That is a common misconception. Nowadays, you can algorithmically make a photo more beautiful. Because it's a mix of genetic ideals and your personal kinks.:)
You *really* believe it's the money? Lol. Poor slob.
Men with money have huge problems getting laid. Because as soon as the girl sees his big house, she suddenly is not "that girl" anymore (yeah. right. sure.), and wants it to be "more". Suddenly she wants a long-term relationship. While she's fucking all the hottest studs of the city behind your back.
What really attracts women, is being in control, knowing what you want, having a strong reality. Being something fun, exciting and *attractive* (in the literal sense) that she want to be a part of. You know. The obvious things.
Beautiful people get laid more often? Who would have thunk of that?
What we call beauty, is meant to be a detector for good genes.
By the way: Beauty is relative. What we call beautiful, was not what people called beautiful, ages ago.
Just think about the times, when being fatter, was a sign that you had a rare abundance of food, which was obviously great for the survival rate of potential children. (Nowadays, being overly fat is a sign of early death trough crappy food, psychological problems, etc, and therefore unattractive.)
Well, imagine it flashing, dripping in animated blood, with nuclear alarm horns at full volume, saying that you will get robbed, go to jail, and that all horrible things will happen, if you do so much as breathe now!
Because that is what we think of when we think what a MITM attack on your bank account and identity theft can bring you.
Imagine the only button you can find in your panic, being the "run for your life!" button, bringing you away from the site. The point of it being, to burn it into your brain, what it means to ignore a broken certificate. IT FREAKING MEANS YOU CAN GO TO POUND-ME-IN-THE-ASS-PRISON AND LOSE ALL YOUR MONEY!
And why don't they understand them. BECAUSE THEY CAN. Really.:)
People are all about efficiency. But if you are so "efficient" that you hurt yourself, it is called "laziness". (Although some people also call others lazy, when they do not follow *their* standards, which is pointless.)
Now why do they hurt themselves here? Either because the risk is too small to be relevant (evolutionary and on the level that makes your brain learn it). Or, what I think, because the failure, and the pain that results from it, are way too distinct from each other for people to learn it.
Think about, what would happen, if they would get stung by a bee, every time they would do such a stupid thing like ignore certificates. You could bet that they would learn it. Because really, and it took me long to learn and believe this, people are not stupid. (If they have to, they can do very impressive things in very short times. I witnessed a girl learn to do basic things in C in one week, because she really really really wanted that advantage in that game she was playing. And the next week she learned how to do collages in Photoshop. Mind you that she is just your average girl. No geek or anything.)
But what happens right now, when they do dumb things: First, nothing happens. Nothing at all. No flashing lights. No alarm. No fire. No pain. Even an infection with a trojan that their AV tool notices is no problem. A virus killing everything? Well, just ask your local geek to re-install Windows. The data was not that important anyway. (That's what I usually hear from them. Sometimes they backed it up a month ago and that is OK too. Often I have the feeling, that a read-only HDD and a USB stick would suffice for them.)
But even a MITM attack on their bank account, stealing all the money and everything. That's so rare. And if, they are completely unable to associate it with that one warning that they ignored. And how can you blame them for it? Would you remember what you did a week ago, that did probably not even enter your conscience? No.
So I propose this solution: Make the warning dialog contain one paragraph max. In big red letters. With a flashing alarm light and sound. Filling 3/4 of the screen. Saying is the shortest possible way, that they are going to get robbed, and could go to jail, if they do not exactly know what's going on now. Make the dialog un-closable for at least 30 seconds. And only give them the ability to move it away quicker, if you got proof that it's burned into their brains forever. If that is not possible, then never give them that ability, and only add a "I am a security expert" add-on that you have to manually install and jump trough hoops that only people who know what they are doing can pass. Optimally make it completely impossible to go to a site with security problems, except if you use that add-on. (But beware, that then people will let their "expert" friend install it, ever if they do not know anything.) But realistically, let the "i have no idea what to do" button be clickable at the very first second, and the "go to the site (i am a security expert)" one only after a minute of waiting. Then when they click it, tell them that the site was very evil, dangerous, etc, and... pew... the browser saved them.... but it was very close.
