Except that a truly Microsoft-written ReadBytes method on the.NET Framework can be that simple, for example one int parameter http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.binaryreader.readbytes.aspx So I wouldn't even jump to conclusions based on the signature of the method in question as to who it might have come from.
a man who is, frankly, one of the forefathers of modern gaming, [...snip...]. He should stick to coding and leave the design to someone who has some idea of what gamers want.
As a forefather of modern gaming he doesn't know what gamers want? Interesting assertion. I suppose the word design can be used in many contexts but still I wouldn't be so sure he doesn't know what gamers want in any of those contexts.
University has to have that "edge" you know, by having professors just slight off centre- the controversy keeps the school in the news and enrollment and prestige stays up.
Yes. It is a "solution" which adds costs in many, many places for a problem that doesn't exist. I don't see why people even spend a second thinking about this. -- Ulrich Drepper (2009)
640K ought to be enough for anybody. -- Bill Gates (unattributed)
Firefox has now finally surpassed IE6, which is easily the most hated version of Microsoft's browser.
That does not make Firefox look good by comparing it to a 8 year old browser that is really hated. Honestly, that fact works against Firefox IMO. It's like saying Steve Balmer's rep on Slashdot is getting better because he's surpassed Darl McBride's popularity level here.
Your original post qualified Slashdot as not being a news outlet: (Remember, its a discussion board, not a news outlet.)
In you latest post you started a new conversation by saying Slashdot is not a "news producer": not that the site is a bona fide news producer.
I do not want to change this conversation in the middle of the thread -- that would be more appropriate under a new thread -- however I will comment that I disagree that Slashdot produces no original content -- it's just rarely. Take a look at some of the exclusive/. interviews with popular tech people and companies. (Also, I seem to remember in the past a Slashdot employee sending in daily reports from a conference he was attending -- but after a quick search I've been unable to bring up those old posts yet).
However back on topic I have to disagree with your original assertation that Slashdot is not a news outlet. Slashdot is a news outlet "for nerds". It's also a discussion board about that news.
Because Google's developers don't know real reporting from leeches?
That statement cannot be backed up by the fact you personally consider Slashdot to not be a news service at all. It seems a sweeping statement about Google developers. Where did you get the inside scoop from?
Are your judgement about what is or is not news determined by what a few developers put in a URL list?
You tell me. But first prove that Google just has a few developers that put URLs into the list. Are you sure only a few Google developers make this decision -- or might other Google departments be involved in that facet of the news service? By itself I cannot consider your personal bias a good argument if you do not back it up with more than assumptions.
I would pose a few questions to you: What do you think it takes to be qualified as a news service, and *really* why does Slashdot not meet that? (apart from assumptions that a few developers at Google are just throwing stuff in).
Even if a few Google developers threw in Slashdot, does that mean it is not a news source? (apart from your wish that it not be?)
Dear Slashdot,
I'm running Windows XP and have at least one annoying crash a day! My Intel P1 222Mhz with 32 MB RAM ran Windows 95 perfectly. Is it just me or does Windows XP seem a lot less stable than Windows 95?
I think I will have to revert back to Windows 95 if you cannot help me. I am also submitting this important problem in a form of a story to CNN.
--jdk
I've seen software from groups of people and it's crap; and I've seen software from individuals or a couple people that is great. There is no hard and fast rule. Often larger teams get mired down and have a hard time moving the project forward. For some types of projects a smaller team is ideal (not necessarily for smaller projects).
Another thought: One of the largest problems I see in software development (and one that I have a hard time dealing with) is the proper planning of the project. It's too easy to just jump in without a proper guideline and accomplish a lot, but really nothing at all towards an end result. For very small teams (or single person teams) it's very important the have some methadology in their head about how to break down the problem, analyze it, and turn it into computer code. I think a good, focused small team that has a grasp on analysis and design can do a mountain of work compared to a larger team that is mired down in politics and red tape, and the "i just work for the company" mindset.
Take a look at *some* government-type jobs and how little gets down and how mired down in detail everything is. (Invariably someone will reply and say they're not all like that. Well if the points comes up, I agree with you.) And then look at companies that moreso have to make it on their own to survive. What I'm saying is a lot depends on the mindset of the people.
This is something I don't fully understand: Microsoft buys a company named Lookout because it creates a software tool that searches through MS Outlook (2000+) better than Microsoft currently does with the built-in tool. Fair enough.
