What bollox. It's trivial to write a program that will never complete its execution. Also a well written piece of C code WILL run faster than a well written piece of Java code. Java's easier to maintain in the long run though I'll grant you.
2. Poor programmers don't know how to optimize their code to run well
True enough. Poor programmers don't know how. Good one's are rarely given the time to do it. It's usually not cost effective to optimise most code.
3. Java makes it easy for even poor programmers to do their job
If you kept your library lending record on such a token you'd be smoking wacky weed! You might keep some summary information like a trust rating. Or you might just keep it to basics like age, country of residency etc. The reason that anon payments would be useful is in case you didn't trust the vendor to keep your information secret. You already trust the public library not to publish your lending record. However you might not trust a porn retailer not to put you on a mailing list or publish your history. In that case verifying you're 18 without giving additional information would be useful.
As for issues with litigation what would you rather say if you were accused of selling porn to a minor? Your honour I have cert number 121332293478294 that says whoever I sold this to was over 18, or your honour I accepted payment from Mr Jarvis Flugelbund of 6 Acacia lane, Pornsville, who submitted a fax of his drivers license that clearly shows he's 32?
Oh please. How generous that you let them have ipods and mp3 players? So what if your biller wants to pay some bills of their own and wants to keep soft copies of printed receipts? Oh no we can't fucking have that because they might connect something with a virus on it. They're mushrooms: Keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit.
How about you go back and fucking re-read what you said. You won't even let them install something work related, but no you won't answer that because it's "irrelevant crap". It's incredible that you accuse me of lacking the ability to think and read critically when you're unable to do so yourself. You sir are a fucking control freak who would rather sabotage your own people's productivity than take the time to do your job properly and help your staff use their computers more effectively.
Assuming this is true: http://blogs.smh.com.au/thedailytruth/Dtwhopping.h tml "The Federal Government estimates replacing the old bulbs with compact flourescents in homes could cut greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 800,000 tonnes a year in 2008-12. Australia's emissions in 2004 totalled 564.7 million tonnes."
Do the math, it's about an 0.15% reduction. It amazes me that people are so easily conned into thinking that something is environmentally friendly. I've seen people suggest that you should rush out and replace all your light globes with "energy efficient" ones. Never mind that they cost 10 times the price, do not in my experience last anywhere near as long as promised, and require the use of even more damaging materials to manufacture than the old standard light globes. Do people ever think maybe the reason they're being brain washed into thinking these things are energy efficient is that with the price being higher so is the profit margin?
Agreed. What need does a biller have in hooking up their IPOD to their work PC? Why would a clientservices-phone jockey need to hook up their USB memory stick? Why would a transcriptionist need access msn/hotmail/yahoomail?
Yes. What need does a biller have for any kind of entertainment. I say ban newspapers, radios etc. too. While we're at it let's monitor toilet brakes. Oh and most employees stay back late anyway but there are a few stragglers. Let's cut their lunch hour in half and extend the working week to 12 hours 6 days a week. Ah hell lets make it 7 days a week. Worker's don't really need to have families or social lives.
Now would you want to work there? Are you going to do a wonderful job and slave away or are you going to go slow? If there's a shortage of billers and there are better working conditions elsewhere would you hesitate to leave?
*IF* however, you have federal and or state guidelines you MUST follow with regards to protecting identity and health information, then sorry pals, your workstation is locked down. Nope -- no unauthorized memory sticks. Nope, no internet access -- other than white listed work related sites. Nope, no access to install software....and nope I won't be working there if I have any alternative. Thanks for playing.
I've had users ask me for permission to install some "app" they like to use. The simple answer is "no" and I don't want to waste my breath re-hashing the same reasons. So I say "No. Check your employee handbook, page 12 for why" and walk away. I'm not going to have anyone of my guys jump through paperwork hoops to keep CAP or CLIA or MediCal happy so someone can have their computer go "ding" at a certain time using their favorite software.
Wonder what your retention rate is there? Wonder how often your denial of requests have actually prevented someone from doing their job effectively? Now imagine that you want to install a new network monitoring app and your boss says "nope, read page 12...blah blah blah".
Have you ever considered you're simply an inconsiderate asshole with the people skills of a small mole rat?
True of all such "private" information storage facilities...
Either the information is kept by someone and can be obtained from the issuer (whether through legitimate legal means or theft. This is valuable information. Unscrupulous people will steal, trade and sell it). You're basically trusting the issuer to keep you safe. SSL certs are kinda like this but there's no pretense of private data being stored encrypted in the cert.
OR
Once the certificate is issued there is no way to identify who it is issued to, which means the only way a security hole in the method comes to light is when massive fraud occurs or if someone brags about breaking it. PGP is kinda like this.
