It was insane to allow programs to write data files to the program files directory in the first place.
Vista's UAC is poorly implemented, but Microsoft's intentions are sound. Application developers need to update their crap; when they do, life will be better for everyone.
Getting rid of the "security zones" model and replacing it with hard impermeable sandboxes will cause some disruption. Programs like Windows Update will have to be rewritten to use plugins.
Are you unaware that they've already replaced Windows Update in Vista?
Actually they got this right. If you run apps designed for Win95, it creates a virtual directory tree inside the current user's home directory, so when the app tries to write to C:\Program Files, it really writes to this virtual filesystem and you don't get a UAC prompt at all.
It's not Win95 apps that have a problem with UAC, it's WinXP apps.
The answer would have been simple (the implementation not so simple). You make a Legacy Windows emulator that runs inside Vista. This worked well for Apple's OS X. Though I am sure implementing this for Windows would have involved a lot more bloat than Classic did.
Why do you think they bought Connectix? They were definitely considering this option.
Hopefully they can pull their web developers' collective head out of their collective ass and make a web store that works on something other than internet explorer and windows.
This is precisely why Apple created both the iPod and the iTunes Store in the first place, and why Apple isn't concerned with turning a profit on the iTunes Store (as long as they break even). They wanted a portable MP3 player that would work with Macs, and they wanted digital music sales to be available for Macs and the iPod.
Unfortunately Apple doesn't think it's in their best interest to support Linux, although this is mostly due to technical hurdles (porting QuickTime to Windows was a huge pain in the ass and they wound up porting significant chunks of Mac OS in order to do it; porting QuickTime to Linux would be a whole new pain in the ass, and iTunes can't run without QuickTime).
What scares me is that while this guards against the garden variety phishing attack, it can't protect me from an ISP DNS compromise.
Please stop spreading FUD. SSL certificates protect against DNS compromises, because your browser's database of certificate authorities does not depend on DNS to operate. As long as you use your bookmark (instead of clicking the link in the e-mail) and you see the little padlock icon and you don't get a warning message about a problem with the certificate, you're fine.
This was a bad move, not only hurt in terms of sales but damaged the Apple brand image, pushing them towards the sort of resentment that MS manage to generate.
On the other hand, not getting ANY carriers to support the iPhone AT ALL probably would have hurt them too.
From the mobile carriers' perspective, the iPhone was a big risk. Apple wanted them to invest significantly in a new voicemail system, Apple wanted a cut of the monthly subscription fee, Apple wanted to control iPhone distribution, and Apple wanted to handle support. That's not how other manufacturers do things. Apple approached Verizon first, but Verizon said no: "They would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point where we would have almost had to take a back seat... on hardware and service support."
Now that the iPhone has been proven in the market, Apple has the kind of leverage to get deals like this without an exclusive contract. At this point, the exclusivity serves only as a bargaining tool: give us a better deal, or we'll let the contract expire and build a Verizon-compatible iPhone.
iTunes works well on Macs, where people want, and expect, things to 'just work'. On windows platforms, where many users have been forced to learn more than they'd like to about the technical aspects, I agree that iTunes is a pain. It renames your mp3 files, reformats iPods if you try to connect to another PC, limits your ability to share file whatever.
iTunes' behavior is no different on Windows than it is on Mac OS X.
You get the option during installation, and can change it in Preferences, whether you want iTunes to rename all your MP3 files for you or not.
iPods have always been designed to only work with a single computer; if you want to connect an iPod to a different computer you have to delete all your music from the iPod before you can sync with the new computer. Apple put several anti-piracy features in to keep the RIAA from suing them, and now that that danger has mostly passed, I think they're mostly keeping things the way they are out of laziness. That, and they don't really want to give record companies another reason to drop the iTunes Store.
We don't use this much in the United States, but in the UK it means using a vacuum cleaner. Hoover is a brand name that (in the UK) became as synonymous with vacuum cleaners as Band-Aid did with bandages here.
So if I leave my door unlocked and someone walks inside my home, takes pictures of everything, and posts those pictures on the internet for the world to see then they shouldn't be prosecuted because all they really did was turn a doorknob right?
What part of "I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished" did you fail to understand?
I am suggesting the punishment for casually walking into someone's unlocked house, taking pictures and posting them on the Internet should be less than the punishment for showing up with lockpicking tools and using them to break in and steal the stereo.
Is it just me, or does that sound a bit excessive for guessing the answers to her all-too-obvious "forgot password" questions? I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished, but no actual harm was done. How does this compare to what the punishment would be for, say, hacking into an ISP's mail server and obtaining root access? Or defacing a company's web site?
You'll still be able to buy an uncompressed audio CD, in another three years or so, just like you would have if he wasn't releasing the individual tracks first.
