If you actually want to READ and POST text news, then I don't know why anyone would use an NNTP client nowadays. Google Groups is a far superior gateway.
What?? How is the Google groups UI even remotely better at threading, marking, filtering and generally managing long conversations? Compared to even something like Free Agent it's utterly shit!
It depends what you mean by "alternative" - but (sadly in my opinion), most people will just say "the web" and mean HTML-based bulletin board discussions eg Facebook.
Anyone who has ever used *NIX ntalk will know that it's as silly and distracting as all hell to see something being typed out in real time, and even more so when your interlocutor is eating pizza.
Secondly (and this is the hard part for geeks to understand, so): l i s t e n - the strength of a password decreases the greater its theoretical strength becomes. Yes, that's DECREASES.
I'd love to see the rationale MS had (if they had any) for carrying over the formatting by default. Surely that's something you want to turn on only for the tiny, tiny, minority of cases you need it (eg Shift+CTRL+v or something. Why is it the goddam default??
Even for non-programmers, I can't see my Mom spending time choosing a pretty font, colours, etc. in her Word doc, only to want to paste a bunch of totally differently styled text in the middle of it.
There are a couple of steps you can miss. Don't open MS Word, use Notepad (or Notepad++ or something) and copy-paste from there instead.
No - in this case the user has been sent a Word document in an email (or picked it up from the file server) and wishes to take the text from it and put into the CMS.
they want all their apps to be able to copy/paste at the same time they want formatting preserved (as much as possible) when doing so.
Do they?? I don't know of any common situation in which I would want to persist the formatting of the ORIGIN in the target. How is that even remotely helpful? 99% of the time you only want the content, not the formatting, of the original.
"In a review of the relevant literature it is shown that happiness is statistically abnormal, consists of a discrete cluster of symptoms, is associated with a range of cognitive abnormalities"
I quite like the workaround that's always given for content management systems that can't strip out the humongous amount of invisible HTML cruft that comes with text that's copied to the clipboard from MS Word or Outlook.
Content editor: "Hey, why is the formatting of this page completely borked? And why can't I use the CMS's editor to fix the borkage?"
Me: "Where did you get the original text from?"
Content editor: "I copied it from a Word doc that somebody sent me. I just pasted that in. It was just plain text..."
Me: "I see. Well, delete the page and start again. This time, copy the stuff from Word, then open Notepad, past the text from Word into Notepad, then copy/paste into the CMS from there instead."
While Roger Grimes's intentions are good, in making that spreadsheet he's just wasted a lot of effort that he could have spent drinking beer and kissing women.
Firstly, any analysis of real-world passwords in use in, er, the real world, will scream that they are far too weak. That is not news. At all.
Secondly (and this is the hard part for geeks to understand, so: l i s t e n - the strength of a password decreases the greater its theoretical strength becomes. Yes, that's DECREASES.
Why? Because if my password has more than a couple of numbers and some upper/lower case letters in, I will write it on a sticky note and attach it to my monitor - sometimes with the words "password to payroll system" or whatever also written on it.
That is reality. Now, can we all stop this nerdy crap about password strength and do the real work of thinking about the human factors involved in security? That, I am afraid, is where the hard work is. Any idiot can make a spreadsheet.
Lordy - I've just tried a few searches and it's really, really crap isn't it? Wow. Hope it gets better or they'll be toast in under a couple of years I would think.
This is the part "security specialists" don't get: when it comes to humans and security, it's all about the *context* in which the negotiation between perceived risk, convenience and reward takes place. A study such as this is trying to study the wrong thing. It's not the fact that people choose insecure passwords, or guessable questions - everyone knows that - it's WHY THEY DO that matters.
Here's a hypothetical scenario. You are asked to create an account on a site called "wobble your bum cheeks" which lets you uploads pictures of your behind and make them look like they are wobbling hilariously. As part of the signup process, you are asked to choose a password. What do you do?
a) Choose something you are unlikely to forget (like "password" or "forgetmenot")
b) Choose a strong password like (like "L0Lcatz" or "baz00kas")
c) Don't bother to sign up
Thinking about those choices, what sort of things run though your mind? How is the dialogue between perceived risk, convenience and reward panning out? Now add some extra spice: the site demands you also choose a security question. Same three options broadly apply. Same negotiation.