Yes. You have to be that over the top. How else will you make it stick in their heads? It has to be associated with instant robbery and horrible things. Just like it is in the brains of us experts.
What do you think? Anything one could make better? Let's implement it?:)
Have you actually ever looked into the idea, or do you like to just read a summary, and then rant about how silly it is?
Semantic data structures (ontologies) are most likely the ultimate way to structure data. If you think that the table is the advancement of the list. And the tree is one step further. Then the next step, that contains it all, are graphs of semantically structured data. Tagging stories on/. is a simplified version of it. File systems with soft-/hardlinks are another. And ultimately, I can't think of a better bridge between humans an computers.
I really hope we will use it for file systems, wikis, documents, databases, and everything on the web and on computers. I personally developed a small lib for an internal "file manager" that used this structure. And I miss the ability to combine it with the rest of the world every single time I use it.
I don't care who defines a general standard for it. As long as it's standardized and in broad use as fast as possible.
That is a nice altruistic view you got there. And I would agree with it. If it had anything to do with physical reality.
Because there, the ideal, is to yourself be the one taking all resources, and be the only one to reproduce. (Where in the realm of ideas, "yourself" is the group of everyone agreeing with your world view.)
It's the ultimate motivation. The only reason we exist. And without it, there is no evolution.
But it's not that bad, if you think a bit further than "that is egoistic". Because in its most successful implementation, it really isn't.
Because usually, this gets you shot. And I think you can be as cool a l33t h4x0r as you want. If you are a stain on the walls, it does not matter, does it? ^^
I say, if the government would sign something, stating that they would get away with it, with some UN guarantee backing it... *Then* you could see people attempting this.
Oh, and back when they said it, the security of the internet was a complete joke compared to now. One botnet trojan/virus from today could wipe the whole net from back then without problems.:)
Don't worry. In autumn a whole new generation of "smartbooks" will come out. Full-HD capable, 1-2 watt, 10 hours of running, and $100-$200. With an ARM CPU. So they won't be able to run any Windows. You can guess what they will mostly be running. (Linux.):D
Yeah, because the people living here today, are not completely different from back then.;)
Seriously. Germans are so left-extremist nowadays, that I as a semi-foreigner can nearly understand some right-extremists. They fear of being called Nazis for loving their country. For saying anything that could be interpreted as something bad against foreigners, jews, etc. Even if it is true. (Like there being good and bad people everywhere.)
People here *still* are traumatized. Which leads to this opposite-direction extremism. Luckily, it's way better than back then, and continues to get better (I think).
Who cares what the license says, if the license goes against the law itself? I read in another comment, that it's from the NIST project, tax funded, and by definition public domain. I don't know how often I see things, that are completely free, but where someone slapped a copyright on it, and acts as if you have to have a license to do anything with it. People are that stupid, and that arrogant. People also often do not know laws, even when they write licenses for a living.
I'd check that fact with NIST, it being tax funded, and that everything the government does belongs to the people by definition, and then go with it.
People, stop buying into the delusional realities of other (loud but wrong) people.:)
1. Right and wrong are relative to a person or group. 2. Right is, whatever suits the person/group. 3. Wrong is, what doesn't suit it. Where "suits" is defined as, what gives the most advantages.
There. Done it for ya. Wasn't so hard, if you use common sense, was it?
___ My basic rules: Everything is relative. Everything has multiple dimensions with different "angles" between them. Every dimension is a gradient. Every dimension is micro-quantized. Oh, and usually, it is more useful to use logarithmic scales on the dimensions.
Because if they will be friendly, we could count on some big scientific advances.
And if they will not be friendly, we finally got a reason to start evolving again. I mean right now, the humanity is in a desperate state, where the worst of the population are awarded the most. You're dumb? Well, we got something extra easy for you! You can't walk? Take this thing! Can't reproduce? This pill will solve it. No offense. I think we should treat every human *the same*. Which *means* the same. Not somebody better, because of *anything*. That would not be fair. And also not worse. For the same reason. I for example am overweight. And I expect life to be harder for me because of it. Not because somebody makes life harder for me. But because of my fault. It's only fair.
