Well I figured Rove would have been more polite than your christian name... 'shitbreath dogfucker', which by the name is a wierd name choice for you mother to make but nonetheless appropriate.
If the flesh eating virus attacks my hand and then has access to my arm as a result of the fact that my nervous system decided to give everything easy access to each other, then that arm desrves to get taken! CHOP THAT BABY OFF AND HEAD FOR THE NECK I SAY!!
If they wanted the apps to remain separate and sandboxed, they should have done so to begin with. Slap on the hand and one in the face to Microsoft for not doing so.
Is it too soon to start spitting on his children in the streets... or should we just set his SUV on fire?
If the bush administration is reading this and is humor impaired, this was a joke and was not a terrorist threat on the life of Mr Hanrahan, his children or the employees or stockholders of Microsoft and its subsidiaries. God bless America and may it never burn ito a smoldering pile of ash on the date of August 13th at 3:22PM EST.
exactly. These were never necessary before the 'leave everything open' operating system mentallity that microsoft bread. Then taking over all other spaces and having all their applications talk to each other and trust each other without any question was an even bigger mistake. Hence, if it was built by Microsoft and runs on Microsofts and uses Microsoft, then it must be safe... let it through. WRONG!!!
They are JUST NOW realizing that both a) leaving your system wide open is a bad idea and b)having all applications that you build trust each other by default is also a bad idea. A mono-theistic environment is bad from everyone... thats why we need more athiests.
Do they have a right to rummage through your laundry? Interogate your children? Go through your house in the middle of the night with a flashlight? No. Then what makes you think they have the right to go through your head? This isn't national security. And I speak from experience as I actual had to undergo a background check for a top secret clearance and they dig up EVERYTHING. And they continue to watch you for years afterward.
THAT is the kind of job that I accept where it is needed. As my mental health can get people killed, cause international chaos, etc. At most, in a job, if I have a bad day, they fire me. Simple as that. That is to say as long as you are not drawing broad conclusions and assuming that 1 out of 10 people who needs to see a mental health care professional is a psycho killer. If you want to know a sad fact, trouble in the workplace is usually caused by those who DO NOT see a mental health care professional as they have not been taught good coping skills for their stress or how to deal with their own mental issues.
There are only a rare number of cases where you need to be asking for someones medical records and they are not as numerous as you would make them out to be. I as an employer wouldn't even need to know if you were epileptic unless you drove a vehicle to which I would only have to ask if there was any medical condition that would prohibit you from driving a vehicle and have you sign a paper affirming your statement. Done. I'm protected and didn't need to delve into your past.
Well true. Not needing security is only part of the equation though. We are talking about something MORE than that though. Security is the other half of the AJAX coin that looks just as ugly.
And it's not malicious injection that we are talking about. It's the way the web browser was built and ALL web browsers are built. They do not spawn new javascript namespaces with each window or tab. There is one for ALL of them!! The more we rely heavily on javascript, the more this becomes apparent. The only way around this (with javascript) is to spawn a new instance of the web browser with each new window and each new tab and then you have a whole generation of new issues.
AJAX and Web2.0 have created a domino effect that is going to cascade down to every other site that invests TOO HEAVILY in it.
But in moderation, these things should all be fine and only show MINOR quirks. The only problem is building web delivered applications using these tools... which is the current hype and thats the snowball thats rolling downhill as we speak.
Oh there's a Microsoft-cult. It just consists of those stupid enough to invest in stock that has flatlined for the last 5 years and those silly enough to put all their development experience in one basket. You say anything about Microsoft that they don't like whether it's true or not and they instantly get panicky because you are either A) affecting their stock price or B) might actually be right and they would have to confront the fact that they are one trick ponies as developers (regardless of all the.NET hype).
Don't have one. Mentioned it to Mozilla code contributor and was given the brushoff; was told this was fixed but when mentioned current issues were not fixed, they said those are existing limitations that developers should be aware of. No bug submitted, no bug listed. And this isn't just with Firefox. Same issue exists with all tabbed browsers and all systems that use multiple windows without spawning new instances of the browser. It's an inherent flaw that makes web delivered applications an impossibillity.
