- Prove it. Publish your results and get it peer reviewed. None of this nonsense "people won't even take my claims seriously" nonsense. There is probably a reason. - Profit from it. Free energy? Make a big bank of these things. Sell the power. There are plenty of buyers.
And if neither of these things are happening, I'm thinking one of:
You haven't had an accident in 30+ years and you're still afraid of crazy drivers all of the time?
A bit paranoid, are we?
Cheap shot. Maybe you're lucky enough to live in an area where people won't try to force you into the back of a parked car to satisfy some feeling of inadequacy, but I doubt it.
Driving with the mindset that there are crazy drivers out there isn't paranoia, it's a damn good idea, good advice, and very true. A few years back I used to commute an hour each way to work each day and I've seen people do a lot of crazy things. I'm only posting today because on the one or two occasions that someone did something stupid that probably would have killed me (eg. truck pulling into my lane with me still in it at 80kph) I was paying attention and took steps to survive.
So yeah, take it easy on your parent poster, your attack was unjustified.
I am also upset that I buy expensive cameras, displays, computers, car parts, and they break from mild to normal usage, but that's how that crap economy of ours work.:(
Very true, but keep looking around. Places still do exist that make good products that last near-enough-to forever. Just be prepared to pay triple- which incidentally works out cheaper in the long run anyway.
My personal example: Colorado shoes (not sure of the spelling, and their site sucks). Pricey little sods, and broke my rule about never spending more than $100 for a pair of shoes. I figured I'd try a pair one day several years ago. I put those suckers through abuse that killed other shoes after three months and years later they are still fine, just not as comfortable as they were when I first got them. I use them for grotty outdoor stuff now. But a year ago when I wanted to get a pair of new shoes, which brand do you think I went for? And when I went in and the salesperson began the long pitch to persuade me it was worth paying extra for decent shoes, I said I'd bought that brand before and was happy to pay the premium, and we skipped straight to the bit where we tried to find something that fits my uncooperative feet.;)
So yeah, gratuitous plug aside, places do exist that make products that last. You'll just have to dig, and ask your friends what they use and how good it is.
Ultimately the asking price and the house do a better job of putting people off than I ever could. Unfortunately it doesn't impact the owner if it doesn't sell, just me.
I picked it because this is what I had at hand. I know it's horrible for this task, but it simply IS. I didn't want to use a made-up or very obscure example. Of course a hash that helps to reconstruct the file placing certain visible restrains would be much better.
I think your idea is the seed to something very groovy. Perhaps it would be a good thing to use the hash to check the final result, and some other easily reversible function to "compress" the code in a lossy way such that you have a good chance (say 90%) to reconstruct it. Whilst people are going to wonder what a non-guaranteed compression will offer, one place lossy compression could be useful is with sending data across a link with terrible bandwidth but decent latency. If the result is small enough, it could be sent in advance of the real data. You could even check the result to see if you can "decompress" on the sending side before sending it, and keep dropping back to successively worse schemes each time it fails until you find a good one. If the result is too bad, just send the uncompressed version. Add one bit to the start signaling "uncompressed" or "compressed" and you're set.;)
A probabilistic reconstruction of an executable from a hash and general properties sounds very cool, but why on earth should you want to use a hash that is designed to be resistant to reconstructing the original data? Also, you might want to look at the size of the space for possible executables. There may be small amounts of structure within an executable file, but the code and data will not be so helpful.
That "increase in the rent" is an awful clause. Makes you want to start a commune or co-op.
Indeed it is. And don't get me started on tenant obligations when you move into a place and a few months later they put it on the market above value and you are forced to endure weeks of complete strangers in your house at opens.
The Rental agreements in the US are very weighted toward the landlord.... We renegotiated our lease with the landlord.
Good on you for having the guts to do that. An excessive of available accommodation probably helped your position. Sadly, vacant tenancy is (apparently) quite low here, which means you pay a lot for crap that would never be let otherwise.
Our system requires a high level of system safety (aviation), and the sofware has to be 'exactly the same' - every bit of data.... The companies EULA precludes us copying their software, and we want to negotiate for a 'site licence' aproach, but they are unwilling to talk to us! - Guess its a case of 'bring money'....