Now repeat the above in a different context: applying for an online bank account. Now what do you do? Do you see where I'm going with this?
FAR, FAR more research is needed into CONTEXTUAL security - the "human factors" around it and the reasons WHY people exhibit certain behaviours when faced with the above negotiation. Until then, TFA can kiss my dick. Who cares. Really.
America is the richest nation on earth, with the most riches available for those who can pay for them. So:
Introduce an educational pay scale for students, starting aged 8, with remuneration based on performance and attendance. The scale is designed to ensure you are at least financially independent from your parents by the time you leave college, provided you have managed your education well enough: hounded out bad teachers, rejected time-wasting crap like sports, ensured you have plenty of teaching in things like mechanical engineering, bio-tech and accounting. You'll be able to afford the finest recreational sex, electronics and politicians by the time you are 20 -as long as you keep up the good grades and attendance. At that point, you should not only want to get a high-paying job in order to keep you in the style to which you have become accustomed, but be able to so so.
America then becomes the world's most highly-educated nation, and the world's most successful economy, in one generation.
Best of all, it would probably cost the country about the same as it does to pay for recreational "incentives" like balls on a chain.
Third, to make firefox useful, you must bloat it up with addons. (evidenced by the 12+ addons I have loaded right now)
I don't normally insult people on/. unless they deserve it - but yours is an utterly moronic comment.
Which would you rather have? A slim browser by default, with basic functionality that you can then customise into infinity if you wish, or a fat browser with functionality determined by somebody else?
I post this with full karma in evidence. If you mod me down, at least have the dignity to mod the parent down too.
OT, but I wonder what the general mechanism is that produces situations in which employers have to ask their staff to work through the night to meet some deadline. I mean, at some point it must pass from the rational and industry-specific and into the irrational and the realms of psychological dysfunction. What makes an otherwise sane (and presumably reasonably intelligent) project manager or senior manager agree to push ahead with something that they know is going to be impossible?
"I have decided that we will deliver X, with Y resources, but I know that to deliver X you will need Y*10 resources. I shall ignore this and end up making 10 people work all night for a week to deliver something that I will eventually get fired for being barely production ready, it at all."
I have see exactly this on more occasions than I would think would be just bad luck.
The WSJ's content is as "newspaper of record" for financial items. Which means its unique.
Additionally, how many of those "online" subscribers are dead-tree subscribers?
For most other news, news outlets are substitutable. If you are a substitutable item, but you charge and your competition doesn't, you're out of luck.
Absolutely right. People will pay for what they perceive to be quality. If Murdoch means that he'll up the quality of the content - then I'm all for paying!
I am serious. Tax havens are parasitic states - they attract large companies and rich people by having very little taxes, but these taxes (and services for these companies) are large enough to comfortably feed the local population; while their own production capacity is nil. This is a minority strategy, and should be fought against.
Yeah! Invade Monaco! Take out the Channel Islands!
The BBC don't need a business model. It's funded by licence fees.
Unfortunately, the Beeb doesn't make nearly enough from the licence fee to fund the programming they make (and, some say, to attract the talent they need) - this is why they have to pursue licensing and merchandising deals for the likes of Dr Who and stuff.
Slashdot Mirror
If you actually want to READ and POST text news, then I don't know why anyone would use an NNTP client nowadays. Google Groups is a far superior gateway.
What?? How is the Google groups UI even remotely better at threading, marking, filtering and generally managing long conversations? Compared to even something like Free Agent it's utterly shit!
It depends what you mean by "alternative" - but (sadly in my opinion), most people will just say "the web" and mean HTML-based bulletin board discussions eg Facebook.
Oh well. I loved Usenet.
Good to know my theory has met with some real-world verification.
And since we still can't watch Hulu in Europe, I won't be paying anything either. Oh well, The Pirate Bay is easier anyway.
