact doing this.
In its seventh bi-annual Internet Security Threat Report, Symantec said over the past year, security researchers had discovered at least 37 serious vulnerabilities in the Mac OS X system.
Don't let this line fool you - it doesn't necessarily mean that OS X is inherently more secure than Windows, or Linux, or whatever. It can safely be said that the amount of resources being expended to identify and cure OS X vulnerabilities is at least somewhat smaller than those used for Windows, in rough proportion to OS X's much smaller market share. The lesser amount of pure research, plus the lesser amount of wild exposure, mean that there will be plenty security-wise in OS X that's missed. The truth won't really be known until OS X gains enough visibility to have as much as, or at least a fair chunk of, what Windows has thrown at it on a daily basis.
Obscurity isn't a permanent solution by any means, and here is the proof.
People often say that about IE -- they must hit a lot more flashy sites than I do, as I've never noticed anything suffering in a Mac browser besides the Outlook web interface.
I'm not talking about superficial site appearance, though - I'm talking about substantial functionality that depends on the presence of the.NET framework. My company, for example, runs six web applications that require this - they're COM+/ASP/.NET dealies for which there exists absolutely no way to access from a Mac. This is a mortgage company, so we have lots of people wanting to access these sites from home. The percentage of potential Mac switchers that also have such requirements may not be overwhelmingly huge, but it will be significant.
What is missing from the Mac Internet software lineup to hold it down to the level of "respectable"?
Man, doesn't take much to get eaten alive by the Mac crowd, does it?:)
The one thing that's keeping me from giving the poll of available Mac Internet software a five-star rating is the lack of Internet Explorer 6. This isn't because I consider IE 6 to be a superior browser, but because it is quite simply the web browsing standard, and it isn't available for the Mac. This isn't Apple's fault, of course. On a Mac, the best alternatives you have would be Firefox or Safari. Even so, there is all sorts of functionality specific to IE 6, as well as the.NET framework for websites that make use of it (such as lots of corporate ASP.NET sites), that will probably never be available for the Mac. Like I said, it's not Apple's fault - but the fact remains.
The irony is that an X-Box was the final factor in my decision, since I found myself spending most of my gameplaying time on the console, I do not need a PC around to run games.
I would go further and say that there may be a great deal of overlap between the people that switch to Macs and the people that primarily use consoles for gaming - total end users that like the simplicity of hooking a console to a TV, shoving in a game, and having it just work, and similarly like the simplicity of plopping down in front of their Mac and having it "just work."
The big question is whether the Mac's software library is up to the task. It has respectable Internet software available and there is Mac Office (IMHO the single most important application to the Mac platform).
Put a laptop with wireless Internet access in your car, hook it to your stereo, and install some software that speaks the text of websites. Then point your browser to Slashdot commentary.
You'll be laughing so hard that you'll drive into a telephone pole, and you won't have to worry about commuting for a while.
While they have not yet started tests on humans, the researchers said the range of the injector is well beyond what would be needed to deliver drugs through human skin.
So for God's sake, ask the nurse to check the settings before she pulls the trigger.
I concede the legal point about copyright, which is what the whole lawsuit is about. That part of it is pretty cut-and-dried. However, that's not my main concern. One of the points the the article (though not necessarily AFP itself) seems to make is that AFP wants its content to only be able to paying customers. Unless that content is locked down on a technical level, this objective is dead. Several companies, amazingly, still have not realized just how easy the Internet has made the dissemination of information. Heck, even with paid user accounts, it's all too easy for someone to copy, paste, and reproduce, either privately or commercially. Obviously the ease does not justify the act from a legal standpoint, but it nevertheless presents a logistical reality that companies need to take into account when making any sort of information available online.
AFP sells subscriptions to its content and does not provide it free. Google News gathers photos and news stories from around the Web and posts them on its news site, which is free to users.
If Agence France Presse didn't want people to view their content for free......why didn't they properly lock it down?
It's not like Google's impersonating a paid user account to get the information!
Heck, let's get even more general. I searched for "fun" and got the following results:
When I was an undergrad there weren't enough cycles around to make graphics interesting, but it's hard to imagine anything more fun to work on now.
There's a fundamental problem in "computer science"...
When Harvard kicks undergrads out for a year, they have to get jobs. The idea is to show them how awful the real world is, so they'll understand how lucky they are to be in college. This plan backfired with the guy who came to work for us, because he had more fun than he'd had in school, and made more that year from stock options than any of his professors did in salary.
It's interesting, isn't it, what you can quickly conclude if you just search for the right terms. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a kegger to attend.