Damn, that sucks.
You've probably already covered these, but here are some suggestions:
- Talk to them again, mentioning that you're happy to purchase multiple copies of the software, but they need to be bitwise identical. - Investigate other software that does a similar thing. Mention to their competitor you are happy to provide a "case study" quote saying why you switched over, it might be worth a discount. - Check if the EULA actually is binding. Did you buy the software and then get presented with the EULA and it gave you option to install without agreement? Check your local laws, you may be able to disregard it. - Check with your legal guys, but if you break an agreement they generally can go for damages. If you've bought enough licenses, their damages are going to be close to zero. - You mention aviation. Are you government? Check to see if you can legally do what you ask anyway, regardless of what the EULA says. - See if you can get your machine and its mirror classified as a single machine, or the mirror to be considered a cache.
This is an indicator that the company doesn't have a real product.
Or the company is using the agreement as a lottery for new products if their existing one fails.
Unfortunately, such agreements are prevalent in the industry, for software engineering positions anyway. I've never had too much of an issue with casual IT support work though. But support work is less interesting, much more pressure, and pays worse.
I changed employers this month, and my new one has a real product, and its in use. Their NDA is much more reasonable - they own the stuff I write that's related to their business. This is fair to everyone, and is much more enforceable than a blanket "we pwn your @ss".
Lucky you. There are companies out there that don't ream you with their agreements. They tend to be smaller shops. Oddly, the ones with the most vicious contracts tend to be smaller shops too.
I tend to mostly see three lots of agreements:
- Minimal: We own your work at work and not much else. Often claim ownership of anything done pursuant to the work and during work hours. This is pretty reasonable and what I push for when I can. - We own you: Claim ownership of everything you work on from start to finish of your employment. I try to cut this back or just ask for heaps of money. This is the sort of thing I hate. - We own everything: Nasty little clause I see from time to time: We own everything you don't explicitly list that you've worked on in the past and present. Never signed this, never will. I can't! I worked on more stuff than I can list and if I forget something someone else owns (that I worked on), I'm stuffed.
Even then, I'd still do the courtesy of discussing it with them ahead of time, to avoid any possible misunderstandings. If they're treating my right, why wouldn't I do the same?
I've done this. I've explained in interviews what I work on outside of hours. They nod and agree, and say it should be no problem. I get an offer, and their legal sends me an agreement that makes it impossible to work for them, and refuses to change anything. wtf?
A smart business lays down reasonable restrictions that protect all parties' natural rights. This generates loyalty and pride (neither of which you can buy) and is defensible both morally and in court. A dumb business creates an "us against them" mentality.
With a level playing field, the smart business would win, since the type of people who are working on something worthwhile outside of work are probably bringing some good ideas into work.
The smaller businesses who play funny games with agreements tend to be annihilated by the smaller businesses who are reasonable. The reason is that employees with any actual ability won't work for a company that cripple them intellectually when they have a better option.
Unfortunately, business is often more than who has the smartest people, it is often about size and power. And when there aren't many competing large players in the market, they don't have to make the effort to make reasonable agreements...
As for the rental agreements, that's just fscked up. Add an "all these clauses apply to both parties, mutatis mutandi". When they ask "what does that mean, say "it means that all the clauses of this lease apply to both of us. I'm not the only one who has to respect them - you do to0"
They'd then move straight on to candidate two. Or three in my case. I was one of three groups looking at my current place on the first weekend it opened.
The specific situation I mention is a response to a flaw in the Act in South Australia: Clicky
Check clause 55 b):
if the tenancy is for a fixed term, the residential tenancy agreement is taken to exclude an increase in rent during the term unless it specifically allows for an increase in rent
And almost every agreement you see from a real estate agent will have a clause that
Most people don't even think of blaming lawmakers. Their immediate reaction is that whoever screwed them over with a legal agreement is the bastard.
Those that even read the legal agreements, anyway.
I used to do exactly what you describe here: blame the company (or their legals). But when almost everyone does it, they are probably not the problem. As far as I'm concerned, fault lies with an overreaching and bloated legal system whose sole purpose is no longer really justice. More... enrichment.
PS: Nice comment by the way. Two paragraphs and much more content than any of my incoherent ramblings.;)
Somehow, reams of legalese just don't have the weight of... real problems.