All this does is allow you to buy products or services annoymously from legit vendors, and only so long as the system isn't compromised. The other thing is most non-shady vendors won't want to accept this form of ID/verification. I mean it's great for porn vendors because porn is socially vilified and people don't want to admit to buying it or having it on record. For most other things, the vendor will prefer a method of verification under their control since it'll give them marketing data and also prove to be a better protection against litigation than some anonymous cert.
I'm wondering how much a person would change their lifestyle, the things they do, watch, see, etc... if they were under this situation. Surely the person would have an understanding that the government could have a court order to seize all of this information and prosecute a person for everything they had ever done. Would they act the same under such circumstances?
Just look at reality TV. A pretence of proprietary is there initially, then most of the retards they put on these shows either forget the cameras are there or choose to ignore them so long as they don't immediately feel the consequences of their actions. Then they come out and realise the came across as racists or manipulators or sluts or victims and realise hey there is a consequence to constantly being filmed. I suspect even non-cretins would fall victim to the same phenomenon.
The cops probably dropped the complaint because of media scrutiny, at least indirectly. The judge could hardly convict with so many eyes on him now could he. If anything this shows that we SHOULDN'T drop it.
...and when the law is changed so that anyone can do 50 and the ridiculous 25 zones are removed, you may even have a point, albeit a weak one. In the mean time if anyone else is caught going over the limit in that 25 zone, they get booked so this couple - annoying or not, freaky parents or not - was right to point out that the law is being flouted by an officer of the law.
It's becoming an important distinction these days because so many "scientists" who are no better qualified than I am, are none-the-less using their status as "scientist" to question the results put out by scientists with in-depth knowledge backed by significant practical experience in the study of their specialty (e.g. a researcher)....and the problem here is what exactly? It's not the science at all. The science can and must stand up to scrutiny even by a dimwit who doesn't understand it. The specialised research must be able to construct a suitable counter argument. The only problem is FAME, NOT JOB TITLE. People are more willing to believe a more recongised individual even if they're a complete moron or ditz.
Why? Elevate once. Remember that decision. End of story. Zone alarm does it very well. The first time an app decides it wants to use a network as a client it prompts and asks do you want to let it. You have the option to allow this action once or every time the application tries. If you make a mistake you can go into a list of programs and change the setting. Likewise if an app wants to act as a server you get another prompt, again with the option to say "yes, always". It's not hard. The MS implementation of UAC is just horseshit.
But if you know you're going to be installing lots of applications and you don't want to be bothered with multiple UAC prompts, then just turn off UAC while you're doing those installations. Simple as that. And not harder that su root.
My understanding is that to switch UAC on or off you have to reboot. As you pointed out su root also lets you do a set of operations at once instead of clicking six times. The main problem is that MS have done only minimal grouping. There should be exactly one prompt, it should list all the operations that are being done for the entire set of files. Many users won't understand much besides "do you want to run" in any case.
Since almost everybody who will run Vista will get it on a new machine with most of the software they will use pre-installed, this is even more of a non-issue.
What BS is this? You want an OS that just caters to people who run nothing more than Office and IE? Gimme a break. Most people do install software at some point. It comes with hardware or they had it on their old computer and got use to it so they want to put it on the new one....etc.
But the biggest point is that the way that unix does it, with a session-based elevation, is no less time consuming (in fact, it's usually more time consuming), and it's FAR more dangerous for a "dumb" user because they will tend to just leave their session elevated....as opposed to getting numb clicking yes to things they do every day? Gimme a break.
I think you're being a troll. Unfortunately on/. trolls get modded insightful lately.
It's definitely about people bitching at Microsoft for finally doing something. It's like going to a doctor, complaining of a pain in your foot and having the doctor whip out a chainsaw and cut off your entire leg. I'd complain about that too and wouldn't be at all happy with a "but the pain in your foot is gone isn't it" type response. Doing something badly - overreacting - can make things worse. People are right to bitch.
Its mostly because Windows has been so piss-poor with their default settings in the past, so trying to get a more secure-by-default setup is like pulling teeth.
No it's like trying to pull teeth with a chainsaw and a bag of sand...ie. as no competent professional dentist would think to try, let alone seriously contemplate. The problem isn't increased security here, it's incompetent implementation.
Nothing says "I love you" like etching your girlfriend's name onto a cold metal construct and shooting it into the black oblivion of space....especially if you use her credit card to pay for it.