However MS created the source code for Outlook and the Lookout company did not have access to it. Doesn't it stand to reason that MS should just go back, dust off the source code and improve it almost feature-for-feature (or even better) with the competing product rather than buying that entire company?
I understand if licensing or patents are involved because then MS would want to own them now instead of geting into trouble later. (Indeed, one of the story links indicate patents are involved: It seems that Lookout already has some patents on desktop search technology. Microsoft's work was independetly developed. They are just protecting their back from patent litigations.)
Also, if MS buys the company then there's less similar competition in the future (the small company already proved it could out-Microsoft Microsoft).
In these cases it wouldn't be about the technology at all.
A projector in the pocket size is in range: In it a mobile micro mirror develops the picture line for line. In laboratory prototypes researchers could increase its frequency of oscillation and dissolution so far that diagrams and texts appear clearly readable. Not much more largely than a piece wuerfelzucker could be the Beamer of the future. Built into Handys would always participate the mini projector - approximately for a PowerPoint presentation in the small circle or the fast view into an on-line journal. In strange cities it could facilitate orientation, by projecting simply a city plan to the next house wall. Still is this future music. Researchers of the institute for Fraunhofer for silicon technology ISIT in Itzehoe however already built a demonstrator for such a tiny equipment. It projects texts and diagrams with a dissolution of 320 x 240 pixels. Heart is a mobile mirror with a diameter of 1,5 millimeters, which can be manufactured as mass product on a chip. It directs a laser beam by speedy changing of its tilting angle, and develops so the picture pixel for pixels. "the special at the mirror is its suspension", stresses Ulrich Hofmann. "by a special attachment at two torsion bars the mirror can be tilted around two axles. Thus it can divert a laser beam horizontal and vertically." After each deflection the feathers/springs withdraw the mirror so fast into its initial position that it can be tilted several thousands times per second. Suitably the high mobility the researchers accelerated electronics. It decides within the range of nanoseconds, how it must modulate the laser light, so that each pixel in the correct brightness appears. In order to avoid errors in the projection, a second laser serves as control. It radiates likewise on the mobile mirror; the reflected light meets however a photodiode, which locates, as the mirror tilted. "the mirror changes its position for example by vibrations inadvertently, notices control this", explains Hofmann. "electronics can react then flexibly to it and adapt the picture information accordingly." The system is thereby to a large extent insensitively in relation to disturbances from the outside. Still the demonstrator fits into no mobile telephone. "for the test we had not made, say electronics smaller yet to a minimum" Hofmann. That is however one of the next goals of the researchers, who in addition the frequency of the mirror movement and so the dissolution would like to increase. Also in other place it hooks still: As tiny source of light with sufficient life span and leuchtstaerke there are so far only red laser diodes. Within this range the researchers wait now for developments of their colleagues. They however already prepared their system for the multi-color enterprise.
I agree with you. Windows rules as the king of easy spam relay because of running in "root" (Administrator) mode most of the time. However even though there might be more choices to hack Windows, and even though Windows is on the hot-seat right now -- and arguably never left the seat -- a hacker only needs access to one security flaw to exploit at least part of a machine.
Gaim is NOT integrated into the OS.
I did not refer to Gaim, but I would include the apparent more severe issues spoken about in the grandparent posts such as "libxml2 and httpd" and "Xfree86".
Yes, one from this year that has since been fixed. The entire computer is not necessarily owned, however the user's security has been breached by visiting a webpage on a non-Windows OS.
Of course there don't seem to be any more of these on the security charts for Apple right now, however such security flaws come and go amongst the various OS's (moreso on Windows it seems). I cannot guarantee OSX or any other UNIx-like OS will not be on the charts again in the future with a browser problem.
As far as owning the machine every time, well Microsoft does take that category.
I disagree that I have to find more than one vulnerability. It only takes one for a breach to occur. As I said in another post, where security is concerned, majority does not rule because numbers play differently.
Sometimes people single out a certain kid in the playground because of jealousy. Microsoft's not in the "in group" here for obvious reasons. But c'mon, let's pick our fights fairly.
If the software industry unionizes, I wonder if software workers will find themselves out of jobs faster than, let's say, a car manufacture (e.g. I see other references here to GM unionizing in 1937).
We (programmers) unionize. They (companies) outsource the work to overseas, or open the main branch of the company elsewhere.
I believe unionization -- at least in North America -- at this point could be more of a detriment to programmers.
So far I see responses to your post saying EULAs are stupid, unenforceable, and ignored. However I'm curious about if the EULA "covers" the tracking software aspect.