When I have trouble finding a job without a last-minute "agreement" that claims they own everything I think of, even outside of work, and it kills my ability to work on my business or to better myself due to ownership issues, there is a problem. When I can't find a place to live without signing some horrible clause in a rental agreement that lets them up the rent without letting me move out, because every single rental agreement I have ever seen has this clause, there is a problem.
If I dig my heels in (and I have, many times), they just drop to their second-best candidate, who probably signs it. Both for employment and house rentals. Many people tend to just sign what they are presented with, and are surprised when they get screwed over.
Denying people who want to the ability to better themselves beyond a corporate drone and a place to live is a huge problem. Don't underestimate how much apathy relating to legalese hurts people who want a better life than: "while (!dead()) work_9_to_5();" .
But would be even more interesting is hearing about anyone's experience using the various Qemu compatible OS Types listed on the Qemu support page link [claunia.com], including, but not limited to:
ann kournikova upskirt buy phentermine fishing rod saltwater teen titan porn tranny shemale
I admire their dedication to maintaining cross platform code, but this is ridiculous.
Hand on... Teen Titan Porn? Okay, stop the internet, I want to get off.
Re:Two things YouTube could make money on.
on
Dvorak Adores YouTube
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm talking about thinking something is funny and dropping the guy a dime, or a fiver.
At the moment there are rampant copyright violations on YouTube. Despite that, nobody is making money from putting up their latest fandub or compilation of movie shots. The instant they add a means for people to make money off of other peoples content the crap will really hit the fan. I can't see it happening.
Pre- and post- advertisements, paid video links, advertising info to your youtube account, preferential viewing, yes. Micropayments to uploaders... can't see it happening. Maybe there is a clever way to do it, I'm just not sure what it is.
Do what I did. Set up the runas service, tick the option in the shortcut properties to run as another user for those programs that require admin rights. They have no problem just enter the admin password when presented with the run as user dialog. I also showed them were the tick box was in the shortcut properties if there were any others they need to do.
Not a bad idea, though it won't last when they find that it is easier just to give themselves admin rights and run the program directly. Because I live over an hour away from them I can't lock their machine down to stop them- they'd kill me.
Having said that, I might have a play with this myself anyway, sounds decent.
That's because they have to run as a member of the Administrators group in order to do fairly mundane tasks like install software or make use of otherwise-mundane consumer hardware.
Bingo.
I've tried, I've tried so hard to get my family to run using user-level accounts. It doesn't work. I don't live with them, so at least one needs an account with Admin rights. The others get the password (usually by asking), and then reelevate themselves. They aren't doing it to spite me. When some games won't run without admin, they can't burn CDs, so forth, they will find a way to make it work. Security? What's that? They don't care. If they can't play games, or burn CDs, they don't care about security.
I know it is nice and easy to blame developers. True, they should do better. Heck, the first two release versions of my software didn't run properly as a user under Windows either (be gentle, I didn't have XP then). But if you want developers to behave, it has to cost them if they don't. The admin-by-default situation in Windows is ludicrous. They took a step in the right direction with user accounts in XP, but with the default installation forcing the first user account to be admin, and then not letting you de-admin the account, makes the step almost pointless.
When default users run as an ordinary user with a pretty graphical sudo, and the OS blocks running apps as administrator without some sort of painful confirmation process (eg. whitelist), and developers have access to decent commandline or API sudo and security equivalents, then developers will behave and make damn sure their app runs as an ordinary user.
Legacy apps will break unless some sort of layer is put in to make it look like the app does have arbitrary permissions to do fun stuff like write into its installation directory or the top level of a drive. I've heard Vista does some of this funky stuff (I'd check if the a__holes at Microsoft actually let me get their beta version of Vista- another story), which I hope is true.
Microsoft got themselves into this mess and they have nobody to blame but themselves (despite the way they love to blame third parties for their sloppy OS). They can dig their way out if they choose. It won't be easy, but give them a decade and they'll be where Unix was a decade ago.;) Perhaps Vista will be another step in the right direction. Or maybe it will be another case of dialog overkill that does nothing for true security. Who knows?