It's been mentioned before and that's how I found out about it when I was tracking down our problem. I just can't believe how many people are so willing to brush the inherent flaws with Web2.0 under the rug so they can push this new paradigm. I was always taught that the more something is hyped, the closer you have to examine it. And I almost was totally onboard that train until I ran across this flaw. It's a doozy.
This has been confirmed by Mozilla contributors I talked to when I found this in the wild. Mozilla acknowledged this awhile ago and said it was fixed but it still exists, it's just that it's limited to domains thus allowing SUBDOMAINS to overwrite each other. This cannot be avoided as each TAB is NOT a separate launch of a new web browser instance but just a new window basically is that same with IE, Safari and all the others and can only be fixed by getting rid of tabbed browsing or making each new tab a brand new instance of the browser (thus removing any real benefit of tabbed browsing).
For this, you will have to find out on your own as I did when launching a complex AJAX driven web app. AJAX and javascript have inherent flaws in their delivery method (ie the browser) as well as security that make it impossible to delivery an application across all platforms that will react the same. You don't know how the application is going to react more on more based upon the users browser.
Aside from that, the ongoing issue with Web 2.0 apps and javascript with multiple tabs using the same shared namespace and overwriting variable names still hasn't been highlighted by the security community and as AJAX and web based applications become more prominent, the end user will find more and more applications breaking other applications.
And this is precisley the problem. You believe that merely because you have seen an extreme in bipolarity that all bipolar people are like this or have the ability to revert to this kind of extreme. It's not like that at all. It's like taking a drink. I am bipolar and have been told that I don't even NEED meds but I have found that I am less irritable and find it easier to get by when I am on them. I function fine, am not self destructive and you wouldn't be able to tell me from any other person on the street... even off meds. In fact most people are surprised when I tell them that I am bipolar as they have this picture painted in their heads of what it is to be this way.
And that's the issue. People will pigeon hole me if they see those medical records without even seeing the person or meeting the person. I'm one of the original members of Amazon.com, own a house and am happily married but they will just see an image of a psychotic in their heads even though psychosis is an entirely different diagnosis and completely unrelated. This is due to their own stigmas and societys stigmas and an ongoing ignorance of good mental health.
For the record, the terms are manic and depressive. Another term for bipolarity is manic-depression; bipolarity is the more politically correct term used by the medical profession and manic-depression is considered outdated though it describes it perfectly.
Celebritys are forgiven of alot more than normal people are forgiven of when looking for jobs... that includes CEOs, politicians and other people who live in the privileged social set. We either want to forget or tend to forget or are made to forget because money is to be made off of WHO they are. No money is to be made off who you and I are so our status is unimportant and nobody is going to try and make others forgive or gorget our histories.
I understand. Unfortunately in our day and age, seeing a mental health care professional DOES raise red flags due to a stigma with the psychological profession and mental health. Honestly, seeing a mental health professional should be as routine as getting a yearly dental checkup (and probably should be as regular if not more) but due to the ongoing stigma and the fact that most insurance agencies still see it as an unnecessary expense, our society pays the price for the masses at large feeling themselves to be made pariahs should they make public that they have sought mental care at some time in the past.
Define mentally stable? George Bush apparently fits that bill as does Jerry Falwell. Technically, those who have taken the time to SEE a psychological professional are those who care enough about their mental well being. Should they be punished by societys stigmatization of this? Just because you refuse to see a mental health care professional or have never seen one, does this necessarily mean that you are stable? No, it just means that you have never seen one. But that is not the conclusion that will be drawn.
personally, I wouldn't want to hire a corporate tax accountant that can't keep himself out of debt...web design specialist, not too worried about it
Well since this is slashdot, I think we can limit the number of corporate tax accountant that will be reading this question to a relatively small number and safely assume this applies to technical professionals. To which, as you stated, this doesn't really apply. Hence my, and the authors original concern.
