What is the point of changing your proxy server password every 30 days (or whatever), if the password is in fact only for the proxy server, which gives you only outbound, and not inbound access, it seems to be a severe waste of effort. If you are already doing proxy passwords you are likely already *ahem* monitoring the users' usage anyway.
I admit i dont know much about the internals of GoD but did they have actual business people running the business side or like having more SW developers do it? One thing that is common in IT and in SW development is that people dont know enough as to when they dont know how to do something.
But we all know that media conglomerates treat all customers like potential criminals. You would think that a few of these video game studios with some resources could join forces and make their own distribution firm.
Re:This Article is riddled with inaccuracies.
on
NeXTSTEP To Mac OS X
·
· Score: 1
mebeb/. needs some new tech META-RESUME! when replying to a post any keywords in their resume is automatically highlighted an hotlinked.
This is confusing and illogical, as much lawyer speak is. How does one tell a 'reasonable person' that they own something while at the same time putting all the blame on someone else. If you own it all of it is yours, good and bad. If you dont own it then the user takes the fall. This EULA is irrational, and perhaps someone should file an amicus brief to that effect.
Re:This Article is riddled with inaccuracies.
on
NeXTSTEP To Mac OS X
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Id like to add a few things based on my experiences in the user chat rooms (IRC) at the time, specifically on the "Idiot wars" (which im not sure i would have chosen as a term but hey:)
Of the many things we groused about as we saw os x develop were many of those UI things. We wanted our volumes on the desktop along with our trash (which we didnt officially get).
Many people wanted labels (of which I couldnt care less).
There was also a lot of back and forth by people who mostly didnt know anything regarding open transport, that is streams from OT (macos 7 - 9) and of course BSD sockets from NeXT. Of course in the end no one noticed any change at all and that part has long since been forgotten.
There was, and still remains some bitterness over the appearance manager getting "Steved". This one is a mixed bag. Id like to change some colors, however when you look at some the visual disasters created by ppl who would be better off doing soap carving, I dont know if i can fault Steve totally.
In the end the users didnt want to have to learn too much new stuff. The finder had to behave like everyone expected. And more importantly X-Windows style cursor focusing is just a no go. (Ive used it on Solaris, and it takes a certain mindset to deal with that meta-abstraction in a visual mode) and frankly it would be too bard for some people. As a note there was and may still be a hidden pref in the terminal.plist to turn this on for terminal, however it causes behavior inconsistencies when terminal autofocuses when you are in a "normal" app.
not to make light, but the overall solution would have to be reverse engineer this and then wedge something in between to respond only with good responses. With that done i'll go hook up my perpetual motion machine:)
I believe you miss the point. this whole issue of indemifacation, i believe, is an astroturf campaign to worry ppl about linux. I had never heard of it prior to SCO bringing it up. Its a manufactured issue.
Ya know I think this whole thing is astroturf. This idemifaction 'issue' seems to be part of the larger FUD campaign against linux. I dont recall if this initiated from SCO or MS, or SCO via MS
null means you havent entered any data. Much like a crossword puzzle a blank means you dont know, you havent put in a letter yet. An attempt to derive meaning from literally nothing. This is speculation in its purest form.
Well as for the first part, this is really due to poor design. A null is intended to be used as a special thing. In fact null != null. Its meant to behave like that. This is the reason default values exist. if you want to have a column with empty rows to be 0 and not null then you specify that when you are planning. and when you are counting objects you can have 0. 0 is a value. null isnt a value. There are reasons why nulls are this way. One of which is to look for rows that have no data. If you think dealing with nulls in this sense is hard, imagine trying to programatically deal with what is 'empty' or '0' in an arbitrary column? Is this 0 a numeric? its is a 0x00? is it 0x30?
Null was meant to take the place of all the hack jobs that were used in older databases to signify non-value, NaN and so on.
Part of using SQL in the manner that it is, is that you get what you ask for. You dont get what some programmer *thinks* you want. Because at some point you may want something else. I really dont want a computer to guess at what I really want. I want it to tell me what it knows.
So this also means that honeywell could sue any of the customers of any of the sued companies, as all the customers are users.
This seems the other side of the SW patent coin, and potentially very harmful for business and the economy. Can a company buying a commodity product, realistically expected to research all the possible patents? this is really he job of the part manufacturer.
*sigh* Why do i have to keep deconstructing the same things again and again. I'm not even going to talk to whatever agenda you are advocating, im going deal strictly with practical concerns.