Personally I'm not too stressed one way or the other. I don't use Windows unless I absolutely must, and whilst it is a worm-ridden crash-prone security nightmare it does mean there will be work available to clean up the mess. The target market of my software mostly runs on Windows though, so I do have to keep aware of what is going on. It would be nice if they cleaned up their act, as it makes my work easier.
Hmmm...maybe IBM should invest in SCO so as to keep them afloat for a while?
Sounds like a good idea. Invest enough in SCO (though third parties, of course) to keep it alive long enough for IBM lawyers to slowly tear it to pieces. They wouldn't have to say a word after that. It would probably be the last frivolous lawsuit against them for a very long time.
but what customers are going to pay more for a drive that costs more AND needs to be replaced more often when the only advantage is a possibly insignificant performance increase?
Very true. I was being a touch cynical hey.;) It would probably also take phasing the non-combined drives out of the market as well, something we may not see for a while, or never.
or rather, have convinced themselves they need it
Probably a viable market there come to think about it. People who need (or think they need) that little bit of extra performance and may be happy to pay $200/year rather than $200 for five years to get that extra 10% on a drive with decaying components. People spend disproportionately on high-end PCs all the time.
Hi, owner of that $7,500 gaming rig!
Ye Gods, anyone who has a gaming rig that costs $7.5k... and will be worth $3k in six months... can probably afford disposable drives as well without blinking.;) Cripes, I sure could that kind of cash to upgrade my current setup, and I guarantee it wouldn't go on just one machine...
Slashdot Mirror
Don't know about you, but I'm thinking one of:
- Prove it. Publish your results and get it peer reviewed. None of this nonsense "people won't even take my claims seriously" nonsense. There is probably a reason.
- Profit from it. Free energy? Make a big bank of these things. Sell the power. There are plenty of buyers.
And if neither of these things are happening, I'm thinking one of:
- Crackpot.
- Investor scam.
You haven't had an accident in 30+ years and you're still afraid of crazy drivers all of the time?
A bit paranoid, are we?
Cheap shot. Maybe you're lucky enough to live in an area where people won't try to force you into the back of a parked car to satisfy some feeling of inadequacy, but I doubt it.
Driving with the mindset that there are crazy drivers out there isn't paranoia, it's a damn good idea, good advice, and very true. A few years back I used to commute an hour each way to work each day and I've seen people do a lot of crazy things. I'm only posting today because on the one or two occasions that someone did something stupid that probably would have killed me (eg. truck pulling into my lane with me still in it at 80kph) I was paying attention and took steps to survive.
So yeah, take it easy on your parent poster, your attack was unjustified.
I am also upset that I buy expensive cameras, displays, computers, car parts, and they break from mild to normal usage, but that's how that crap economy of ours work. :(
;)
Very true, but keep looking around. Places still do exist that make good products that last near-enough-to forever. Just be prepared to pay triple- which incidentally works out cheaper in the long run anyway.
My personal example: Colorado shoes (not sure of the spelling, and their site sucks). Pricey little sods, and broke my rule about never spending more than $100 for a pair of shoes. I figured I'd try a pair one day several years ago. I put those suckers through abuse that killed other shoes after three months and years later they are still fine, just not as comfortable as they were when I first got them. I use them for grotty outdoor stuff now. But a year ago when I wanted to get a pair of new shoes, which brand do you think I went for? And when I went in and the salesperson began the long pitch to persuade me it was worth paying extra for decent shoes, I said I'd bought that brand before and was happy to pay the premium, and we skipped straight to the bit where we tried to find something that fits my uncooperative feet.
So yeah, gratuitous plug aside, places do exist that make products that last. You'll just have to dig, and ask your friends what they use and how good it is.
Thanks! those are really good tips. If you don't mind, I'll include your list in my next submission on the subject.
No probs at all. Go right ahead.
These are some good ideas, thanks. :)
Ultimately the asking price and the house do a better job of putting people off than I ever could. Unfortunately it doesn't impact the owner if it doesn't sell, just me.
I just reread your original comment and you were hinting towards this sort of thing anyway. Sorry that I didn't notice this initially.
