I always thought it would be kind of sad if one of the celestial bodies we explored actually HAD intelligent life, and we kept on sending satelites over it and robotic probes over the surface.
A few Pathfinders are one thing, but can you imagine if an alien ship came above New York City, dropped house-sized balls and had them "blow around in the wind"? Say there is a living creature on one of these planets that is small enough to be crushed by one of these things, but measurably intelligent? The balls seem like overkill.
"I have visions of time-oriented interfaces that respond to "get me the spec sheet for the network I did last week sometime" and "set a new meeting for next Tuesday with Jim and Bob in the conference room"."
How about "You know, that presentation I did two years ago with the red circles? You know? That one." That's how most end users seem to be.:)
But seriously though, often the predictions lay groundwork for more conventional ideas. Remember all the talk of "agents" a few years ago? I remember even seeing an AT&T ad where a woman is talking to a video image of a secretarial-like person, who's telling her that her mother called. "Did you get those tickets?" the woman asks the agent. "Front row," he replies.
But we do have agents today, just not in that form. They've been "mainstreamed" by currently existing standards and technology. Amazon, for example, is one huge agent database. I can literally go clicking around their recommendation broswer finding items that interest me, and oftentimes the suggestions are pretty on target. I've even purchases a few things through the recommendation browser, simply because I want to endorse that technology and figure that it's the best way to make my argument (with my wallet).
Will there be natural-language recognition GUI's? Sure. but will we call it that, or will it be something completely different?
Out of curiousity, what is the site itself generally about? I thought it was a mainstream media site, but now I see there is a bit of complex coding discussed.
Ouch. I get my service through Comcast@Home, which continues to advertise @Home service even with their financial troubles.
My question, though: why doesn't Comcast buyout @Home? They have more than enough money to do so, and @Home provides a service to Comcast that keeps me with the company.
"They tend to put out decent games the first time and not have as many huge fixes, just small tweaks."
Have to disagree with that. Normally, with games like WarCraft and StarCraft, Blizzard has been pretty good updating frequently after the release with small fixes.
But the Diablo series has had it's share of problems, the first with the hacking of the file on the local hard drive to boost your stats (which Blizzard never really fixed), and the second with being published clearly when the servers weren't ready to handle the load. Most disturbing is that many of these companies promising "massively-multiplayer RPGs" create 200,000 CDs for launch and then get surprised when more than half these users end up on their servers. It's a real problem, as countless editorials in gaming mags demonstrate.
If you're going to sell 200,000 CD's, make sure your servers can handle 200,000 users. If you're waiting to release a game "until it's done", make sure it's actually done when you release it.
I have IE, which does not crash at all when browsing. When running any "Netscape plug-in", it proceeds fine. Only when I run Quicktime movies, and the plug-in is being loaded, does the browser crash.
You're going to tell me it's the system, when nothing within the system is at fault here?
Well, it sorta is. You didn't see Netscape rushing out to support ActiveX when it came out. Come to think of it, who really uses Netscape on the Windows side, anyway? When I browse in Windows 2000, I tend to prefer IE. (When I browse in Linux, I try to use Konqueror/Netscape 6).
"I'm not trolling, I would like intelligent discussion on this, really!"
I've brought issues up like this before, but you're going to be considered trolling anyway. Be prepared.:) (What's funny, is that no matter where you go, even the "rebel individuals" Open Source, there is still some measure of conformity).
You've GOT to be kidding me? Do you have any idea how many times Quicktime has taken over/crashed my browser upon opening a.mov file? Even Quicktime on the Mac side is full of bugs.
Ever since they started positioning Quicktime as an entertainment medium, instead of a simple software movie player, I've stopped paying heed to them (Same thing with the new Microsoft Media Player. I use it to play movies and MP3's, but I don't even touch their media guide.)
"My heart bleeds for them - "we have so many security exploits that we can't even take the time to figure out which of them are real"."
You've completely missed the point. The problem is not that "there are too many security exploits" but that many are simply tomfoolery brought about by the community. Do you have any idea how many security exploits MS receives that have no basis in reality, but are only there to get their goat? And it's not like the security people should have to pay for the mistakes of the company (monopolistic practices, etc.)
And by the way, I'm actually an avid Palm supporter. I'm just wondering what kind of a dent it makes in the industry when a financially-strapped company buys another.
"Microsoft is unlikely to take the complaint seriously - after all, the damage is only "theoretical", right?"
I've heard this argument an awful lot, and no one in the open source community (who seems to want to use this argument) has ever been able to bring any factual instances to light. Has there ever really been a Microsoft vulnerability reported to MS where the company replied "That damage is only theoretical. We don't feel obliged to fix it." I mean, a real world story.
