Operating under the theory that if you kill the head, the body will follow... find and disable the command-and-control infrastructure that powers millions of zombie drone machines
Here you go: One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 Phone: (425) 882-8080 Fax: (425) 706-7329.
Its not a question of dynamic content per se - the indexers have no problem with that - they have a problem with dynamic content that includes passed parameters. What value do you give them? For example, how would you index a site like google, which requires parameterized queries? What parameters are valid, and how do you avoid getting stuck in an endlessly growing tree, where every dynamic query generates links for 20 other possible queries?
I did mention that it would also improve accessibility for people who have problems, such as those who use screen readers. We have a few people in the journal circle here whose significant others are in that position. If you can do good AND fix the serach engine problem, you should be a winner. Its not just googe - all search engines are wary of pages that are generated by passed parameters.
You know that you can make an alternate set of pages just for googlebot and the other crawlers that have problems crawling dynamic content... it may also help you with people who have accessability problems - so everyone benefits.
I know that here, many people are spending an inordinate amount of time on the computer, to the point where it has negatively impacted their time spent with people in social settings (iow - people are becoming less social). Blogging is yet another time sink, on top of the web, email, etc.
Do you foresee the same negative long-term effects in the middle east as we've experienced?
However, keep in mind that these solutions require custom hardware, so you can't just "upgrade" the software on your current systems. Also, it works with conventional CCTV security cameras (regular, pan-tilt-zoom, and infrared), not the crappy IP Net-Cams from Axis and others.
1. While I hate Windows, I've assembled DVR systems (1.5 tb of raid storage, 16 channels video+audio @ 25fps, viewable/searchable over the internet) that don't have problems with anti-virus software. (now you can go up to 64 av channels per unit on the same system, btw).
2. I tested a few linux-based systems - they're "not there yet." Maybe in a couple more years.
So, in essence, they're saying they want desktops cluttered with unnecessary features.
Looking at most people's Windows Desktop, they just want a desktop cluttered with so many icons that they downloaded and saved "to their desktop so they can find them" that they can't find ANYTHING.
And don't even try to suggest they save anything elsewhere. "Save it to a directory? What's a directory? How will I find it afterwards?"
You'd have a more constructive use of your time surreptiosly taking your laser pointer out and telling them their optical mouse is leaking dangerous lasr radiation, and can blind them at any moment. At least this way, you get a free mouse for your efforts.
Totally irrelevant to what I had posted. Also, again, they already know that their new code is also going to be just as subject to viruses as their old code was - that's why they're including an anti-virus. Microsoft can't make a reasonably secure operating system. Its not part of their culture, nor part of their technical capabilities.
Windows - "You won't have to worry about viruses when running Windows - only DOS programs are affected."
Windows 95 - "You won't have to worry about viruses with our new 32-bit operating system."
Windows XP - "You won't have to worry about viruses with our new NT-based operating system."
Vista is going to be holier than swiss cheese, and Microsoft already knows it. Thats why they're working so hard to make the patching process easier - its going to be needed just as much. Ditto for including an anti-virus. Because they can't fix the underlying code. It was crap in 1982. Its still crap today.
Running anti-virus software is a stupid thing to do when you can FIX the system instead.
Just because Microsoft is at the "fix one bug, re-create another" stage doesn't mean Apple has to go the same road.
An analogy - would you rather eat fresh, properly prepared food, or moldy infested crap and a megadose of antibiotics?
(I would have used the "would you rather have sex with someone who isn't infected with HIV, or someone who is, but you take *precautions*", but this is slashdot...)
To borrow your phrase, you may be forgetting that "free as in cost" is a big part of freedom, when cost is a barrier to usage. If the average price of a web browser was $1000.00 per seat per year, we wouldn't be having this discussion - nobody would be using the web.
Before Borland came out with their $100 Turbo C compiler, $3,000.00 per copy was considered "reasonable". A $100 price point for a C compiler was unheard of. There was a lot more freedom to develop code at $100 than at $3,000.00.
You're free to take firefox and burn it on CD and sell it for any price you can get for it, as long as you comply with these condtions: , and the FAQ http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/mpl-faq.html
Just remember, so is everyone else, so if you charge too high a price, others will undercut you. Most of us just burn it to Cd and give it away.
i had thought the CDs contained just regular ol' "1 atm, polluted" firefox
The CDs are allowed to contain "just regular ol' "1 atm, polluted" firefox"
Its perfectly fine for anyone to take and sell copies of firefox with no alterations or additions whatsoever. You made the same erroneous assumption that was described in the article itself, so don't feel too bad - you're not alone.