Nah you get around that by creating a similar but different character. My proposals: 1) Captain Constipation. (Copyright laws do that to me) 2) Captain DRM...and the 5 year prison sentence. 3) Capital Punishment (for anything creative) 4) General 'Your mom owes us $5000 for singing happy birthday to you this year alone'
That has more to do with book reading software and hardware than anything else. Book readers are typically cumbersome to hold, larger than they need to be, expensive and not very water proof. All but the last are critical shortcomings. The software also makes it hard to retain a book mark while flipping through the rest of the book. There's little in the way of a standard book format, page numbering affected by the reader for many formats. Again critical shortcomings BUT all technical and none insurmountable. It's a matter of time before a device is made that's cheap and convenient enough that people will want to use it to read. Current incarnations are pathetic.
I carry my laptop with me and like to read books on it when I can. I deal with all of the above because it means I can carry more books on the train than I could with a small truck. Not so important for novels but for reference material it's great. I just wish there was more legally obtainable content.
Not true. There are rare books that only have gone through a first edition print that are much more expensive than they should be. You'll find them on P2P networks because no one wants to pay hundreds of dollars for the third paperback in a trilogy because some fucking publisher has supposedly decided right at the end that the trilogy wasn't profitable and only done a single run of the last book.
The problem here is the same for music and books - the publishers want to push up the price of their item by making it scarce artificially. The techniques vary from printing less copies of a book, to making a movie expire but it's all fundamentally the same. Decrease supply for an item that is in demand.
I'm certainly no lawyer and I don't know for a fact that this idea could work, particularly since I'm not sure what the terms of settlement may be but...
Why doesn't each and every person who has settled their case with RIAA counter-sue, providing this letter as evidence that they have been co-erced into their agreement with evidence that has now proven by RIAAs own admission to be suspect. Sue for damage to reputation, hardship caused by the settlement etc. Sue individually, not as a class action. Even if the cases weren't won, I'd imagine the number would keep the RIAA legal team tied in a knot for some time. Use the same frivolous tactic back against them.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Well written Java programs aren't slow
What bollox. It's trivial to write a program that will never complete its execution. Also a well written piece of C code WILL run faster than a well written piece of Java code. Java's easier to maintain in the long run though I'll grant you.
2. Poor programmers don't know how to optimize their code to run well
True enough. Poor programmers don't know how. Good one's are rarely given the time to do it. It's usually not cost effective to optimise most code.
3. Java makes it easy for even poor programmers to do their job
Clearly you've never met a truly poor programmer.
Huh? Are you misunderstanding me on purpose?
If you kept your library lending record on such a token you'd be smoking wacky weed! You might keep some summary information like a trust rating. Or you might just keep it to basics like age, country of residency etc. The reason that anon payments would be useful is in case you didn't trust the vendor to keep your information secret. You already trust the public library not to publish your lending record. However you might not trust a porn retailer not to put you on a mailing list or publish your history. In that case verifying you're 18 without giving additional information would be useful.
As for issues with litigation what would you rather say if you were accused of selling porn to a minor? Your honour I have cert number 121332293478294 that says whoever I sold this to was over 18, or your honour I accepted payment from Mr Jarvis Flugelbund of 6 Acacia lane, Pornsville, who submitted a fax of his drivers license that clearly shows he's 32?
Oh please. How generous that you let them have ipods and mp3 players? So what if your biller wants to pay some bills of their own and wants to keep soft copies of printed receipts? Oh no we can't fucking have that because they might connect something with a virus on it. They're mushrooms: Keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit.
How about you go back and fucking re-read what you said. You won't even let them install something work related, but no you won't answer that because it's "irrelevant crap". It's incredible that you accuse me of lacking the ability to think and read critically when you're unable to do so yourself. You sir are a fucking control freak who would rather sabotage your own people's productivity than take the time to do your job properly and help your staff use their computers more effectively.
Actually that's pretty fucking bad per capita.
Assuming this is true:h tml
0 7/02/a_matter_of_global_concern.html
http://blogs.smh.com.au/thedailytruth/Dtwhopping.
"The Federal Government estimates replacing the old bulbs with compact flourescents in homes could cut greenhouse gas emissions by as much as 800,000 tonnes a year in 2008-12.
Australia's emissions in 2004 totalled 564.7 million tonnes."
Do the math, it's about an 0.15% reduction. It amazes me that people are so easily conned into thinking that something is environmentally friendly. I've seen people suggest that you should rush out and replace all your light globes with "energy efficient" ones. Never mind that they cost 10 times the price, do not in my experience last anywhere near as long as promised, and require the use of even more damaging materials to manufacture than the old standard light globes. Do people ever think maybe the reason they're being brain washed into thinking these things are energy efficient is that with the price being higher so is the profit margin?
http://blogs.smh.com.au/thedailytruth/archives/20
Agreed. What need does a biller have in hooking up their IPOD to their work PC? Why would a clientservices-phone jockey need to hook up their USB memory stick? Why would a transcriptionist need access msn/hotmail/yahoomail?