I picked it because this is what I had at hand. I know it's horrible for this task, but it simply IS. I didn't want to use a made-up or very obscure example. Of course a hash that helps to reconstruct the file placing certain visible restrains would be much better.
;)
I think your idea is the seed to something very groovy. Perhaps it would be a good thing to use the hash to check the final result, and some other easily reversible function to "compress" the code in a lossy way such that you have a good chance (say 90%) to reconstruct it. Whilst people are going to wonder what a non-guaranteed compression will offer, one place lossy compression could be useful is with sending data across a link with terrible bandwidth but decent latency. If the result is small enough, it could be sent in advance of the real data. You could even check the result to see if you can "decompress" on the sending side before sending it, and keep dropping back to successively worse schemes each time it fails until you find a good one. If the result is too bad, just send the uncompressed version. Add one bit to the start signaling "uncompressed" or "compressed" and you're set.
A probabilistic reconstruction of an executable from a hash and general properties sounds very cool, but why on earth should you want to use a hash that is designed to be resistant to reconstructing the original data? Also, you might want to look at the size of the space for possible executables. There may be small amounts of structure within an executable file, but the code and data will not be so helpful.
That "increase in the rent" is an awful clause. Makes you want to start a commune or co-op.
Indeed it is. And don't get me started on tenant obligations when you move into a place and a few months later they put it on the market above value and you are forced to endure weeks of complete strangers in your house at opens.
The Rental agreements in the US are very weighted toward the landlord .... We renegotiated our lease with the landlord.
... The companies EULA precludes us copying their software, and we want to negotiate for a 'site licence' aproach, but they are unwilling to talk to us! - Guess its a case of 'bring money'....
Good on you for having the guts to do that. An excessive of available accommodation probably helped your position. Sadly, vacant tenancy is (apparently) quite low here, which means you pay a lot for crap that would never be let otherwise.
Our system requires a high level of system safety (aviation), and the sofware has to be 'exactly the same' - every bit of data.
Damn, that sucks.
You've probably already covered these, but here are some suggestions:
- Talk to them again, mentioning that you're happy to purchase multiple copies of the software, but they need to be bitwise identical.
- Investigate other software that does a similar thing. Mention to their competitor you are happy to provide a "case study" quote saying why you switched over, it might be worth a discount.
- Check if the EULA actually is binding. Did you buy the software and then get presented with the EULA and it gave you option to install without agreement? Check your local laws, you may be able to disregard it.
- Check with your legal guys, but if you break an agreement they generally can go for damages. If you've bought enough licenses, their damages are going to be close to zero.
- You mention aviation. Are you government? Check to see if you can legally do what you ask anyway, regardless of what the EULA says.
- See if you can get your machine and its mirror classified as a single machine, or the mirror to be considered a cache.
This is an indicator that the company doesn't have a real product.
Or the company is using the agreement as a lottery for new products if their existing one fails.
Unfortunately, such agreements are prevalent in the industry, for software engineering positions anyway. I've never had too much of an issue with casual IT support work though. But support work is less interesting, much more pressure, and pays worse.
I changed employers this month, and my new one has a real product, and its in use. Their NDA is much more reasonable - they own the stuff I write that's related to their business. This is fair to everyone, and is much more enforceable than a blanket "we pwn your @ss".
Lucky you. There are companies out there that don't ream you with their agreements. They tend to be smaller shops. Oddly, the ones with the most vicious contracts tend to be smaller shops too.
I tend to mostly see three lots of agreements:
- Minimal: We own your work at work and not much else. Often claim ownership of anything done pursuant to the work and during work hours. This is pretty reasonable and what I push for when I can.
- We own you: Claim ownership of everything you work on from start to finish of your employment. I try to cut this back or just ask for heaps of money. This is the sort of thing I hate.
- We own everything: Nasty little clause I see from time to time: We own everything you don't explicitly list that you've worked on in the past and present. Never signed this, never will. I can't! I worked on more stuff than I can list and if I forget something someone else owns (that I worked on), I'm stuffed.
Even then, I'd still do the courtesy of discussing it with them ahead of time, to avoid any possible misunderstandings. If they're treating my right, why wouldn't I do the same?
I've done this. I've explained in interviews what I work on outside of hours. They nod and agree, and say it should be no problem. I get an offer, and their legal sends me an agreement that makes it impossible to work for them, and refuses to change anything. wtf?