If we had a predator, all this anti-selection would be gone instantly. (Sure, I might be one of the first who gets eaten. But hey: If I'm dead, I won't care anymore. ^^)
Yeah. Bill Gates had. Back in the early days. It was: Let's "take" the ideas of others, sell them "so good" that the inventors die, and get rich as hell.
And can you deny that it was one of the best business models anyone ever had? (When you look at his bank account.)
Funny, how you clearly pointed out that, as nearly all of the time with such errors, it's a driver problem. And even more fitting, that it's one from ATi. Known for their notoriously bad drivers in all of the game development scene, including Carmack.
I don't really have any need to buy Microsoft products
Problem is: Nobody does.
but it's certainly interesting.
And here is where it gets funny: They will have everybody looking. But nobody buying. Wondering why. "Why does our hipness not work? Aren't we so cool? What has Apple, what we don't have?" It's of course, because they are just imitators instead of innovators. Which also happens to be exactly why they will not figure that one out.
Quite funny, isn't it? ^^
___ P.S.: Who wants to form a flash mob at their first store? (Tell all your friends.) We will gather shortly before closing time. Filling more and more of the percentage of the people there. Until the exact moment, when someone asks us all to leave because they are closing, a short nod will go around to everyone, so we know that now is the moment. And then we will all point to the sales people like Neslon Muntz, go "HAA HAAAA", and leave. All at once.:D I really hope Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and some camera teams will be there.:D
Menus with modal dialogs are inefficient and stupid. And they always were. Button bars are even worse for software where you mostly use the keyboard. You are just being used to that horrible joke that MS Office used to be. The new concept is a bad copy (as usual) of the InfoBox of Lotus SmartSuite programs (like WordPro). Not as bad as what they had before thought. But still worse than the original. The idea is to see menus, icon bars and property dialogs as one thing. So you make them one thing. Which means you can change the state of your selection, run functions on it, etc. All with just one click. (Here is where it is bad, and where Lotus did it wrong too.. switching to the mouse? in a text editor? wtf?) Not three clicks and then a stupid modal dialog. Not this pointless separation of menus, buttons and dialogs.
Of course, somehow, the MS Office variant still is some mutation of a menu concept, with everything thrown in there without a proper basic philosophy behind it.
But hey, at least it's a step into the right direction. I bet OpenOffice will imitate it soon. Just as unfortunately every open source software is imitating existing products. (KDE and Gnome both are nearly indistinguishable from Windows if you do not look closer, Firefox is taken from Opera, OpenOffice is the son of what MS Office imitated but nowadays it's the other way around, Amarok is a copy of iTunes, Thunderbird wants to become an Outlook, Compiz was made to get the visual FX of MacOS X and Vista, etc, etc, etc. Don't get me wrong. I love open source and fully support it. But that argument, to make it "more similar, so users will understand it" sickens me, because of its needy, weak, non-leading-and-never-will-like and chode-like (the PUA term) mindset.)
I don't understand the point? Is there any big product line I am missing, that people actually buy?
As far as I understand it, MS lives from big corporate mass-license sales for Windows and Office. And everything other is pretty much irrelevant.
Sounds to me like the Zune of stores. Something that really nobody cares about, because it's just a knockoff saying "I wanna be just as cool as Apple" (note the "wanna", which is not a "am", and the "just as" which is not a "more":).
I wonder when Microsoft will stop imitating and start innovating. And I guess: Only when they are forced to.;)
Slashdot Mirror
That is a common misconception. Nowadays, you can algorithmically make a photo more beautiful. Because it's a mix of genetic ideals and your personal kinks. :)
There is no such thing as "out of your league". The only reason it does not work, is because you throw yourself out, by thinking that way.
But go on. Continue thinking that way, instead of stepping up, and doing something. More girls for me. :D
You *really* believe it's the money? Lol. Poor slob.