I've drawn my line at looking at my financial and even my health records; some people feel these help tell whether you are 'stable' but some of the most creative types in the world are financially incompetent. I myself am bipolar so neither of these records should be a reflection of what kind of person I am as far as I'm concerned especially now that I have found a decent medication and stayed on it continuously for over a year.
I understand that employers feel they need to protect themselves but they shouldn't be so paranoid as to limit their employee pool to only the financially stable, mentally stable and law abiding. They'll never get someone who thinks outside of the box then.
Really gekkily cool? Most Microsoft employees?? Ok, beg to differ... having seen most of the people who visit the Micrpspft Health Club (www.prosports.com) and ahng around campus and having had to meet with their developers, they do not understand any technology outside of Microsoft and rarely understand open standards. The adopt technology AFTER it has become cool are are usually always late to the game.
You know that kid who shows up at the party wearing parachite pants when they went out of style 5 years ago? That describes all of Microsoft and nearly everyone who works there. I'm sure there are exceptions but it shows in the products that they launch always duplicating products that are already established as cool; they wouldn't know cool if it slipped them a rufie, humped their leg and tattooed it's phone number to their forehead.
When they have as many CRITICAL issues to software that is TIED DIRECTLY TO THE KERNEL. Most software developers realize that this is 'stoopid' with two O's. Having all of your applications talking together and passing information back and forth is like having the CIA openly talk about all of it's top secret files in your local Tully's or Starbucks for everyone to hear... you get the security you create and enforce.
Microsoft was never meant to be secure, it was meant to be open and interactive and for all of the apps to be able to talk to each other and share info with each other. And to date they are still trying to find a way to do this without letting people KNOW that they are doing it. Other OS's like Linux and BSD were not created in such a fashion; Security is not a second class citizen. And that's probably why you don't see them getting raked over the coals.
Sure Microsoft has started going through the motions but they are not addressing the underlying issues that actually make their products insecure by design and until then, they'll probably still continue to get raked over the coals.
Slashdot Mirror
Hey, Why drop the re-elect Karl Rove sig now, Karl? Afraid you are giving yourself away?
Well I figured Rove would have been more polite than your christian name... 'shitbreath dogfucker', which by the name is a wierd name choice for you mother to make but nonetheless appropriate.
If the flesh eating virus attacks my hand and then has access to my arm as a result of the fact that my nervous system decided to give everything easy access to each other, then that arm desrves to get taken! CHOP THAT BABY OFF AND HEAD FOR THE NECK I SAY!!
If they wanted the apps to remain separate and sandboxed, they should have done so to begin with. Slap on the hand and one in the face to Microsoft for not doing so.
Actually, if you are patient, they eventually all roll over, explode and catch fire eventually. God bless America.
yeah but didn't MC CPU pop a cap in his ass in the central core?
Rove, I thought they put your brain in a vat after Cheney stole your heart during his last bypass surgery??
Is it too soon to start spitting on his children in the streets... or should we just set his SUV on fire?
If the bush administration is reading this and is humor impaired, this was a joke and was not a terrorist threat on the life of Mr Hanrahan, his children or the employees or stockholders of Microsoft and its subsidiaries. God bless America and may it never burn ito a smoldering pile of ash on the date of August 13th at 3:22PM EST.
They are JUST NOW realizing that both a) leaving your system wide open is a bad idea and b)having all applications that you build trust each other by default is also a bad idea. A mono-theistic environment is bad from everyone... thats why we need more athiests.
Put down the chair Steve and come out with your hands up.
Do they have a right to rummage through your laundry? Interogate your children? Go through your house in the middle of the night with a flashlight? No. Then what makes you think they have the right to go through your head? This isn't national security. And I speak from experience as I actual had to undergo a background check for a top secret clearance and they dig up EVERYTHING. And they continue to watch you for years afterward.