Anyone who has ever used *NIX ntalk will know that it's as silly and distracting as all hell to see something being typed out in real time, and even more so when your interlocutor is eating pizza.
Secondly (and this is the hard part for geeks to understand, so): l i s t e n - the strength of a password decreases the greater its theoretical strength becomes. Yes, that's DECREASES.
Aah, now "-1 Troll"
I rest my case.
I utterly agree with you.
I'd love to see the rationale MS had (if they had any) for carrying over the formatting by default. Surely that's something you want to turn on only for the tiny, tiny, minority of cases you need it (eg Shift+CTRL+v or something. Why is it the goddam default??
Even for non-programmers, I can't see my Mom spending time choosing a pretty font, colours, etc. in her Word doc, only to want to paste a bunch of totally differently styled text in the middle of it.
There are a couple of steps you can miss. Don't open MS Word, use Notepad (or Notepad++ or something) and copy-paste from there instead.
No - in this case the user has been sent a Word document in an email (or picked it up from the file server) and wishes to take the text from it and put into the CMS.
Read my OP again and you'll see what I meant.
they want all their apps to be able to copy/paste at the same time they want formatting preserved (as much as possible) when doing so.
Do they?? I don't know of any common situation in which I would want to persist the formatting of the ORIGIN in the target. How is that even remotely helpful? 99% of the time you only want the content, not the formatting, of the original.
In 1992, I saw this abstract in the Journal of Medical Ethics, now on-line for your delectation.
"In a review of the relevant literature it is shown that happiness is statistically abnormal, consists of a discrete cluster of symptoms, is associated with a range of cognitive abnormalities"
Hoo yah.
I quite like the workaround that's always given for content management systems that can't strip out the humongous amount of invisible HTML cruft that comes with text that's copied to the clipboard from MS Word or Outlook.
Content editor: "Hey, why is the formatting of this page completely borked? And why can't I use the CMS's editor to fix the borkage?"
Me: "Where did you get the original text from?"
Content editor: "I copied it from a Word doc that somebody sent me. I just pasted that in. It was just plain text..."
Me: "I see. Well, delete the page and start again. This time, copy the stuff from Word, then open Notepad, past the text from Word into Notepad, then copy/paste into the CMS from there instead."
Content editor: "Oooh, voodoo!"
Me: "Indeed."
While Roger Grimes's intentions are good, in making that spreadsheet he's just wasted a lot of effort that he could have spent drinking beer and kissing women.
Firstly, any analysis of real-world passwords in use in, er, the real world, will scream that they are far too weak. That is not news. At all.
Secondly (and this is the hard part for geeks to understand, so: l i s t e n - the strength of a password decreases the greater its theoretical strength becomes. Yes, that's DECREASES.
Why? Because if my password has more than a couple of numbers and some upper/lower case letters in, I will write it on a sticky note and attach it to my monitor - sometimes with the words "password to payroll system" or whatever also written on it.
That is reality. Now, can we all stop this nerdy crap about password strength and do the real work of thinking about the human factors involved in security? That, I am afraid, is where the hard work is. Any idiot can make a spreadsheet.
Looks even more like a dong on the euro coins
That reminds me - am I the only one in the world that thinks the Amazon logo contains a representation of an erect human phallus?
No? Hm.
Lordy - I've just tried a few searches and it's really, really crap isn't it? Wow. Hope it gets better or they'll be toast in under a couple of years I would think.
This is a British company (god save the Queen!) - aren't they talking about database rights? If so, I think they're not enforceable outside the EU.
This is the part "security specialists" don't get: when it comes to humans and security, it's all about the *context* in which the negotiation between perceived risk, convenience and reward takes place. A study such as this is trying to study the wrong thing. It's not the fact that people choose insecure passwords, or guessable questions - everyone knows that - it's WHY THEY DO that matters.