... poster with article reading skills and a VERY blue banana wrote:
you may have assumed that the name I post under matches my gender (hint - it doesn't, but its a good name to use on Troll Tuesdays, etc., and my fans have gotten used to the mismatch, etc...:-)
poster with no sense of humour and suffering from either limited reading skills or a VERY short-term memory wrote:
your analogies suck. no one buys regular, polluted air at 1 atmosphere of pressure, they buy specific gasses or air that is compressed
... conveniently forgetting that I had written this (bold added for emphasis):
Air is free, and yet businesses spend big bucks buying it in compressed form. Same with oxygen, hydrogen
Nowhere did I say that people buy "polluted air at 1 atmoshpere of pressure".
So, your reading skills suck.
Its the same with firefox. These people aren't paying for the code - they're paying for the physical media and the time it took to burn it, etc. Maybe some of these people don't have a net connection, or their antivirus expired and they don't want to shell out more $$$, or they want to give it as a gift to a friend. There's plenty of reason to pay money for something that is nominally free. Its called a "service economy" for a reason.
the idea that something free can be sold perplexes me.
Air is free, and yet businesses spend big bucks buying it in compressed form. Same with oxygen, hydrogen, and dihydrous monoxide (also called dihydrogen monoxide).
Heck, dihydrous monoxide literally "falls from the skies", and yet companies sell millions of dollars of this chemical every year.
You're off by a couple of decades. This was done with the Atari 2600 back in te '80s - it was a flop. Nobody wants to watch OTHER people playing video games on TV.
Hey, give me $10,000,000 and I'll be happy to go through the trashpile of history looking for the next money pit.
How many freakin articles about this do we have to read before it's actually in production? Wake me up when it's ready.
Here's a picture of one such technology you can buy today - it doesn't consume ANY energy to view the text OR pictures (ambient lighting) and it only requires energy to change the display. Its so energy-efficient it doesn't have an "OFF" switch.
if you can improvise such explosives with readily-at-hand materials in Iraq, think of what a malcontent can do in the USofA; Little Johnny next door is going to start accumulating bleach and fertilizer;
It would be demoralizing for relatives of people serving in Iraq to see the potential danger
Of course, being in Canada, I can email a copy to anyone who wants it (604k avi file).
I'm sure Harry Mudd will be quite happy to sell them genuine dilithium crystals.
And if the power transfer conduits do rupture, it becomes a warped drive. Come to think of it, I HAD one of those - a cd-rom drive that spat out a cd at something like a gazillion miles an hour (or so it seemed as I ducker REAL fast):-)
Slashdot Mirror
This would only work in an unmoderated forum.
Good luck trying to find an unmoderated usenet group that isn't full of garbage ... and I'm not referring to the spam therein, either.
FTFA:
Here you go: One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 Phone: (425) 882-8080 Fax: (425) 706-7329.
Its not a question of dynamic content per se - the indexers have no problem with that - they have a problem with dynamic content that includes passed parameters. What value do you give them? For example, how would you index a site like google, which requires parameterized queries? What parameters are valid, and how do you avoid getting stuck in an endlessly growing tree, where every dynamic query generates links for 20 other possible queries?
I did mention that it would also improve accessibility for people who have problems, such as those who use screen readers. We have a few people in the journal circle here whose significant others are in that position. If you can do good AND fix the serach engine problem, you should be a winner. Its not just googe - all search engines are wary of pages that are generated by passed parameters.
You know that you can make an alternate set of pages just for googlebot and the other crawlers that have problems crawling dynamic content ... it may also help you with people who have accessability problems - so everyone benefits.
I know that here, many people are spending an inordinate amount of time on the computer, to the point where it has negatively impacted their time spent with people in social settings (iow - people are becoming less social). Blogging is yet another time sink, on top of the web, email, etc.
Do you foresee the same negative long-term effects in the middle east as we've experienced?
Because in Soviet Amerika, government spams you.
Just like in Democrazy Amerika.
The real reason they waited - a few Secret Service agents are former AOHell users, and "ain't payback a bitch."
http://videowisecanada.com/, http://milsecure.com/
However, keep in mind that these solutions require custom hardware, so you can't just "upgrade" the software on your current systems. Also, it works with conventional CCTV security cameras (regular, pan-tilt-zoom, and infrared), not the crappy IP Net-Cams from Axis and others.