THAT is the kind of job that I accept where it is needed. As my mental health can get people killed, cause international chaos, etc. At most, in a job, if I have a bad day, they fire me. Simple as that. That is to say as long as you are not drawing broad conclusions and assuming that 1 out of 10 people who needs to see a mental health care professional is a psycho killer. If you want to know a sad fact, trouble in the workplace is usually caused by those who DO NOT see a mental health care professional as they have not been taught good coping skills for their stress or how to deal with their own mental issues.
There are only a rare number of cases where you need to be asking for someones medical records and they are not as numerous as you would make them out to be. I as an employer wouldn't even need to know if you were epileptic unless you drove a vehicle to which I would only have to ask if there was any medical condition that would prohibit you from driving a vehicle and have you sign a paper affirming your statement. Done. I'm protected and didn't need to delve into your past.
Well true. Not needing security is only part of the equation though. We are talking about something MORE than that though. Security is the other half of the AJAX coin that looks just as ugly.
And it's not malicious injection that we are talking about. It's the way the web browser was built and ALL web browsers are built. They do not spawn new javascript namespaces with each window or tab. There is one for ALL of them!! The more we rely heavily on javascript, the more this becomes apparent. The only way around this (with javascript) is to spawn a new instance of the web browser with each new window and each new tab and then you have a whole generation of new issues.
AJAX and Web2.0 have created a domino effect that is going to cascade down to every other site that invests TOO HEAVILY in it.
But in moderation, these things should all be fine and only show MINOR quirks. The only problem is building web delivered applications using these tools... which is the current hype and thats the snowball thats rolling downhill as we speak.
Oh there's a Microsoft-cult. It just consists of those stupid enough to invest in stock that has flatlined for the last 5 years and those silly enough to put all their development experience in one basket. You say anything about Microsoft that they don't like whether it's true or not and they instantly get panicky because you are either A) affecting their stock price or B) might actually be right and they would have to confront the fact that they are one trick ponies as developers (regardless of all the .NET hype).
Don't have one. Mentioned it to Mozilla code contributor and was given the brushoff; was told this was fixed but when mentioned current issues were not fixed, they said those are existing limitations that developers should be aware of. No bug submitted, no bug listed. And this isn't just with Firefox. Same issue exists with all tabbed browsers and all systems that use multiple windows without spawning new instances of the browser. It's an inherent flaw that makes web delivered applications an impossibillity.
It's been mentioned before and that's how I found out about it when I was tracking down our problem. I just can't believe how many people are so willing to brush the inherent flaws with Web2.0 under the rug so they can push this new paradigm. I was always taught that the more something is hyped, the closer you have to examine it. And I almost was totally onboard that train until I ran across this flaw. It's a doozy.
This has been confirmed by Mozilla contributors I talked to when I found this in the wild. Mozilla acknowledged this awhile ago and said it was fixed but it still exists, it's just that it's limited to domains thus allowing SUBDOMAINS to overwrite each other. This cannot be avoided as each TAB is NOT a separate launch of a new web browser instance but just a new window basically is that same with IE, Safari and all the others and can only be fixed by getting rid of tabbed browsing or making each new tab a brand new instance of the browser (thus removing any real benefit of tabbed browsing).
For this, you will have to find out on your own as I did when launching a complex AJAX driven web app. AJAX and javascript have inherent flaws in their delivery method (ie the browser) as well as security that make it impossible to delivery an application across all platforms that will react the same. You don't know how the application is going to react more on more based upon the users browser.
Aside from that, the ongoing issue with Web 2.0 apps and javascript with multiple tabs using the same shared namespace and overwriting variable names still hasn't been highlighted by the security community and as AJAX and web based applications become more prominent, the end user will find more and more applications breaking other applications.
And this is precisley the problem. You believe that merely because you have seen an extreme in bipolarity that all bipolar people are like this or have the ability to revert to this kind of extreme. It's not like that at all. It's like taking a drink. I am bipolar and have been told that I don't even NEED meds but I have found that I am less irritable and find it easier to get by when I am on them. I function fine, am not self destructive and you wouldn't be able to tell me from any other person on the street... even off meds. In fact most people are surprised when I tell them that I am bipolar as they have this picture painted in their heads of what it is to be this way.