Men with money have huge problems getting laid. Because as soon as the girl sees his big house, she suddenly is not "that girl" anymore (yeah. right. sure.), and wants it to be "more". Suddenly she wants a long-term relationship.
While she's fucking all the hottest studs of the city behind your back.
What really attracts women, is being in control, knowing what you want, having a strong reality. Being something fun, exciting and *attractive* (in the literal sense) that she want to be a part of. You know. The obvious things.
Beautiful people get laid more often? Who would have thunk of that?
What we call beauty, is meant to be a detector for good genes.
By the way: Beauty is relative. What we call beautiful, was not what people called beautiful, ages ago.
Just think about the times, when being fatter, was a sign that you had a rare abundance of food, which was obviously great for the survival rate of potential children.
(Nowadays, being overly fat is a sign of early death trough crappy food, psychological problems, etc, and therefore unattractive.)
Well, imagine it flashing, dripping in animated blood, with nuclear alarm horns at full volume, saying that you will get robbed, go to jail, and that all horrible things will happen, if you do so much as breathe now!
Because that is what we think of when we think what a MITM attack on your bank account and identity theft can bring you.
Imagine the only button you can find in your panic, being the "run for your life!" button, bringing you away from the site.
The point of it being, to burn it into your brain, what it means to ignore a broken certificate. IT FREAKING MEANS YOU CAN GO TO POUND-ME-IN-THE-ASS-PRISON AND LOSE ALL YOUR MONEY!
Heightened paranoia. Bah.
DODGE THIS (dialog)!
And why don't they understand them. BECAUSE THEY CAN. Really. :)
People are all about efficiency. But if you are so "efficient" that you hurt yourself, it is called "laziness". (Although some people also call others lazy, when they do not follow *their* standards, which is pointless.)
Now why do they hurt themselves here?
Either because the risk is too small to be relevant (evolutionary and on the level that makes your brain learn it).
Or, what I think, because the failure, and the pain that results from it, are way too distinct from each other for people to learn it.
Think about, what would happen, if they would get stung by a bee, every time they would do such a stupid thing like ignore certificates. You could bet that they would learn it. Because really, and it took me long to learn and believe this, people are not stupid. (If they have to, they can do very impressive things in very short times. I witnessed a girl learn to do basic things in C in one week, because she really really really wanted that advantage in that game she was playing. And the next week she learned how to do collages in Photoshop. Mind you that she is just your average girl. No geek or anything.)
But what happens right now, when they do dumb things: First, nothing happens. Nothing at all. No flashing lights. No alarm. No fire. No pain. Even an infection with a trojan that their AV tool notices is no problem. A virus killing everything? Well, just ask your local geek to re-install Windows. The data was not that important anyway. (That's what I usually hear from them. Sometimes they backed it up a month ago and that is OK too. Often I have the feeling, that a read-only HDD and a USB stick would suffice for them.)
But even a MITM attack on their bank account, stealing all the money and everything. That's so rare. And if, they are completely unable to associate it with that one warning that they ignored. And how can you blame them for it? Would you remember what you did a week ago, that did probably not even enter your conscience? No.
So I propose this solution: Make the warning dialog contain one paragraph max. In big red letters. With a flashing alarm light and sound. Filling 3/4 of the screen. Saying is the shortest possible way, that they are going to get robbed, and could go to jail, if they do not exactly know what's going on now. Make the dialog un-closable for at least 30 seconds. And only give them the ability to move it away quicker, if you got proof that it's burned into their brains forever. If that is not possible, then never give them that ability, and only add a "I am a security expert" add-on that you have to manually install and jump trough hoops that only people who know what they are doing can pass.
Optimally make it completely impossible to go to a site with security problems, except if you use that add-on. (But beware, that then people will let their "expert" friend install it, ever if they do not know anything.)
But realistically, let the "i have no idea what to do" button be clickable at the very first second, and the "go to the site (i am a security expert)" one only after a minute of waiting.
Then when they click it, tell them that the site was very evil, dangerous, etc, and... pew... the browser saved them.... but it was very close.