A few points:
1. While I hate Windows, I've assembled DVR systems (1.5 tb of raid storage, 16 channels video+audio @ 25fps, viewable/searchable over the internet) that don't have problems with anti-virus software. (now you can go up to 64 av channels per unit on the same system, btw).
2. I tested a few linux-based systems - they're "not there yet." Maybe in a couple more years.
From the article:
Looking at most people's Windows Desktop, they just want a desktop cluttered with so many icons that they downloaded and saved "to their desktop so they can find them" that they can't find ANYTHING.
And don't even try to suggest they save anything elsewhere. "Save it to a directory? What's a directory? How will I find it afterwards?"
You'd have a more constructive use of your time surreptiosly taking your laser pointer out and telling them their optical mouse is leaking dangerous lasr radiation, and can blind them at any moment. At least this way, you get a free mouse for your efforts.
Totally irrelevant to what I had posted. Also, again, they already know that their new code is also going to be just as subject to viruses as their old code was - that's why they're including an anti-virus. Microsoft can't make a reasonably secure operating system. Its not part of their culture, nor part of their technical capabilities.
Vista is going to be holier than swiss cheese, and Microsoft already knows it. Thats why they're working so hard to make the patching process easier - its going to be needed just as much. Ditto for including an anti-virus. Because they can't fix the underlying code. It was crap in 1982. Its still crap today.
Running anti-virus software is a stupid thing to do when you can FIX the system instead.
Just because Microsoft is at the "fix one bug, re-create another" stage doesn't mean Apple has to go the same road.
An analogy - would you rather eat fresh, properly prepared food, or moldy infested crap and a megadose of antibiotics? (I would have used the "would you rather have sex with someone who isn't infected with HIV, or someone who is, but you take *precautions*", but this is slashdot ...)
The could report a worm or virus a day for the rest of my LIFE and they'd still have a better security record than Windows.
Its no secret. I guess you just didn't get the memo. Sorry.
Yes, we have no bananas, just birth defects and temporary inconveniences ;-)
Before Borland came out with their $100 Turbo C compiler, $3,000.00 per copy was considered "reasonable". A $100 price point for a C compiler was unheard of. There was a lot more freedom to develop code at $100 than at $3,000.00.
Just remember, so is everyone else, so if you charge too high a price, others will undercut you. Most of us just burn it to Cd and give it away.
The CDs are allowed to contain "just regular ol' "1 atm, polluted" firefox" Its perfectly fine for anyone to take and sell copies of firefox with no alterations or additions whatsoever. You made the same erroneous assumption that was described in the article itself, so don't feel too bad - you're not alone.
you may have assumed that the name I post under matches my gender (hint - it doesn't, but its a good name to use on Troll Tuesdays, etc., and my fans have gotten used to the mismatch, etc ... :-)
poster with no sense of humour and suffering from either limited reading skills or a VERY short-term memory wrote:
Nowhere did I say that people buy "polluted air at 1 atmoshpere of pressure".
So, your reading skills suck.
Its the same with firefox. These people aren't paying for the code - they're paying for the physical media and the time it took to burn it, etc. Maybe some of these people don't have a net connection, or their antivirus expired and they don't want to shell out more $$$, or they want to give it as a gift to a friend. There's plenty of reason to pay money for something that is nominally free. Its called a "service economy" for a reason.
Air is free, and yet businesses spend big bucks buying it in compressed form. Same with oxygen, hydrogen, and dihydrous monoxide (also called dihydrogen monoxide).
Heck, dihydrous monoxide literally "falls from the skies", and yet companies sell millions of dollars of this chemical every year.
More info on dihydrous monoxide
petition to ban it
You're off by a couple of decades. This was done with the Atari 2600 back in te '80s - it was a flop. Nobody wants to watch OTHER people playing video games on TV.
Hey, give me $10,000,000 and I'll be happy to go through the trashpile of history looking for the next money pit.
Here's a picture of one such technology you can buy today - it doesn't consume ANY energy to view the text OR pictures (ambient lighting) and it only requires energy to change the display. Its so energy-efficient it doesn't have an "OFF" switch.
http://www.worth1000.com/entries/89000/89089jOQN_w .jpg
Of course, being in Canada, I can email a copy to anyone who wants it (604k avi file).
And if the power transfer conduits do rupture, it becomes a warped drive. Come to think of it, I HAD one of those - a cd-rom drive that spat out a cd at something like a gazillion miles an hour (or so it seemed as I ducker REAL fast) :-)