Coulton is best known for his song "Code Monkey", which later became the theme song for a cartoon show on G4. I also highly recommend his remake of Sir Mix-A-Lot's "Baby Got Back", especially if you like the concept of Weird Al's polkas (but this one's definitely not a polka).
What about a system that takes photos of everyday objects and dynamically layers them into a new picture. The user is then asked to name a random amount of the objects in the photo (for example, name the closest and furthest objects in the photo). This would be random each time like current methods.
Good luck developing computer software that can generate such a composite picture and know the answers to those types of questions.
I dabbled with a text-based CAPTCHA that generates random questions. It's HARD. Generating questions that make sense to a human (the questions aren't self-contradictory and there's only one right answer) is a lot more complicated than it sounds like it should be. I'd be very surprised if you can design a program that generates an image from composite photographs that knows what the closest and furthest objects are.
You'd have much better luck not using photos, but generating a cartoon-like drawing. Imagine a drawing of an apple tree with three apples on it, four on the ground under it, two on a picnic table, and one being held by a monkey. Other similarly-sized and -shaped items (oranges, pears, alarm clocks, baseballs) are scattered around as well. The user is asked to identify something that there are ten of ("apple"), or where there are only two apples ("table"), or what kind of tree is in the picture ("apple"), or how many of what the monkey is holding have not yet fallen ("four").
I meant Vancouver Washington, just across the Columbia River from Portland. Oregon State Police would call Washington State Patrol or Vancouver PD or whoever else they need to call to continue the chase, and continue pursuit in the mean time. The same would happen in the other direction. Why? Not because they have jurisdiction, but because they have cooperative agreements with their counterparts across the border.
A high-speed chase across the US-Canada border is rather less trivial, but if there's somewhere it could happen without running into border guards and barricades and whatnot, I'm sure the police on the American side could call the RCMP, and coming the other direction the Canadians could call either state police or the FBI depending on the situation.
Is it? Have you asked the people who have their money in those banks, and rely on it to survive?
Just the fact that you asked such an idiotic question shows you have no understanding of the banking system. Furthermore, it's shortsighted greed like yours that's causing this mess in the first place.
Hey now, settle down. Just because he's ignorant doesn't mean he's greedy. It was a fair question: if you're an average individual with a bank account, and through no fault of your own that bank goes out of business, what happens to your ability to put food on the table? The answer, of course, is FDIC insurance up to $100,000. If you have more than that, split it between different banks.
Thank you for that insightful and objective account of life on the Kahnawake reservation. Are you really basing your scorn for a population because they asserted that outside police do not have authority on their land? It's no wonder that it's near impossible to start a business on a reservation when anonymous cowards spread the word that everyone there is untrustworthy. Conflicts between the Mohawks and US/CN law enforcement, on both sides of the border, are nothing new, but they have little to do with the larger problems facing the people that result in crime, not cause it.
Sensible governments set up agreements with their neighbors to allow for cooperation in law enforcement. If I'm being chased by the Oregon State Police, you can bet they won't let me off the hook just because I manage to cross the bridge into Vancouver. If the Mohawk people don't require their government to act sensibly, then yeah, they deserve some scorn.
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
Romans 6:23 (NIV):
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Ephesians 2:1-10 (NIV):
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
John 14:6 (NIV):
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Uhh, read that again, I think you must have made a typo or something.
The bible doesn't say that non believers will go to hell. It does say that those that do God's work will, even if they don't know they are doing God's work.
Actually what the Bible says is, based solely on our actions, all of us, including Christians, deserve to go to Hell. We are all sinners, and there is nothing any of us can do to earn our way into Heaven. The punishment for sin is "death": separation from God, and we have all sinned. Sometimes Christians lose sight of this, and act as though they deserve to go to Heaven while the non-Christians around them do not.
Slashdot Mirror
It was insane to allow programs to write data files to the program files directory in the first place.
Vista's UAC is poorly implemented, but Microsoft's intentions are sound. Application developers need to update their crap; when they do, life will be better for everyone.
Getting rid of the "security zones" model and replacing it with hard impermeable sandboxes will cause some disruption. Programs like Windows Update will have to be rewritten to use plugins.
Are you unaware that they've already replaced Windows Update in Vista?
Actually they got this right. If you run apps designed for Win95, it creates a virtual directory tree inside the current user's home directory, so when the app tries to write to C:\Program Files, it really writes to this virtual filesystem and you don't get a UAC prompt at all.
It's not Win95 apps that have a problem with UAC, it's WinXP apps.
The answer would have been simple (the implementation not so simple). You make a Legacy Windows emulator that runs inside Vista. This worked well for Apple's OS X. Though I am sure implementing this for Windows would have involved a lot more bloat than Classic did.