"Also, avoiding vehicles with built-in transponders is far simpler than having to identify them by radar."
Actually airplanes today already have transponders, as well as onboard radar, and air traffic control tracking radar, and yet they still manage to have mid air collisions. Clearly the systems in use today are not perfect for even the miniscule percentage of the sky that is currently being taken up by planes. (regardless if you perfect of the whole sky or the percent in use in the major air travel corridors.
Now imagine if you will tens of thousands of people heading out from work to go home all trying to navigate a slot into the general direction of say, the NYC suburbs. Looking at the highways, and the accidents therein humans arent doing a perfect job either. The current control systems work find on open road, when all the other cars have control systems, and nothing strange happens. The whole thing goes to hell when you dump off the highway and attempt to auto-navigate metro traffic.
If we reasonable assume an aircar would be going at a greater speed than that of a ground car, the chance for human error when doing an insertion into say something going the speed of a nascar race is shocking. You really need to think a couple steps ahead here, a few hundred ppl with their flying toy are trivial to each other, however still being aircraft they fall under FAA jurisdiction.
You also seem to straw-man the very real concern of flying one of these things into a building. Tell me which airspace will be controlled and which wont? Do you really want some hot shot just hovering outside your office building?
"Uh, I think you've got 9-11 on the brain. Flaming death from the skies, oh my."
This comment is plain asinine. there have been several incidents of aircraft hitting buildings prior to 9/11, and those fall into only 2 categories accidental and intentional. What is your flip answer for dealing with this?
Perhaps it would be wise to keep irrelevant mentions of associations out article copy.
Re:Without reading the article...
on
NYT On Flying Cars
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Ahem, So the article says:
One beneficiary of computerized navigation is national security: thanks to G.P.S. and cellphone technology, flying cars could be tracked more easily than any road vehicle. NASA is already at work on a device that will function as an on-board air-traffic controller, and the agency expects to have it ready in time for the debut of its first flying car, the EQuiPT, or Easy Quiet Personal Transport. (NASA prefers the term ''personal air vehicle'' to ''flying car.'') The vehicle will automatically broadcast information on its location, so ground monitors and every other aircraft in the sky will know exactly who and where you are. (Any rogue vehicle ought to be easily spotted; another driver who sees a car that is in the air but not on his monitor can be expected to sound the alarm.)
Lets look at this further, Ok so they can track them, its doesn't state that it can control them remotely, however a reasonable person would have to assume that you would have to. it also doesn't address turing off the transponder/gps what have you by someone determined. If we make the assumption (also not exactly in the article) that the unit is aerodynamically unstable (like the stealth fighter) and cannot be flown without computer control, then you wont be able to get it off the ground manually.
On top of this just a few weeks ago NPR had an article about computer controlled ground cars. Those systems are current setup to leave a space between cars of 100 feet. Clearly insufficient for actual metropolitan driving conditions. While they are still working on getting this control system to work in the conditions that would occur in the busiest cities, i take great pause to think that:
A) If a driverless control system isn't ready to be used on normal cars its still going to be a ways off for air cars.
B) That there is will the concern of overriding the system, and if one had an aircar full of explosives, is air traffic control going to be able to put it somewhere 'safe' in the 2 seconds it'll take to make a left turn into the side of a building? But how about we revisit this *after* the first aircar crashes into a building
Re:Without reading the article...
on
NYT On Flying Cars
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Well, a number of things can be addressed by technology.
Researchers are already working on driverless control systems, so much like a planes autopilot, you just watch most of the time. This system will be 100% necessary in a flying car as most ppl wont be able to be pilots (more on this later), and not to mention the clear need to protect farmers' markets from inadvertent ballistic objects. This is more than 5 years away for ground cars, aircars, much more so.
Secondly you are going to need a radically new lifting and propulsion technology. Fans, jets, and propellers just aint gonna cut it. Besides with cars flying thru the air even at 55mph you couldnt stop/maneuver fast enough if there were a problem with current technology. The only real answer here is science fiction. So we are going to be waiting for a while.
Of course with flying cars the airlines will go totally bankrupt, which is probably just as well.
Security becomes a nightmare. the borders of every country would need to have an override system to force all cars into approved entry points. This of course is also a fools errand as anyone intent on doing something would just override the in car control system.
Why do I feel like Im sketching out a Larry Niven short story?