...and nope I won't be working there if I have any alternative. Thanks for playing.
Yes. What need does a biller have for any kind of entertainment. I say ban newspapers, radios etc. too. While we're at it let's monitor toilet brakes. Oh and most employees stay back late anyway but there are a few stragglers. Let's cut their lunch hour in half and extend the working week to 12 hours 6 days a week. Ah hell lets make it 7 days a week. Worker's don't really need to have families or social lives.
Now would you want to work there? Are you going to do a wonderful job and slave away or are you going to go slow? If there's a shortage of billers and there are better working conditions elsewhere would you hesitate to leave?
*IF* however, you have federal and or state guidelines you MUST follow with regards to protecting identity and health information, then sorry pals, your workstation is locked down. Nope -- no unauthorized memory sticks. Nope, no internet access -- other than white listed work related sites. Nope, no access to install software.
I've had users ask me for permission to install some "app" they like to use. The simple answer is "no" and I don't want to waste my breath re-hashing the same reasons. So I say "No. Check your employee handbook, page 12 for why" and walk away. I'm not going to have anyone of my guys jump through paperwork hoops to keep CAP or CLIA or MediCal happy so someone can have their computer go "ding" at a certain time using their favorite software.
Wonder what your retention rate is there? Wonder how often your denial of requests have actually prevented someone from doing their job effectively? Now imagine that you want to install a new network monitoring app and your boss says "nope, read page 12...blah blah blah".
Have you ever considered you're simply an inconsiderate asshole with the people skills of a small mole rat?
True of all such "private" information storage facilities...
Either the information is kept by someone and can be obtained from the issuer (whether through legitimate legal means or theft. This is valuable information. Unscrupulous people will steal, trade and sell it). You're basically trusting the issuer to keep you safe. SSL certs are kinda like this but there's no pretense of private data being stored encrypted in the cert.
OR
Once the certificate is issued there is no way to identify who it is issued to, which means the only way a security hole in the method comes to light is when massive fraud occurs or if someone brags about breaking it. PGP is kinda like this.
All this does is allow you to buy products or services annoymously from legit vendors, and only so long as the system isn't compromised. The other thing is most non-shady vendors won't want to accept this form of ID/verification. I mean it's great for porn vendors because porn is socially vilified and people don't want to admit to buying it or having it on record. For most other things, the vendor will prefer a method of verification under their control since it'll give them marketing data and also prove to be a better protection against litigation than some anonymous cert.
I'm wondering how much a person would change their lifestyle, the things they do, watch, see, etc... if they were under this situation. Surely the person would have an understanding that the government could have a court order to seize all of this information and prosecute a person for everything they had ever done. Would they act the same under such circumstances?
Just look at reality TV. A pretence of proprietary is there initially, then most of the retards they put on these shows either forget the cameras are there or choose to ignore them so long as they don't immediately feel the consequences of their actions. Then they come out and realise the came across as racists or manipulators or sluts or victims and realise hey there is a consequence to constantly being filmed. I suspect even non-cretins would fall victim to the same phenomenon.
The cops probably dropped the complaint because of media scrutiny, at least indirectly. The judge could hardly convict with so many eyes on him now could he. If anything this shows that we SHOULDN'T drop it.
...and when the law is changed so that anyone can do 50 and the ridiculous 25 zones are removed, you may even have a point, albeit a weak one. In the mean time if anyone else is caught going over the limit in that 25 zone, they get booked so this couple - annoying or not, freaky parents or not - was right to point out that the law is being flouted by an officer of the law.
Same bat time, same bat channel, same bat shit...
It's becoming an important distinction these days because so many "scientists" who are no better qualified than I am, are none-the-less using their status as "scientist" to question the results put out by scientists with in-depth knowledge backed by significant practical experience in the study of their specialty (e.g. a researcher). ...and the problem here is what exactly? It's not the science at all. The science can and must stand up to scrutiny even by a dimwit who doesn't understand it. The specialised research must be able to construct a suitable counter argument. The only problem is FAME, NOT JOB TITLE. People are more willing to believe a more recongised individual even if they're a complete moron or ditz.
...and I carry the power supply with me at all times. Time to generate some power....*ahhhhhhhh* *grin*
Why? Elevate once. Remember that decision. End of story. Zone alarm does it very well. The first time an app decides it wants to use a network as a client it prompts and asks do you want to let it. You have the option to allow this action once or every time the application tries. If you make a mistake you can go into a list of programs and change the setting. Likewise if an app wants to act as a server you get another prompt, again with the option to say "yes, always". It's not hard. The MS implementation of UAC is just horseshit.