A smart business lays down reasonable restrictions that protect all parties' natural rights. This generates loyalty and pride (neither of which you can buy) and is defensible both morally and in court. A dumb business creates an "us against them" mentality.
With a level playing field, the smart business would win, since the type of people who are working on something worthwhile outside of work are probably bringing some good ideas into work.
The smaller businesses who play funny games with agreements tend to be annihilated by the smaller businesses who are reasonable. The reason is that employees with any actual ability won't work for a company that cripple them intellectually when they have a better option.
Unfortunately, business is often more than who has the smartest people, it is often about size and power. And when there aren't many competing large players in the market, they don't have to make the effort to make reasonable agreements...
As for the rental agreements, that's just fscked up. Add an "all these clauses apply to both parties, mutatis mutandi". When they ask "what does that mean, say "it means that all the clauses of this lease apply to both of us. I'm not the only one who has to respect them - you do to0"
They'd then move straight on to candidate two. Or three in my case. I was one of three groups looking at my current place on the first weekend it opened.
The specific situation I mention is a response to a flaw in the Act in South Australia: Clicky
Check clause 55 b):
if the tenancy is for a fixed term, the residential tenancy agreement is taken to exclude an increase in rent during the term unless it specifically allows for an increase in rent
And almost every agreement you see from a real estate agent will have a clause that
Most people don't even think of blaming lawmakers. Their immediate reaction is that whoever screwed them over with a legal agreement is the bastard.
;)
Those that even read the legal agreements, anyway.
I used to do exactly what you describe here: blame the company (or their legals). But when almost everyone does it, they are probably not the problem. As far as I'm concerned, fault lies with an overreaching and bloated legal system whose sole purpose is no longer really justice. More... enrichment.
PS: Nice comment by the way. Two paragraphs and much more content than any of my incoherent ramblings.
while (!dead()) {
:) Love the hourly_rate variable.
work_8_to_7();
if (total_hours_worked_this_week() > 40) hourly_rate=0;
}
So very, very true.
Somehow, reams of legalese just don't have the weight of... real problems.
When I have trouble finding a job without a last-minute "agreement" that claims they own everything I think of, even outside of work, and it kills my ability to work on my business or to better myself due to ownership issues, there is a problem. When I can't find a place to live without signing some horrible clause in a rental agreement that lets them up the rent without letting me move out, because every single rental agreement I have ever seen has this clause, there is a problem.
If I dig my heels in (and I have, many times), they just drop to their second-best candidate, who probably signs it. Both for employment and house rentals. Many people tend to just sign what they are presented with, and are surprised when they get screwed over.
Denying people who want to the ability to better themselves beyond a corporate drone and a place to live is a huge problem. Don't underestimate how much apathy relating to legalese hurts people who want a better life than: "while (!dead()) work_9_to_5();" .
Exactly! That's why Bill Gates is still as poor as he was when he founded Microsoft.
Oh, wait...
You're half right. Bill Gates got rich(er) due to hard work. Just not his.
Hand on
Okay, okay, Freud is definitely laughing his ass off at me from above.
But would be even more interesting is hearing about anyone's experience using the various Qemu compatible OS Types listed on the Qemu support page link [claunia.com], including, but not limited to:
ann kournikova upskirt
buy phentermine
fishing rod saltwater
teen titan porn
tranny shemale
I admire their dedication to maintaining cross platform code, but this is ridiculous.
Hand on... Teen Titan Porn? Okay, stop the internet, I want to get off.
I'm talking about thinking something is funny and dropping the guy a dime, or a fiver.
At the moment there are rampant copyright violations on YouTube. Despite that, nobody is making money from putting up their latest fandub or compilation of movie shots. The instant they add a means for people to make money off of other peoples content the crap will really hit the fan. I can't see it happening.
Pre- and post- advertisements, paid video links, advertising info to your youtube account, preferential viewing, yes. Micropayments to uploaders... can't see it happening. Maybe there is a clever way to do it, I'm just not sure what it is.
Charge £40 an hour, and they'll soon start caring.