This is more interesting than one might be lead to believe. If the parts are easy to replace then this saves on repair labor costs and it also makes nearly the whole unit a collection of field / user swappable parts. Being a PC field tech for a number of years this is really a radical shift for apple.
Now keeping this in mind i have seen many a screwless case come and go from both dell and gateway, and i would have preferred that they had screws as the mechanisms they used were so crappy it would have been easier to repair.
While I certainly see your point, i just dont trust that it would 'go away' with the rest of them. I guess i dont have any faith anymore in 'the right thing'
This concerns me more than even that. Lets say for the sake of argument that your business gets caught up in a customer complaint and it escalates to a civil suit, or you are falsely accused of spam or god forbid get caught up in an RIAA/MPAA random word search DCMA action, and you are 'hiding' your whois info. Well i can certainly see some overzealous DA go on a fishing filing these charges against you while all the other stuff is being cleared up (because they throw in the kitchen sink to see what will stick) and you may get nailed on this alone, as its the only "real" charge left over from the fishing expedition.
I also thought about this and then toss is out as claptrap. i very much doubt that even if human were to erect a single mountain it would have much effect on wind patterns. Besides no one gives a rat ass about how all the skyscrapers in manhattan changed wind patterns.
In any case as much of the US farmland is in the tornado belt, how does one deal with the inevitable of a tornado cutting a swath across the power production grid? There will likely still need to be some kinda of non-decentralized backup. If we were to go all wind/solar the only reasonable backup would be nuclear as the fossil fuel plants would end up being shut down
1) VPC never performed at an equivalent speed to the native CPU. The best performer was of course Win95, the worst XP. IIRC XB1 was some kinda Windows embedded, so this remains a question.
2) With i think version 3 or version 4 VPC did not support 3D. The performance just didn't cut it. *HOWEVER* since the video in the XB1 is a known, I suppose it may be possible to just automatically route all the video calls to the GPU and just toss it onto the screen. (I am not an engineer so i don't know).
In conclusion, i think the best best would be to just toss an extra x86 cpu on the board with some graphics glue for the new gpu and go that way.
I say we take use of modern technology, get al the spammers onto a luxury cruise ship, and then chuck a meteor at it while sailing it thru a hurricane.
Slashdot Mirror
What is the point of changing your proxy server password every 30 days (or whatever), if the password is in fact only for the proxy server, which gives you only outbound, and not inbound access, it seems to be a severe waste of effort. If you are already doing proxy passwords you are likely already *ahem* monitoring the users' usage anyway.
crap indeed, anyone that goes about deploying activeX crap on the web should be shot.
I admit i dont know much about the internals of GoD but did they have actual business people running the business side or like having more SW developers do it? One thing that is common in IT and in SW development is that people dont know enough as to when they dont know how to do something.
Doesnt Vivendi also own Blizzard?
But we all know that media conglomerates treat all customers like potential criminals. You would think that a few of these video game studios with some resources could join forces and make their own distribution firm.
mebeb /. needs some new tech META-RESUME! when replying to a post any keywords in their resume is automatically highlighted an hotlinked.
should save some grief all around.
This is confusing and illogical, as much lawyer speak is. How does one tell a 'reasonable person' that they own something while at the same time putting all the blame on someone else. If you own it all of it is yours, good and bad. If you dont own it then the user takes the fall. This EULA is irrational, and perhaps someone should file an amicus brief to that effect.
Id like to add a few things based on my experiences in the user chat rooms (IRC) at the time, specifically on the "Idiot wars" (which im not sure i would have chosen as a term but hey:)
Of the many things we groused about as we saw os x develop were many of those UI things. We wanted our volumes on the desktop along with our trash (which we didnt officially get).
Many people wanted labels (of which I couldnt care less).
There was also a lot of back and forth by people who mostly didnt know anything regarding open transport, that is streams from OT (macos 7 - 9) and of course BSD sockets from NeXT. Of course in the end no one noticed any change at all and that part has long since been forgotten.
There was, and still remains some bitterness over the appearance manager getting "Steved". This one is a mixed bag. Id like to change some colors, however when you look at some the visual disasters created by ppl who would be better off doing soap carving, I dont know if i can fault Steve totally.
In the end the users didnt want to have to learn too much new stuff. The finder had to behave like everyone expected. And more importantly X-Windows style cursor focusing is just a no go. (Ive used it on Solaris, and it takes a certain mindset to deal with that meta-abstraction in a visual mode) and frankly it would be too bard for some people. As a note there was and may still be a hidden pref in the terminal.plist to turn this on for terminal, however it causes behavior inconsistencies when terminal autofocuses when you are in a "normal" app.