Does ANYONE WITH A LEXMARK PRINTER (that has the tracking software installed by Lexmark) have a EULA that they can post for us to see? That would be great so we can check it out... no matter how dumb, boring, or theoretically unenforceable it might be. Some of us just want to see if it covers that tracking software aspect.
I love using Firefox. It's my browse of choice because of its flexibility (e.g. posting from it now). However I have agree that IE doesn't lack any "important" features as far as home users are concerned (arguably the majority). I have to qualify my sentence further: in light of Windows XP Service Pack 2, the IE browser doesn't lack important features anymore that the home user can distinguish from using Firefox. Microsoft has really upped the security and even blocked popups by default with SP2... and that's what was most important to average users (the majority). Yes, MS did finally listen, and it took them a long time to get around to these features, but in the end they did it. Of course people using older versions of Windows do not have these new benefits which is a major stumbling block to IE. (Microsoft wants everybody on XP anyways). In some years every Windows user will be on a newer version -- out of necessity for security reasons if nothing else -- and the concerns about security, annoying popups etc will soon fade into the past if Microsoft keeps attacking the issues as they have been lately.
I went solely Firefox before XP SP2 because I was concerned about my security and hated the popups. However after SP2, just for jumping on the computer and doing some casual surfing, I have no problem with either IE or Firefox; whichever is the most handy will suffice. (Note however that I still miss tabbed browsing in IE so I'd have to say I'm still leaning closer to Firefox instead of standing in the exact middle of the road.)
However as developer or power user or whatever you want to call it, I prefer the flexibility of Firefox. Firefox is more likely to have a cult following than IE, but not among average home users.
If Microsoft keeps adding just the needed features to keep the average user happy and secure, I'm sure they will fend off Firefox with ease. It's unfortunate, but I believe it's true.
Obivously he didn't study the Microsoft TCP/IP stack implementation close enough to discover that his anonymity was not guaranteed when selling Windows source code over the Internet.
Will most of us adjust the earth's climate by pulling in and out of our driveways every day?
Maybe all of us should ride our bicycles.
If too many people cycle in the same direction to work each day, then will we change the earth's climate by creating unusually thin winds vectors?
Maybe we should walk instead.
If everybody walks, will the cumulative staccato bi-ped shocks cause the worms to move lower in the ground and cause our soil to become less rich and fertile?
Ya, you can tell my take on all this stuff is just slightly sarcastic. Maybe it's just because I got home late from work and am in the mood for a fight. Ya, in fact everything looks stupid right now. I'm going to bed.
Thanks. Your information enabled me to do some googling.
For anybody who is interested, here's a theory (bottom of the page): "one theory says the moon formed when a big, molten chunk of crust was knocked/blown off from the rest of the planet". And much more info about it.
Smart's map should provide that data and show if scientists are right in believing that the Moon coalesced from a vast ring of debris generated when an ancient planet the size of Mars destroyed itself after crashing into Earth. Understanding the origins of the Moon will therefore give insights into the nature of our planet.
Doesn't this mean earth should have some huge dent in it, and not be so round? Look at the sizes of Mars and Earth. Are you surprised earth is still here after a crash of that magnitude? I am. Maybe earth was a lot bigger before a Mars-like planet destroyed itself crashing into earth, but then I go back to my question about the roundness of the earth.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable wants to talk about that. The article doesn't go into any great detail on that, which causes a lot of questions to be raised.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that a truly Microsoft-written ReadBytes method on the .NET Framework can be that simple, for example one int parameter http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.binaryreader.readbytes.aspx
So I wouldn't even jump to conclusions based on the signature of the method in question as to who it might have come from.
a man who is, frankly, one of the forefathers of modern gaming, [...snip...]. He should stick to coding and leave the design to someone who has some idea of what gamers want.
As a forefather of modern gaming he doesn't know what gamers want? Interesting assertion. I suppose the word design can be used in many contexts but still I wouldn't be so sure he doesn't know what gamers want in any of those contexts.
University has to have that "edge" you know, by having professors just slight off centre- the controversy keeps the school in the news and enrollment and prestige stays up.
Yes. It is a "solution" which adds costs in many, many places for a problem that doesn't exist. I don't see why people even spend a second thinking about this.
-- Ulrich Drepper (2009)
640K ought to be enough for anybody.
-- Bill Gates (unattributed)
That does not make Firefox look good by comparing it to a 8 year old browser that is really hated. Honestly, that fact works against Firefox IMO. It's like saying Steve Balmer's rep on Slashdot is getting better because he's surpassed Darl McBride's popularity level here.