And keep in mind, MS probably receives dozens of fake security exploits a day by open source/hacking zealots (and I include myself wholeheartedly in that group). You can only expend so much money on determining what exploits are "real".
"Why is slashdot giving wind to this troll?" CmdrTaco runs the site, and he does the same thing all the time.:) It gets the conversation going in a way that is unattainable when a bunch of nerds (and no layman) provide an alternate argument.
And don't even try to make connections between CmdrTaco and "wind".:)
"I know as a system administrator, I'd want to know what port the backdoor was put into, so I could secure it at the firewall. I'd want to know how the exploit was executed, so I could potentially filter out the infection requests. I'd want to know exactly WHAT was making my system insecure, and where, so that in the absence of an official fix, I could work my own fixes, to secure my own system(s) against known intrusions."
You're using a Linux/FreeBSD mentality and trying to imbue it onto Microsoft administration. It doesn't work that way.
I administer both types of machines, and the philosophy behind even the administration is totally different. The Microsoft approach does NOT require knowing the source, or having a full exploit in your hands, to be a practical administrator. It's all about ease-of-use, allowing the admin to function as an end-user of sorts.
Would I ask for port information and other bits about the exploit? Sure I would. But most MS administrators would not.
You're a little off in your "facts". Despite also having an email address for security warnings, Microsoft accepts full bug reports for free. You just have to mention it in your phone call, and they patch you through immediately to the appropriate party.
They also accept general concerns/suggestions/complaints through email (XP, for example, has an email address for concerns and suggestions).
"If holes are kept to MS and the people that find them, it's only a matter of time before a Black Hat figures it out."
Yeah, but how much time? These many arguments that "full disclosure pushes Microsoft along in releasing the fix" have no grounded basis in reality. Besides couldn't it be possible to rile up the media hype necessary WITHOUT giving information as to how the exploit occurs? The only thing the average user needs to know is "it's a security hole, it's bad".
A sledgehammer isn't necessary if the vulnerability is relatively difficult to find. There WAS no time limit, until eEye decided to instill one by releasing the code.
I've always been a firm believer against virus-watchers who release full exploits to the general public. It simply isn't necessary. The same results (warning Microsoft) could have been done without causing such a hyped panic.
It's akin to not only delivering a news story on a serial thief who's robbed many homes, but giving full and agonizing details on how he broke in to the general public (and in the process, other criminals). There is NO ONE who can argue that the only people who *need* that information, for the safety of others, is the police.
I had a professor in college last year (thank god I graduated) who always preached "Use constants! Use constants when you know the value is not going to change!" even though, really, for most of the little projects we were doing variables would do. I'd love to see his expression if this carried to programming:
"Make that 'const int'. It's always going to be a four."
"But what if it becomes a three?"
"It's a const, it won't become a three."
"But according to the physical restraints of the universe, it just might...":)
I always liked bringing up "But what if a few bits change on the computer due to static electricity? It ain't const then.":)
Re:Been running it for a week now, great release.
on
KDE 2.2 Released
·
· Score: 2
Good point. How does it handle antialiasing of fonts?
Slashdot Mirror
A few Pathfinders are one thing, but can you imagine if an alien ship came above New York City, dropped house-sized balls and had them "blow around in the wind"? Say there is a living creature on one of these planets that is small enough to be crushed by one of these things, but measurably intelligent? The balls seem like overkill.
How about "You know, that presentation I did two years ago with the red circles? You know? That one." That's how most end users seem to be. :)
But seriously though, often the predictions lay groundwork for more conventional ideas. Remember all the talk of "agents" a few years ago? I remember even seeing an AT&T ad where a woman is talking to a video image of a secretarial-like person, who's telling her that her mother called. "Did you get those tickets?" the woman asks the agent. "Front row," he replies.
But we do have agents today, just not in that form. They've been "mainstreamed" by currently existing standards and technology. Amazon, for example, is one huge agent database. I can literally go clicking around their recommendation broswer finding items that interest me, and oftentimes the suggestions are pretty on target. I've even purchases a few things through the recommendation browser, simply because I want to endorse that technology and figure that it's the best way to make my argument (with my wallet).
Will there be natural-language recognition GUI's? Sure. but will we call it that, or will it be something completely different?
You know, though, in probably less than a hundred years that this will no longer be considered a joke. :)
Out of curiousity, what is the site itself generally about? I thought it was a mainstream media site, but now I see there is a bit of complex coding discussed.
My question, though: why doesn't Comcast buyout @Home? They have more than enough money to do so, and @Home provides a service to Comcast that keeps me with the company.