But if you know you're going to be installing lots of applications and you don't want to be bothered with multiple UAC prompts, then just turn off UAC while you're doing those installations. Simple as that. And not harder that su root.
...as opposed to getting numb clicking yes to things they do every day? Gimme a break.
/. trolls get modded insightful lately.
My understanding is that to switch UAC on or off you have to reboot. As you pointed out su root also lets you do a set of operations at once instead of clicking six times. The main problem is that MS have done only minimal grouping. There should be exactly one prompt, it should list all the operations that are being done for the entire set of files. Many users won't understand much besides "do you want to run" in any case.
Since almost everybody who will run Vista will get it on a new machine with most of the software they will use pre-installed, this is even more of a non-issue.
What BS is this? You want an OS that just caters to people who run nothing more than Office and IE? Gimme a break. Most people do install software at some point. It comes with hardware or they had it on their old computer and got use to it so they want to put it on the new one....etc.
But the biggest point is that the way that unix does it, with a session-based elevation, is no less time consuming (in fact, it's usually more time consuming), and it's FAR more dangerous for a "dumb" user because they will tend to just leave their session elevated.
I think you're being a troll. Unfortunately on
It's definitely about people bitching at Microsoft for finally doing something. It's like going to a doctor, complaining of a pain in your foot and having the doctor whip out a chainsaw and cut off your entire leg. I'd complain about that too and wouldn't be at all happy with a "but the pain in your foot is gone isn't it" type response. Doing something badly - overreacting - can make things worse. People are right to bitch.
Its mostly because Windows has been so piss-poor with their default settings in the past, so trying to get a more secure-by-default setup is like pulling teeth.
No it's like trying to pull teeth with a chainsaw and a bag of sand...ie. as no competent professional dentist would think to try, let alone seriously contemplate. The problem isn't increased security here, it's incompetent implementation.
Your mistake is pointing to a Microsoft article that explains the whole thing not just now to turn it off. Here what you want:
t a.htm
http://www.petri.co.il/disable_uac_in_windows_vis
For me that post wins the most quotable and humorous for the year so far, and yet makes its point very well. I salute you.
Nothing says "I love you" like etching your girlfriend's name onto a cold metal construct and shooting it into the black oblivion of space. ...especially if you use her credit card to pay for it.
Nah you get around that by creating a similar but different character. My proposals:
1) Captain Constipation. (Copyright laws do that to me)
2) Captain DRM...and the 5 year prison sentence.
3) Capital Punishment (for anything creative)
4) General 'Your mom owes us $5000 for singing happy birthday to you this year alone'
Captain Copyright my left nut.
That has more to do with book reading software and hardware than anything else. Book readers are typically cumbersome to hold, larger than they need to be, expensive and not very water proof. All but the last are critical shortcomings. The software also makes it hard to retain a book mark while flipping through the rest of the book. There's little in the way of a standard book format, page numbering affected by the reader for many formats. Again critical shortcomings BUT all technical and none insurmountable. It's a matter of time before a device is made that's cheap and convenient enough that people will want to use it to read. Current incarnations are pathetic.
I carry my laptop with me and like to read books on it when I can. I deal with all of the above because it means I can carry more books on the train than I could with a small truck. Not so important for novels but for reference material it's great. I just wish there was more legally obtainable content.
Not true. There are rare books that only have gone through a first edition print that are much more expensive than they should be. You'll find them on P2P networks because no one wants to pay hundreds of dollars for the third paperback in a trilogy because some fucking publisher has supposedly decided right at the end that the trilogy wasn't profitable and only done a single run of the last book.
The problem here is the same for music and books - the publishers want to push up the price of their item by making it scarce artificially. The techniques vary from printing less copies of a book, to making a movie expire but it's all fundamentally the same. Decrease supply for an item that is in demand.
I'm certainly no lawyer and I don't know for a fact that this idea could work, particularly since I'm not sure what the terms of settlement may be but...
Why doesn't each and every person who has settled their case with RIAA counter-sue, providing this letter as evidence that they have been co-erced into their agreement with evidence that has now proven by RIAAs own admission to be suspect. Sue for damage to reputation, hardship caused by the settlement etc. Sue individually, not as a class action. Even if the cases weren't won, I'd imagine the number would keep the RIAA legal team tied in a knot for some time. Use the same frivolous tactic back against them.
Lots of silion in Hollywood....oh you said BRAINS not BREASTS.