And thus it was from the peanut gallery.
so the cult of mac gets knocked out of first place. :)
not to make light, but the overall solution would have to be reverse engineer this and then wedge something in between to respond only with good responses. With that done i'll go hook up my perpetual motion machine:)
sir (or less likely madam)
I believe you miss the point. this whole issue of indemifacation, i believe, is an astroturf campaign to worry ppl about linux. I had never heard of it prior to SCO bringing it up. Its a manufactured issue.
Ya know I think this whole thing is astroturf. This idemifaction 'issue' seems to be part of the larger FUD campaign against linux. I dont recall if this initiated from SCO or MS, or SCO via MS
null means you havent entered any data. Much like a crossword puzzle a blank means you dont know, you havent put in a letter yet. An attempt to derive meaning from literally nothing. This is speculation in its purest form.
Well as for the first part, this is really due to poor design. A null is intended to be used as a special thing. In fact null != null. Its meant to behave like that. This is the reason default values exist. if you want to have a column with empty rows to be 0 and not null then you specify that when you are planning. and when you are counting objects you can have 0. 0 is a value. null isnt a value. There are reasons why nulls are this way. One of which is to look for rows that have no data. If you think dealing with nulls in this sense is hard, imagine trying to programatically deal with what is 'empty' or '0' in an arbitrary column? Is this 0 a numeric? its is a 0x00? is it 0x30?
Null was meant to take the place of all the hack jobs that were used in older databases to signify non-value, NaN and so on.
Part of using SQL in the manner that it is, is that you get what you ask for. You dont get what some programmer *thinks* you want. Because at some point you may want something else. I really dont want a computer to guess at what I really want. I want it to tell me what it knows.
umm ok im confused here. if the makers are licensed a patent with the clear intention to sell, how can this lawsuit possibly go thru
its ridiculous to expect everyone down the chain to take out a patent license.
So this also means that honeywell could sue any of the customers of any of the sued companies, as all the customers are users.
This seems the other side of the SW patent coin, and potentially very harmful for business and the economy. Can a company buying a commodity product, realistically expected to research all the possible patents? this is really he job of the part manufacturer.
*sigh* Why do i have to keep deconstructing the same things again and again. I'm not even going to talk to whatever agenda you are advocating, im going deal strictly with practical concerns.
"Also, avoiding vehicles with built-in transponders is far simpler than having to identify them by radar."
Actually airplanes today already have transponders, as well as onboard radar, and air traffic control tracking radar, and yet they still manage to have mid air collisions. Clearly the systems in use today are not perfect for even the miniscule percentage of the sky that is currently being taken up by planes. (regardless if you perfect of the whole sky or the percent in use in the major air travel corridors.
Now imagine if you will tens of thousands of people heading out from work to go home all trying to navigate a slot into the general direction of say, the NYC suburbs. Looking at the highways, and the accidents therein humans arent doing a perfect job either. The current control systems work find on open road, when all the other cars have control systems, and nothing strange happens. The whole thing goes to hell when you dump off the highway and attempt to auto-navigate metro traffic.
If we reasonable assume an aircar would be going at a greater speed than that of a ground car, the chance for human error when doing an insertion into say something going the speed of a nascar race is shocking. You really need to think a couple steps ahead here, a few hundred ppl with their flying toy are trivial to each other, however still being aircraft they fall under FAA jurisdiction.
You also seem to straw-man the very real concern of flying one of these things into a building. Tell me which airspace will be controlled and which wont? Do you really want some hot shot just hovering outside your office building?
"Uh, I think you've got 9-11 on the brain. Flaming death from the skies, oh my."
This comment is plain asinine. there have been several incidents of aircraft hitting buildings prior to 9/11, and those fall into only 2 categories accidental and intentional. What is your flip answer for dealing with this?
Perhaps it would be wise to keep irrelevant mentions of associations out article copy.
Ahem, So the article says :
:
One beneficiary of computerized navigation is national security: thanks to G.P.S. and cellphone technology, flying cars could be tracked more easily than any road vehicle. NASA is already at work on a device that will function as an on-board air-traffic controller, and the agency expects to have it ready in time for the debut of its first flying car, the EQuiPT, or Easy Quiet Personal Transport. (NASA prefers the term ''personal air vehicle'' to ''flying car.'') The vehicle will automatically broadcast information on its location, so ground monitors and every other aircraft in the sky will know exactly who and where you are. (Any rogue vehicle ought to be easily spotted; another driver who sees a car that is in the air but not on his monitor can be expected to sound the alarm.)