Ever since I first got acquainted with e-mail on my Apple IIe in the '80s, I've used e-mail programs that offer plain-text storage as at least an option. It's one of the most universal formats in existence, and can be read one way or another on computers both decades old and brand new. I encountered some weird proprietary clients in the '90s that still stored e-mail in this format, because from a corporate perspective, this stuff was still in its infancy, plus HTML hadn't yet mucked everything up. To this day I still store in plain text from Eudora 6.2.
I burn it to CD-Rs that I know won't get moved around or scratched. They stand a good chance of lasting the rest of my life.
Slashdot Mirror
What's more, an "unsend" feature lets users cancel a message after it's been sent to another AOL or AIM Mail user -- if the message is unread.
:)
Not bad, though hardly innovative - you can already do something close to that with Exchange and other mail systems. What I'd really like is the ability, within a certain time interval, to yank an IM off someone's window if I suddenly changed my mind about wanting them to see it. Anyone that's accidentally sent an IM to the wrong person knows what I'm talking about.
Judge Lenard said "any given customer who cross-shops TigerDirect and Apple, whether over the internet or in person at their retail local stores, will be able to distinguish their respective retail outlets due to the distinctive differences in their marketplaces' appearance and messages."
Need proof? Look at the shiny polished Slashdot logo at the top. When was the last time you looked at that and thought "Oh, I'm in the TigerDirect section of Slashdot!"
However, both systems come at a cost. Because the words are produced by a computer, the receiver of the call would hear the speaker talking with an artificial voice.
With all due respect to Stephen Hawking, I'd rather not have my friends/parents/S.O. all sound like him.
Please. N Korea is not going to last no more then another year or so.
They seem to have persisted pretty strongly these last few decades. Yes, they're the last Stalinist regime, propped up by foreign aid since they lack the resources or desire to take care of their own... but they have the one thing that will prevent an unprovoked invasion: weapinzamassdestrukshin. Anyone attacks, South Korea and Japan are dust. Which are unacceptable losses.
Why aren't we all using Macs in the first place?
Because the Mac has no serious equivalent for things like ISA Server, SQL Server, Commerce Server, Content Management Server, Systems Management Server, Exchange Server, Operations Manager, or even the level of capability afforded by Windows Server 2003 or Windows 2000 Server. This utter lack of matching enterprise-level capability is part of what keeps Macs firmly out of my company's infrastructure.
I am not a technology owner.
;)
I call bullshit.
Ubuntu and UserLinux
I give you... UberLinux.
OS X gets fixes from Apple..... etc.
(1) You ignore all the non-Microsoft groups that spend their time researching Windows vulnerabilities.
(2) OS X is ultimately under the judgment of Apple, who decides what does and does not go into the operating system. You mention lots of open-source fixes - what evidence do you have that every single fix that's been rolled out by every single one of the groups that you listed was in fact implemented in every iteration of OS X that Apple has released over the years? Heck, even most of them? Of course anything open-source has more people working on it, but it still falls to Apple to review and institute anything that comes its way, and we have no guarantee that they are in fact doing this.
In its seventh bi-annual Internet Security Threat Report, Symantec said over the past year, security researchers had discovered at least 37 serious vulnerabilities in the Mac OS X system.
Don't let this line fool you - it doesn't necessarily mean that OS X is inherently more secure than Windows, or Linux, or whatever. It can safely be said that the amount of resources being expended to identify and cure OS X vulnerabilities is at least somewhat smaller than those used for Windows, in rough proportion to OS X's much smaller market share. The lesser amount of pure research, plus the lesser amount of wild exposure, mean that there will be plenty security-wise in OS X that's missed. The truth won't really be known until OS X gains enough visibility to have as much as, or at least a fair chunk of, what Windows has thrown at it on a daily basis.
Obscurity isn't a permanent solution by any means, and here is the proof.
Is that so wrong?
Yes. Now, back to the bash prompt with you, heathen, and may the glistening tentacles of Aqua and Luna never intrude upon your conscience again!
(I kid, I kid. Luna doesn't glisten.)
People often say that about IE -- they must hit a lot more flashy sites than I do, as I've never noticed anything suffering in a Mac browser besides the Outlook web interface.
.NET framework. My company, for example, runs six web applications that require this - they're COM+/ASP/.NET dealies for which there exists absolutely no way to access from a Mac. This is a mortgage company, so we have lots of people wanting to access these sites from home. The percentage of potential Mac switchers that also have such requirements may not be overwhelmingly huge, but it will be significant.
I'm not talking about superficial site appearance, though - I'm talking about substantial functionality that depends on the presence of the
What is missing from the Mac Internet software lineup to hold it down to the level of "respectable"?