Here's a hypothetical scenario. You are asked to create an account on a site called "wobble your bum cheeks" which lets you uploads pictures of your behind and make them look like they are wobbling hilariously. As part of the signup process, you are asked to choose a password. What do you do?
a) Choose something you are unlikely to forget (like "password" or "forgetmenot")
b) Choose a strong password like (like "L0Lcatz" or "baz00kas")
c) Don't bother to sign up
Thinking about those choices, what sort of things run though your mind? How is the dialogue between perceived risk, convenience and reward panning out? Now add some extra spice: the site demands you also choose a security question. Same three options broadly apply. Same negotiation.
Now repeat the above in a different context: applying for an online bank account. Now what do you do? Do you see where I'm going with this?
FAR, FAR more research is needed into CONTEXTUAL security - the "human factors" around it and the reasons WHY people exhibit certain behaviours when faced with the above negotiation. Until then, TFA can kiss my dick. Who cares. Really.
America is the richest nation on earth, with the most riches available for those who can pay for them. So:
Introduce an educational pay scale for students, starting aged 8, with remuneration based on performance and attendance. The scale is designed to ensure you are at least financially independent from your parents by the time you leave college, provided you have managed your education well enough: hounded out bad teachers, rejected time-wasting crap like sports, ensured you have plenty of teaching in things like mechanical engineering, bio-tech and accounting. You'll be able to afford the finest recreational sex, electronics and politicians by the time you are 20 -as long as you keep up the good grades and attendance. At that point, you should not only want to get a high-paying job in order to keep you in the style to which you have become accustomed, but be able to so so.
America then becomes the world's most highly-educated nation, and the world's most successful economy, in one generation.
Best of all, it would probably cost the country about the same as it does to pay for recreational "incentives" like balls on a chain.
Third, to make firefox useful, you must bloat it up with addons. (evidenced by the 12+ addons I have loaded right now)
I don't normally insult people on /. unless they deserve it - but yours is an utterly moronic comment.
Which would you rather have? A slim browser by default, with basic functionality that you can then customise into infinity if you wish, or a fat browser with functionality determined by somebody else?
I post this with full karma in evidence. If you mod me down, at least have the dignity to mod the parent down too.
OT, but I wonder what the general mechanism is that produces situations in which employers have to ask their staff to work through the night to meet some deadline. I mean, at some point it must pass from the rational and industry-specific and into the irrational and the realms of psychological dysfunction. What makes an otherwise sane (and presumably reasonably intelligent) project manager or senior manager agree to push ahead with something that they know is going to be impossible?
"I have decided that we will deliver X, with Y resources, but I know that to deliver X you will need Y*10 resources. I shall ignore this and end up making 10 people work all night for a week to deliver something that I will eventually get fired for being barely production ready, it at all."
I have see exactly this on more occasions than I would think would be just bad luck.
The WSJ's content is as "newspaper of record" for financial items. Which means its unique.
Additionally, how many of those "online" subscribers are dead-tree subscribers?
For most other news, news outlets are substitutable. If you are a substitutable item, but you charge and your competition doesn't, you're out of luck.
Absolutely right. People will pay for what they perceive to be quality. If Murdoch means that he'll up the quality of the content - then I'm all for paying!
There is also:
3. Invade tax havens.
I am serious. Tax havens are parasitic states - they attract large companies and rich people by having very little taxes, but these taxes (and services for these companies) are large enough to comfortably feed the local population; while their own production capacity is nil. This is a minority strategy, and should be fought against.
Yeah! Invade Monaco! Take out the Channel Islands!
You, sir, are truly loopy. But I salute you.
The BBC don't need a business model. It's funded by licence fees.
Unfortunately, the Beeb doesn't make nearly enough from the licence fee to fund the programming they make (and, some say, to attract the talent they need) - this is why they have to pursue licensing and merchandising deals for the likes of Dr Who and stuff.
Yeah, and he's already had his ass handed to him court at least once.
Difference between theory and practice and all.
Sigh.
References please.
Lessig is probably the most knowledgeable person on the planet when it comes to US law on fair use.
Ooooh they're gonna get creamed. And I will be laughing like a drain!!
And if you need some further discussion on the subject of The World's Worst Software...