And that's the issue. People will pigeon hole me if they see those medical records without even seeing the person or meeting the person. I'm one of the original members of Amazon.com, own a house and am happily married but they will just see an image of a psychotic in their heads even though psychosis is an entirely different diagnosis and completely unrelated. This is due to their own stigmas and societys stigmas and an ongoing ignorance of good mental health.
For the record, the terms are manic and depressive. Another term for bipolarity is manic-depression; bipolarity is the more politically correct term used by the medical profession and manic-depression is considered outdated though it describes it perfectly.
Celebritys are forgiven of alot more than normal people are forgiven of when looking for jobs... that includes CEOs, politicians and other people who live in the privileged social set. We either want to forget or tend to forget or are made to forget because money is to be made off of WHO they are. No money is to be made off who you and I are so our status is unimportant and nobody is going to try and make others forgive or gorget our histories.
Heh.. comparing me to Steve Ballmer actually makes me WANT to throw a chair.
I understand. Unfortunately in our day and age, seeing a mental health care professional DOES raise red flags due to a stigma with the psychological profession and mental health. Honestly, seeing a mental health professional should be as routine as getting a yearly dental checkup (and probably should be as regular if not more) but due to the ongoing stigma and the fact that most insurance agencies still see it as an unnecessary expense, our society pays the price for the masses at large feeling themselves to be made pariahs should they make public that they have sought mental care at some time in the past.
Define mentally stable? George Bush apparently fits that bill as does Jerry Falwell. Technically, those who have taken the time to SEE a psychological professional are those who care enough about their mental well being. Should they be punished by societys stigmatization of this? Just because you refuse to see a mental health care professional or have never seen one, does this necessarily mean that you are stable? No, it just means that you have never seen one. But that is not the conclusion that will be drawn.
It's called politics. Try running for office some time. Of course, it helps if you already happen to be privileged to begin with.
I've drawn my line at looking at my financial and even my health records; some people feel these help tell whether you are 'stable' but some of the most creative types in the world are financially incompetent. I myself am bipolar so neither of these records should be a reflection of what kind of person I am as far as I'm concerned especially now that I have found a decent medication and stayed on it continuously for over a year.
I understand that employers feel they need to protect themselves but they shouldn't be so paranoid as to limit their employee pool to only the financially stable, mentally stable and law abiding. They'll never get someone who thinks outside of the box then.
Really gekkily cool? Most Microsoft employees?? Ok, beg to differ... having seen most of the people who visit the Micrpspft Health Club (www.prosports.com) and ahng around campus and having had to meet with their developers, they do not understand any technology outside of Microsoft and rarely understand open standards. The adopt technology AFTER it has become cool are are usually always late to the game.
You know that kid who shows up at the party wearing parachite pants when they went out of style 5 years ago? That describes all of Microsoft and nearly everyone who works there. I'm sure there are exceptions but it shows in the products that they launch always duplicating products that are already established as cool; they wouldn't know cool if it slipped them a rufie, humped their leg and tattooed it's phone number to their forehead.
When they have as many CRITICAL issues to software that is TIED DIRECTLY TO THE KERNEL. Most software developers realize that this is 'stoopid' with two O's. Having all of your applications talking together and passing information back and forth is like having the CIA openly talk about all of it's top secret files in your local Tully's or Starbucks for everyone to hear... you get the security you create and enforce.
Microsoft was never meant to be secure, it was meant to be open and interactive and for all of the apps to be able to talk to each other and share info with each other. And to date they are still trying to find a way to do this without letting people KNOW that they are doing it. Other OS's like Linux and BSD were not created in such a fashion; Security is not a second class citizen. And that's probably why you don't see them getting raked over the coals.
Sure Microsoft has started going through the motions but they are not addressing the underlying issues that actually make their products insecure by design and until then, they'll probably still continue to get raked over the coals.