:)
.NET framework for websites that make use of it (such as lots of corporate ASP.NET sites), that will probably never be available for the Mac. Like I said, it's not Apple's fault - but the fact remains.
Man, doesn't take much to get eaten alive by the Mac crowd, does it?
The one thing that's keeping me from giving the poll of available Mac Internet software a five-star rating is the lack of Internet Explorer 6. This isn't because I consider IE 6 to be a superior browser, but because it is quite simply the web browsing standard, and it isn't available for the Mac. This isn't Apple's fault, of course. On a Mac, the best alternatives you have would be Firefox or Safari. Even so, there is all sorts of functionality specific to IE 6, as well as the
Let me know when this electronic thumb can signal spaceships for a lift. ;)
The irony is that an X-Box was the final factor in my decision, since I found myself spending most of my gameplaying time on the console, I do not need a PC around to run games.
I would go further and say that there may be a great deal of overlap between the people that switch to Macs and the people that primarily use consoles for gaming - total end users that like the simplicity of hooking a console to a TV, shoving in a game, and having it just work, and similarly like the simplicity of plopping down in front of their Mac and having it "just work."
The big question is whether the Mac's software library is up to the task. It has respectable Internet software available and there is Mac Office (IMHO the single most important application to the Mac platform).
Put a laptop with wireless Internet access in your car, hook it to your stereo, and install some software that speaks the text of websites. Then point your browser to Slashdot commentary.
You'll be laughing so hard that you'll drive into a telephone pole, and you won't have to worry about commuting for a while.
While they have not yet started tests on humans, the researchers said the range of the injector is well beyond what would be needed to deliver drugs through human skin.
So for God's sake, ask the nurse to check the settings before she pulls the trigger.
I concede the legal point about copyright, which is what the whole lawsuit is about. That part of it is pretty cut-and-dried. However, that's not my main concern. One of the points the the article (though not necessarily AFP itself) seems to make is that AFP wants its content to only be able to paying customers. Unless that content is locked down on a technical level, this objective is dead. Several companies, amazingly, still have not realized just how easy the Internet has made the dissemination of information. Heck, even with paid user accounts, it's all too easy for someone to copy, paste, and reproduce, either privately or commercially. Obviously the ease does not justify the act from a legal standpoint, but it nevertheless presents a logistical reality that companies need to take into account when making any sort of information available online.
AFP sells subscriptions to its content and does not provide it free. Google News gathers photos and news stories from around the Web and posts them on its news site, which is free to users.
...why didn't they properly lock it down?
If Agence France Presse didn't want people to view their content for free...
It's not like Google's impersonating a paid user account to get the information!
Heck, let's get even more general. I searched for "fun" and got the following results:
When I was an undergrad there weren't enough cycles around to make graphics interesting, but it's hard to imagine anything more fun to work on now.
There's a fundamental problem in "computer science"...
When Harvard kicks undergrads out for a year, they have to get jobs. The idea is to show them how awful the real world is, so they'll understand how lucky they are to be in college. This plan backfired with the guy who came to work for us, because he had more fun than he'd had in school, and made more that year from stock options than any of his professors did in salary.
It's interesting, isn't it, what you can quickly conclude if you just search for the right terms. Now if you'll excuse me, I have a kegger to attend.
If Microsoft don't come up with a solution that the EU finds acceptable, then they can be fined $5m a day.
I have no illusions that Microsoft would actually pay that - it's an exorbitant amount.
The worst punishment the EU can mete out is to bar Microsoft from doing business in participating countries.
If/when that happens, what will European Average Joe consumer reaction be?
...is just terribly dated no matter how you look at it.
Therefore, to compensate for that, the outfit needs to be a lot skimpier. Enough skin and we won't notice the datedness.
1) Bored Unix programmer visits the Unix time conversion website and enters in "1111111111" for shits and giggles.
2) Bored Unix programmer sees that this is equivalent to just a little while from now.
3) Bored Unix programmer tosses around a few more numbers and submits the story to Slashdot.
4) Story becomes Slashdot front-page news.
...would have been a lone picture of a smushed Morley cigarette.
Will IE 7 have 'Electric Kool-Aid' tags?
Ever since I first got acquainted with e-mail on my Apple IIe in the '80s, I've used e-mail programs that offer plain-text storage as at least an option. It's one of the most universal formats in existence, and can be read one way or another on computers both decades old and brand new. I encountered some weird proprietary clients in the '90s that still stored e-mail in this format, because from a corporate perspective, this stuff was still in its infancy, plus HTML hadn't yet mucked everything up. To this day I still store in plain text from Eudora 6.2.
I burn it to CD-Rs that I know won't get moved around or scratched. They stand a good chance of lasting the rest of my life.