Yes. You have to be that over the top. How else will you make it stick in their heads? It has to be associated with instant robbery and horrible things. Just like it is in the brains of us experts.
What do you think? Anything one could make better? Let's implement it? :)
Have you actually ever looked into the idea, or do you like to just read a summary, and then rant about how silly it is?
Semantic data structures (ontologies) are most likely the ultimate way to structure data. If you think that the table is the advancement of the list. And the tree is one step further. Then the next step, that contains it all, are graphs of semantically structured data. /. is a simplified version of it. File systems with soft-/hardlinks are another. And ultimately, I can't think of a better bridge between humans an computers.
Tagging stories on
I really hope we will use it for file systems, wikis, documents, databases, and everything on the web and on computers. I personally developed a small lib for an internal "file manager" that used this structure. And I miss the ability to combine it with the rest of the world every single time I use it.
I don't care who defines a general standard for it. As long as it's standardized and in broad use as fast as possible.
Well, your parents turned stem cells into you. Should we post that under comedy too? ^^
Well, how would it make an article, and create readers, if it weren't controversial.
Welcome to the media machine. Prepare to be extremised, and then ripped apart.
That is a nice altruistic view you got there. And I would agree with it. If it had anything to do with physical reality.
Because there, the ideal, is to yourself be the one taking all resources, and be the only one to reproduce. (Where in the realm of ideas, "yourself" is the group of everyone agreeing with your world view.)
It's the ultimate motivation. The only reason we exist. And without it, there is no evolution.
But it's not that bad, if you think a bit further than "that is egoistic". Because in its most successful implementation, it really isn't.
Doesn't get me laid, though, does it?
Because usually, this gets you shot. And I think you can be as cool a l33t h4x0r as you want. If you are a stain on the walls, it does not matter, does it? ^^
I say, if the government would sign something, stating that they would get away with it, with some UN guarantee backing it... *Then* you could see people attempting this.
Oh, and back when they said it, the security of the internet was a complete joke compared to now. One botnet trojan/virus from today could wipe the whole net from back then without problems. :)
Will it have fucking Buddanaise to fucking dip it into?
Don't worry. In autumn a whole new generation of "smartbooks" will come out. Full-HD capable, 1-2 watt, 10 hours of running, and $100-$200. :D
With an ARM CPU. So they won't be able to run any Windows. You can guess what they will mostly be running. (Linux.)
WTF was THAT? I'm from Germany, and you're sick! ^^
Yeah, because the people living here today, are not completely different from back then. ;)
Seriously. Germans are so left-extremist nowadays, that I as a semi-foreigner can nearly understand some right-extremists.
They fear of being called Nazis for loving their country. For saying anything that could be interpreted as something bad against foreigners, jews, etc. Even if it is true. (Like there being good and bad people everywhere.)
People here *still* are traumatized. Which leads to this opposite-direction extremism.
Luckily, it's way better than back then, and continues to get better (I think).
But I also think we should be way over it.
Who cares what the license says, if the license goes against the law itself?
I read in another comment, that it's from the NIST project, tax funded, and by definition public domain.
I don't know how often I see things, that are completely free, but where someone slapped a copyright on it, and acts as if you have to have a license to do anything with it.
People are that stupid, and that arrogant. People also often do not know laws, even when they write licenses for a living.
I'd check that fact with NIST, it being tax funded, and that everything the government does belongs to the people by definition, and then go with it.
People, stop buying into the delusional realities of other (loud but wrong) people. :)
1. Right and wrong are relative to a person or group.
2. Right is, whatever suits the person/group.
3. Wrong is, what doesn't suit it.
Where "suits" is defined as, what gives the most advantages.
There. Done it for ya.
Wasn't so hard, if you use common sense, was it?
___
My basic rules:
Everything is relative.
Everything has multiple dimensions with different "angles" between them.
Every dimension is a gradient.
Every dimension is micro-quantized.
Oh, and usually, it is more useful to use logarithmic scales on the dimensions.
Because if they will be friendly, we could count on some big scientific advances.
And if they will not be friendly, we finally got a reason to start evolving again.