Lets look at this further, Ok so they can track them, its doesn't state that it can control them remotely, however a reasonable person would have to assume that you would have to. it also doesn't address turing off the transponder/gps what have you by someone determined. If we make the assumption (also not exactly in the article) that the unit is aerodynamically unstable (like the stealth fighter) and cannot be flown without computer control, then you wont be able to get it off the ground manually.
On top of this just a few weeks ago NPR had an article about computer controlled ground cars. Those systems are current setup to leave a space between cars of 100 feet. Clearly insufficient for actual metropolitan driving conditions. While they are still working on getting this control system to work in the conditions that would occur in the busiest cities, i take great pause to think that
A) If a driverless control system isn't ready to be used on normal cars its still going to be a ways off for air cars.
B) That there is will the concern of overriding the system, and if one had an aircar full of explosives, is air traffic control going to be able to put it somewhere 'safe' in the 2 seconds it'll take to make a left turn into the side of a building? But how about we revisit this *after* the first aircar crashes into a building
Researchers are already working on driverless control systems, so much like a planes autopilot, you just watch most of the time. This system will be 100% necessary in a flying car as most ppl wont be able to be pilots (more on this later), and not to mention the clear need to protect farmers' markets from inadvertent ballistic objects. This is more than 5 years away for ground cars, aircars, much more so.
Secondly you are going to need a radically new lifting and propulsion technology. Fans, jets, and propellers just aint gonna cut it. Besides with cars flying thru the air even at 55mph you couldnt stop/maneuver fast enough if there were a problem with current technology. The only real answer here is science fiction. So we are going to be waiting for a while.
Of course with flying cars the airlines will go totally bankrupt, which is probably just as well.
Security becomes a nightmare. the borders of every country would need to have an override system to force all cars into approved entry points. This of course is also a fools errand as anyone intent on doing something would just override the in car control system.
Why do I feel like Im sketching out a Larry Niven short story?
This is more interesting than one might be lead to believe. If the parts are easy to replace then this saves on repair labor costs and it also makes nearly the whole unit a collection of field / user swappable parts. Being a PC field tech for a number of years this is really a radical shift for apple.
Now keeping this in mind i have seen many a screwless case come and go from both dell and gateway, and i would have preferred that they had screws as the mechanisms they used were so crappy it would have been easier to repair.
While I certainly see your point, i just dont trust that it would 'go away' with the rest of them. I guess i dont have any faith anymore in 'the right thing'
This concerns me more than even that. Lets say for the sake of argument that your business gets caught up in a customer complaint and it escalates to a civil suit, or you are falsely accused of spam or god forbid get caught up in an RIAA/MPAA random word search DCMA action, and you are 'hiding' your whois info. Well i can certainly see some overzealous DA go on a fishing filing these charges against you while all the other stuff is being cleared up (because they throw in the kitchen sink to see what will stick) and you may get nailed on this alone, as its the only "real" charge left over from the fishing expedition.
I also thought about this and then toss is out as claptrap. i very much doubt that even if human were to erect a single mountain it would have much effect on wind patterns. Besides no one gives a rat ass about how all the skyscrapers in manhattan changed wind patterns.
In any case as much of the US farmland is in the tornado belt, how does one deal with the inevitable of a tornado cutting a swath across the power production grid? There will likely still need to be some kinda of non-decentralized backup. If we were to go all wind/solar the only reasonable backup would be nuclear as the fossil fuel plants would end up being shut down
A couple of caveats here on this theory,
1) VPC never performed at an equivalent speed to the native CPU. The best performer was of course Win95, the worst XP. IIRC XB1 was some kinda Windows embedded, so this remains a question.
2) With i think version 3 or version 4 VPC did not support 3D. The performance just didn't cut it. *HOWEVER* since the video in the XB1 is a known, I suppose it may be possible to just automatically route all the video calls to the GPU and just toss it onto the screen. (I am not an engineer so i don't know).
In conclusion, i think the best best would be to just toss an extra x86 cpu on the board with some graphics glue for the new gpu and go that way.
I say we take use of modern technology, get al the spammers onto a luxury cruise ship, and then chuck a meteor at it while sailing it thru a hurricane.