Why do you think they bought Connectix? They were definitely considering this option.
Hopefully they can pull their web developers' collective head out of their collective ass and make a web store that works on something other than internet explorer and windows.
This is precisely why Apple created both the iPod and the iTunes Store in the first place, and why Apple isn't concerned with turning a profit on the iTunes Store (as long as they break even). They wanted a portable MP3 player that would work with Macs, and they wanted digital music sales to be available for Macs and the iPod.
Unfortunately Apple doesn't think it's in their best interest to support Linux, although this is mostly due to technical hurdles (porting QuickTime to Windows was a huge pain in the ass and they wound up porting significant chunks of Mac OS in order to do it; porting QuickTime to Linux would be a whole new pain in the ass, and iTunes can't run without QuickTime).
What scares me is that while this guards against the garden variety phishing attack, it can't protect me from an ISP DNS compromise.
Please stop spreading FUD. SSL certificates protect against DNS compromises, because your browser's database of certificate authorities does not depend on DNS to operate. As long as you use your bookmark (instead of clicking the link in the e-mail) and you see the little padlock icon and you don't get a warning message about a problem with the certificate, you're fine.
I say use a bookmark because https://www.bankofarnerica.com/ and https://www.weilsfargo.com/ look pretty close to legitimate (depending on your font). SSL doesn't protect you from misspellings.
due to expire in 2030 (US) 2016 (Europe) currently estimated to be worth US$5 million
This assumes it doesn't get extended again before 2030.
So you can listen to music on a plane.
Most cell phones, including the iPhone, have an airplane mode that disables the radio for this purpose.
Of course some people are still idiots.
This was a bad move, not only hurt in terms of sales but damaged the Apple brand image, pushing them towards the sort of resentment that MS manage to generate.
On the other hand, not getting ANY carriers to support the iPhone AT ALL probably would have hurt them too.
From the mobile carriers' perspective, the iPhone was a big risk. Apple wanted them to invest significantly in a new voicemail system, Apple wanted a cut of the monthly subscription fee, Apple wanted to control iPhone distribution, and Apple wanted to handle support. That's not how other manufacturers do things. Apple approached Verizon first, but Verizon said no: "They would have been stepping in between us and our customers to the point where we would have almost had to take a back seat ... on hardware and service support."
Now that the iPhone has been proven in the market, Apple has the kind of leverage to get deals like this without an exclusive contract. At this point, the exclusivity serves only as a bargaining tool: give us a better deal, or we'll let the contract expire and build a Verizon-compatible iPhone.
iTunes works well on Macs, where people want, and expect, things to 'just work'.
On windows platforms, where many users have been forced to learn more than they'd like to about the technical aspects, I agree that iTunes is a pain. It renames your mp3 files, reformats iPods if you try to connect to another PC, limits your ability to share file whatever.
iTunes' behavior is no different on Windows than it is on Mac OS X.
You get the option during installation, and can change it in Preferences, whether you want iTunes to rename all your MP3 files for you or not.
iPods have always been designed to only work with a single computer; if you want to connect an iPod to a different computer you have to delete all your music from the iPod before you can sync with the new computer. Apple put several anti-piracy features in to keep the RIAA from suing them, and now that that danger has mostly passed, I think they're mostly keeping things the way they are out of laziness. That, and they don't really want to give record companies another reason to drop the iTunes Store.
what the hell is hoovering?
We don't use this much in the United States, but in the UK it means using a vacuum cleaner. Hoover is a brand name that (in the UK) became as synonymous with vacuum cleaners as Band-Aid did with bandages here.
So if I leave my door unlocked and someone walks inside my home, takes pictures of everything, and posts those pictures on the internet for the world to see then they shouldn't be prosecuted because all they really did was turn a doorknob right?
What part of "I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished" did you fail to understand?
I am suggesting the punishment for casually walking into someone's unlocked house, taking pictures and posting them on the Internet should be less than the punishment for showing up with lockpicking tools and using them to break in and steal the stereo.
Is it just me, or does that sound a bit excessive for guessing the answers to her all-too-obvious "forgot password" questions? I'm not saying he shouldn't be punished, but no actual harm was done. How does this compare to what the punishment would be for, say, hacking into an ISP's mail server and obtaining root access? Or defacing a company's web site?
You'll still be able to buy an uncompressed audio CD, in another three years or so, just like you would have if he wasn't releasing the individual tracks first.
"I've always respected that about his work."
That is exactly why I don't.
It sets bad expectations, and parody must be allowed without needing permissions. It would otherwise defeat the point.
Just because it's legally allowed doesn't mean it's polite. What point do you think is being defeated?