Quite true. I now charge a roast dinner for family PC maintenance.
hmm, what's with the black helicoptor outside. Woah, look at the scope on that guys rif
;)
Another strike from the Grammar and Spelling Department (Apostrophe Patrol).
Hm... you did read his post right? I don't think he got a chance to proofread.
Do what I did. Set up the runas service, tick the option in the shortcut properties to run as another user for those programs that require admin rights. They have no problem just enter the admin password when presented with the run as user dialog. I also showed them were the tick box was in the shortcut properties if there were any others they need to do.
Not a bad idea, though it won't last when they find that it is easier just to give themselves admin rights and run the program directly. Because I live over an hour away from them I can't lock their machine down to stop them- they'd kill me.
Having said that, I might have a play with this myself anyway, sounds decent.
That's because they have to run as a member of the Administrators group in order to do fairly mundane tasks like install software or make use of otherwise-mundane consumer hardware.
;) Perhaps Vista will be another step in the right direction. Or maybe it will be another case of dialog overkill that does nothing for true security. Who knows?
Bingo.
I've tried, I've tried so hard to get my family to run using user-level accounts. It doesn't work. I don't live with them, so at least one needs an account with Admin rights. The others get the password (usually by asking), and then reelevate themselves. They aren't doing it to spite me. When some games won't run without admin, they can't burn CDs, so forth, they will find a way to make it work. Security? What's that? They don't care. If they can't play games, or burn CDs, they don't care about security.
I know it is nice and easy to blame developers. True, they should do better. Heck, the first two release versions of my software didn't run properly as a user under Windows either (be gentle, I didn't have XP then). But if you want developers to behave, it has to cost them if they don't. The admin-by-default situation in Windows is ludicrous. They took a step in the right direction with user accounts in XP, but with the default installation forcing the first user account to be admin, and then not letting you de-admin the account, makes the step almost pointless.
When default users run as an ordinary user with a pretty graphical sudo, and the OS blocks running apps as administrator without some sort of painful confirmation process (eg. whitelist), and developers have access to decent commandline or API sudo and security equivalents, then developers will behave and make damn sure their app runs as an ordinary user.
Legacy apps will break unless some sort of layer is put in to make it look like the app does have arbitrary permissions to do fun stuff like write into its installation directory or the top level of a drive. I've heard Vista does some of this funky stuff (I'd check if the a__holes at Microsoft actually let me get their beta version of Vista- another story), which I hope is true.
Microsoft got themselves into this mess and they have nobody to blame but themselves (despite the way they love to blame third parties for their sloppy OS). They can dig their way out if they choose. It won't be easy, but give them a decade and they'll be where Unix was a decade ago.
Personally I'm not too stressed one way or the other. I don't use Windows unless I absolutely must, and whilst it is a worm-ridden crash-prone security nightmare it does mean there will be work available to clean up the mess. The target market of my software mostly runs on Windows though, so I do have to keep aware of what is going on. It would be nice if they cleaned up their act, as it makes my work easier.
Pathetic troll, did you even read my post? I know four sentences is pretty heavy going, but the interesting content appears after the first sentence.
Hmmm...maybe IBM should invest in SCO so as to keep them afloat for a while?
Sounds like a good idea. Invest enough in SCO (though third parties, of course) to keep it alive long enough for IBM lawyers to slowly tear it to pieces. They wouldn't have to say a word after that. It would probably be the last frivolous lawsuit against them for a very long time.
but what customers are going to pay more for a drive that costs more AND needs to be replaced more often when the only advantage is a possibly insignificant performance increase?
;) It would probably also take phasing the non-combined drives out of the market as well, something we may not see for a while, or never.
;) Cripes, I sure could that kind of cash to upgrade my current setup, and I guarantee it wouldn't go on just one machine...
Very true. I was being a touch cynical hey.
or rather, have convinced themselves they need it
Probably a viable market there come to think about it. People who need (or think they need) that little bit of extra performance and may be happy to pay $200/year rather than $200 for five years to get that extra 10% on a drive with decaying components. People spend disproportionately on high-end PCs all the time.
Hi, owner of that $7,500 gaming rig!
Ye Gods, anyone who has a gaming rig that costs $7.5k... and will be worth $3k in six months... can probably afford disposable drives as well without blinking.