Have to disagree with that. Normally, with games like WarCraft and StarCraft, Blizzard has been pretty good updating frequently after the release with small fixes.
But the Diablo series has had it's share of problems, the first with the hacking of the file on the local hard drive to boost your stats (which Blizzard never really fixed), and the second with being published clearly when the servers weren't ready to handle the load. Most disturbing is that many of these companies promising "massively-multiplayer RPGs" create 200,000 CDs for launch and then get surprised when more than half these users end up on their servers. It's a real problem, as countless editorials in gaming mags demonstrate.
If you're going to sell 200,000 CD's, make sure your servers can handle 200,000 users. If you're waiting to release a game "until it's done", make sure it's actually done when you release it.
I don't consider myself a Microsoftie, but I do appreciate open opinions and non-rampant zealotness.
I have IE, which does not crash at all when browsing. When running any "Netscape plug-in", it proceeds fine. Only when I run Quicktime movies, and the plug-in is being loaded, does the browser crash.
You're going to tell me it's the system, when nothing within the system is at fault here?
Well, it sorta is. You didn't see Netscape rushing out to support ActiveX when it came out. Come to think of it, who really uses Netscape on the Windows side, anyway? When I browse in Windows 2000, I tend to prefer IE. (When I browse in Linux, I try to use Konqueror/Netscape 6).
I've brought issues up like this before, but you're going to be considered trolling anyway. Be prepared. :) (What's funny, is that no matter where you go, even the "rebel individuals" Open Source, there is still some measure of conformity).
How does this affect IE on the Mac? Internet Explorer isn't just Windows-reliant, you know.
Ever since they started positioning Quicktime as an entertainment medium, instead of a simple software movie player, I've stopped paying heed to them (Same thing with the new Microsoft Media Player. I use it to play movies and MP3's, but I don't even touch their media guide.)
When everybody moves to Windows XP, NTFS will get supported REAL quick.
You've completely missed the point. The problem is not that "there are too many security exploits" but that many are simply tomfoolery brought about by the community. Do you have any idea how many security exploits MS receives that have no basis in reality, but are only there to get their goat? And it's not like the security people should have to pay for the mistakes of the company (monopolistic practices, etc.)
And by the way, I'm actually an avid Palm supporter. I'm just wondering what kind of a dent it makes in the industry when a financially-strapped company buys another.
I've heard this argument an awful lot, and no one in the open source community (who seems to want to use this argument) has ever been able to bring any factual instances to light. Has there ever really been a Microsoft vulnerability reported to MS where the company replied "That damage is only theoretical. We don't feel obliged to fix it." I mean, a real world story.
And keep in mind, MS probably receives dozens of fake security exploits a day by open source/hacking zealots (and I include myself wholeheartedly in that group). You can only expend so much money on determining what exploits are "real".
Uh, continuing with the same analogy, I would hardly put the eEye exploit in the same difficulty level as "staring at the door".
If one failing company buys out another failing company, does it make a sound? :)
And don't even try to make connections between CmdrTaco and "wind". :)
You're using a Linux/FreeBSD mentality and trying to imbue it onto Microsoft administration. It doesn't work that way.
I administer both types of machines, and the philosophy behind even the administration is totally different. The Microsoft approach does NOT require knowing the source, or having a full exploit in your hands, to be a practical administrator. It's all about ease-of-use, allowing the admin to function as an end-user of sorts.
Would I ask for port information and other bits about the exploit? Sure I would. But most MS administrators would not.
They also accept general concerns/suggestions/complaints through email (XP, for example, has an email address for concerns and suggestions).
Yeah, but how much time? These many arguments that "full disclosure pushes Microsoft along in releasing the fix" have no grounded basis in reality. Besides couldn't it be possible to rile up the media hype necessary WITHOUT giving information as to how the exploit occurs? The only thing the average user needs to know is "it's a security hole, it's bad".
I've always been a firm believer against virus-watchers who release full exploits to the general public. It simply isn't necessary. The same results (warning Microsoft) could have been done without causing such a hyped panic.
It's akin to not only delivering a news story on a serial thief who's robbed many homes, but giving full and agonizing details on how he broke in to the general public (and in the process, other criminals). There is NO ONE who can argue that the only people who *need* that information, for the safety of others, is the police.
"Make that 'const int'. It's always going to be a four."
"But what if it becomes a three?"
"It's a const, it won't become a three."
"But according to the physical restraints of the universe, it just might..." :)
I always liked bringing up "But what if a few bits change on the computer due to static electricity? It ain't const then." :)
Good point. How does it handle antialiasing of fonts?