Coulton is best known for his song "Code Monkey", which later became the theme song for a cartoon show on G4. I also highly recommend his remake of Sir Mix-A-Lot's "Baby Got Back", especially if you like the concept of Weird Al's polkas (but this one's definitely not a polka).
Font selection would best work as fixed-width.
Most variable-width fonts use fixed widths for the numbers.
What about a system that takes photos of everyday objects and dynamically layers them into a new picture. The user is then asked to name a random amount of the objects in the photo (for example, name the closest and furthest objects in the photo). This would be random each time like current methods.
Good luck developing computer software that can generate such a composite picture and know the answers to those types of questions.
I dabbled with a text-based CAPTCHA that generates random questions. It's HARD. Generating questions that make sense to a human (the questions aren't self-contradictory and there's only one right answer) is a lot more complicated than it sounds like it should be. I'd be very surprised if you can design a program that generates an image from composite photographs that knows what the closest and furthest objects are.
You'd have much better luck not using photos, but generating a cartoon-like drawing. Imagine a drawing of an apple tree with three apples on it, four on the ground under it, two on a picnic table, and one being held by a monkey. Other similarly-sized and -shaped items (oranges, pears, alarm clocks, baseballs) are scattered around as well. The user is asked to identify something that there are ten of ("apple"), or where there are only two apples ("table"), or what kind of tree is in the picture ("apple"), or how many of what the monkey is holding have not yet fallen ("four").
I meant Vancouver Washington, just across the Columbia River from Portland. Oregon State Police would call Washington State Patrol or Vancouver PD or whoever else they need to call to continue the chase, and continue pursuit in the mean time. The same would happen in the other direction. Why? Not because they have jurisdiction, but because they have cooperative agreements with their counterparts across the border.
A high-speed chase across the US-Canada border is rather less trivial, but if there's somewhere it could happen without running into border guards and barricades and whatnot, I'm sure the police on the American side could call the RCMP, and coming the other direction the Canadians could call either state police or the FBI depending on the situation.
That outrage is old news; this outrage is new news. Old news doesn't sell.
Is it? Have you asked the people who have their money in those banks, and rely on it to survive?
Just the fact that you asked such an idiotic question shows you have no understanding of the banking system. Furthermore, it's shortsighted greed like yours that's causing this mess in the first place.
Hey now, settle down. Just because he's ignorant doesn't mean he's greedy. It was a fair question: if you're an average individual with a bank account, and through no fault of your own that bank goes out of business, what happens to your ability to put food on the table? The answer, of course, is FDIC insurance up to $100,000. If you have more than that, split it between different banks.
Thank you for that insightful and objective account of life on the Kahnawake reservation. Are you really basing your scorn for a population because they asserted that outside police do not have authority on their land? It's no wonder that it's near impossible to start a business on a reservation when anonymous cowards spread the word that everyone there is untrustworthy. Conflicts between the Mohawks and US/CN law enforcement, on both sides of the border, are nothing new, but they have little to do with the larger problems facing the people that result in crime, not cause it.
Sensible governments set up agreements with their neighbors to allow for cooperation in law enforcement. If I'm being chased by the Oregon State Police, you can bet they won't let me off the hook just because I manage to cross the bridge into Vancouver. If the Mohawk people don't require their government to act sensibly, then yeah, they deserve some scorn.
Citation please?
Romans 3:21-28 (NIV):
But now a righteousness from God, apart from law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. God presented him as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood. He did this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished--he did it to demonstrate his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.
Where, then, is boasting? It is excluded. On what principle? On that of observing the law? No, but on that of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.
Romans 6:23 (NIV):
For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Ephesians 2:1-10 (NIV):
As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath. But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions--it is by grace you have been saved. And God raised us up with Christ and seated us with him in the heavenly realms in Christ Jesus, in order that in the coming ages he might show the incomparable riches of his grace, expressed in his kindness to us in Christ Jesus. For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith--and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God--not by works, so that no one can boast. For we are God's workmanship, created in Christ Jesus to do good works, which God prepared in advance for us to do.
John 14:6 (NIV):
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Emphasis mine.
If only everyone could agree on your definition of Net Neutrality....
Uhh, read that again, I think you must have made a typo or something.
The bible doesn't say that non believers will go to hell. It does say that those that do God's work will, even if they don't know they are doing God's work.
Actually what the Bible says is, based solely on our actions, all of us, including Christians, deserve to go to Hell. We are all sinners, and there is nothing any of us can do to earn our way into Heaven. The punishment for sin is "death": separation from God, and we have all sinned. Sometimes Christians lose sight of this, and act as though they deserve to go to Heaven while the non-Christians around them do not.