I mean right now, the humanity is in a desperate state, where the worst of the population are awarded the most. You're dumb? Well, we got something extra easy for you! You can't walk? Take this thing! Can't reproduce? This pill will solve it.
No offense. I think we should treat every human *the same*. Which *means* the same. Not somebody better, because of *anything*. That would not be fair. And also not worse. For the same reason.
I for example am overweight. And I expect life to be harder for me because of it. Not because somebody makes life harder for me. But because of my fault. It's only fair.
If we had a predator, all this anti-selection would be gone instantly. (Sure, I might be one of the first who gets eaten. But hey: If I'm dead, I won't care anymore. ^^)
Yeah. Bill Gates had. Back in the early days. It was: Let's "take" the ideas of others, sell them "so good" that the inventors die, and get rich as hell.
And can you deny that it was one of the best business models anyone ever had? (When you look at his bank account.)
Funny, how you clearly pointed out that, as nearly all of the time with such errors, it's a driver problem. And even more fitting, that it's one from ATi. Known for their notoriously bad drivers in all of the game development scene, including Carmack.
I don't really have any need to buy Microsoft products
Problem is: Nobody does.
but it's certainly interesting.
And here is where it gets funny:
They will have everybody looking. But nobody buying. Wondering why.
"Why does our hipness not work? Aren't we so cool? What has Apple, what we don't have?"
It's of course, because they are just imitators instead of innovators. Which also happens to be exactly why they will not figure that one out.
Quite funny, isn't it? ^^
___ :D :D
P.S.: Who wants to form a flash mob at their first store? (Tell all your friends.) We will gather shortly before closing time. Filling more and more of the percentage of the people there. Until the exact moment, when someone asks us all to leave because they are closing, a short nod will go around to everyone, so we know that now is the moment.
And then we will all point to the sales people like Neslon Muntz, go "HAA HAAAA", and leave. All at once.
I really hope Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and some camera teams will be there.
Menus with modal dialogs are inefficient and stupid. And they always were. Button bars are even worse for software where you mostly use the keyboard.
You are just being used to that horrible joke that MS Office used to be.
The new concept is a bad copy (as usual) of the InfoBox of Lotus SmartSuite programs (like WordPro). Not as bad as what they had before thought. But still worse than the original.
The idea is to see menus, icon bars and property dialogs as one thing. So you make them one thing. Which means you can change the state of your selection, run functions on it, etc. All with just one click. (Here is where it is bad, and where Lotus did it wrong too.. switching to the mouse? in a text editor? wtf?)
Not three clicks and then a stupid modal dialog. Not this pointless separation of menus, buttons and dialogs.
Of course, somehow, the MS Office variant still is some mutation of a menu concept, with everything thrown in there without a proper basic philosophy behind it.
But hey, at least it's a step into the right direction. I bet OpenOffice will imitate it soon. Just as unfortunately every open source software is imitating existing products. (KDE and Gnome both are nearly indistinguishable from Windows if you do not look closer, Firefox is taken from Opera, OpenOffice is the son of what MS Office imitated but nowadays it's the other way around, Amarok is a copy of iTunes, Thunderbird wants to become an Outlook, Compiz was made to get the visual FX of MacOS X and Vista, etc, etc, etc. Don't get me wrong. I love open source and fully support it. But that argument, to make it "more similar, so users will understand it" sickens me, because of its needy, weak, non-leading-and-never-will-like and chode-like (the PUA term) mindset.)
Windows 7? Office? and some mice/keyboards?
I don't understand the point? Is there any big product line I am missing, that people actually buy?
As far as I understand it, MS lives from big corporate mass-license sales for Windows and Office. And everything other is pretty much irrelevant.
Sounds to me like the Zune of stores. Something that really nobody cares about, because it's just a knockoff saying "I wanna be just as cool as Apple" (note the "wanna", which is not a "am", and the "just as" which is not a "more" :).
I wonder when Microsoft will stop imitating and start innovating. And I guess: Only when they are forced to. ;)
Oh, and those sales numbers are *smartphone only* sales!