With dial-up you won't get the updates in time before they attach you! Get broadband. Play it safe.
In you latest post you started a new conversation by saying Slashdot is not a "news producer": not that the site is a bona fide news producer.
I do not want to change this conversation in the middle of the thread -- that would be more appropriate under a new thread -- however I will comment that I disagree that Slashdot produces no original content -- it's just rarely. Take a look at some of the exclusive /. interviews with popular tech people and companies. (Also, I seem to remember in the past a Slashdot employee sending in daily reports from a conference he was attending -- but after a quick search I've been unable to bring up those old posts yet).
However back on topic I have to disagree with your original assertation that Slashdot is not a news outlet. Slashdot is a news outlet "for nerds". It's also a discussion board about that news.
That statement cannot be backed up by the fact you personally consider Slashdot to not be a news service at all. It seems a sweeping statement about Google developers. Where did you get the inside scoop from?
Are your judgement about what is or is not news determined by what a few developers put in a URL list?
You tell me. But first prove that Google just has a few developers that put URLs into the list. Are you sure only a few Google developers make this decision -- or might other Google departments be involved in that facet of the news service? By itself I cannot consider your personal bias a good argument if you do not back it up with more than assumptions.
I would pose a few questions to you: What do you think it takes to be qualified as a news service, and *really* why does Slashdot not meet that? (apart from assumptions that a few developers at Google are just throwing stuff in). Even if a few Google developers threw in Slashdot, does that mean it is not a news source? (apart from your wish that it not be?)
Dear Slashdot,
I'm running Windows XP and have at least one annoying crash a day! My Intel P1 222Mhz with 32 MB RAM ran Windows 95 perfectly. Is it just me or does Windows XP seem a lot less stable than Windows 95?
I think I will have to revert back to Windows 95 if you cannot help me.
I am also submitting this important problem in a form of a story to CNN.
--jdk
If /. is not a news outlet then why does the Google News Aggregator consider it as a source? Aha!
Maybe it's both.
Another thought: One of the largest problems I see in software development (and one that I have a hard time dealing with) is the proper planning of the project. It's too easy to just jump in without a proper guideline and accomplish a lot, but really nothing at all towards an end result. For very small teams (or single person teams) it's very important the have some methadology in their head about how to break down the problem, analyze it, and turn it into computer code. I think a good, focused small team that has a grasp on analysis and design can do a mountain of work compared to a larger team that is mired down in politics and red tape, and the "i just work for the company" mindset.
Take a look at *some* government-type jobs and how little gets down and how mired down in detail everything is. (Invariably someone will reply and say they're not all like that. Well if the points comes up, I agree with you.) And then look at companies that moreso have to make it on their own to survive. What I'm saying is a lot depends on the mindset of the people.
I understand if licensing or patents are involved because then MS would want to own them now instead of geting into trouble later. (Indeed, one of the story links indicate patents are involved: It seems that Lookout already has some patents on desktop search technology. Microsoft's work was independetly developed. They are just protecting their back from patent litigations.)
Also, if MS buys the company then there's less similar competition in the future (the small company already proved it could out-Microsoft Microsoft).
In these cases it wouldn't be about the technology at all.
However I don't understand German.
But Babelfish does (kind of):
A projector in the pocket size is in range: In it a mobile micro mirror develops the picture line for line. In laboratory prototypes researchers could increase its frequency of oscillation and dissolution so far that diagrams and texts appear clearly readable. Not much more largely than a piece wuerfelzucker could be the Beamer of the future. Built into Handys would always participate the mini projector - approximately for a PowerPoint presentation in the small circle or the fast view into an on-line journal. In strange cities it could facilitate orientation, by projecting simply a city plan to the next house wall. Still is this future music. Researchers of the institute for Fraunhofer for silicon technology ISIT in Itzehoe however already built a demonstrator for such a tiny equipment. It projects texts and diagrams with a dissolution of 320 x 240 pixels. Heart is a mobile mirror with a diameter of 1,5 millimeters, which can be manufactured as mass product on a chip. It directs a laser beam by speedy changing of its tilting angle, and develops so the picture pixel for pixels. "the special at the mirror is its suspension", stresses Ulrich Hofmann. "by a special attachment at two torsion bars the mirror can be tilted around two axles. Thus it can divert a laser beam horizontal and vertically." After each deflection the feathers/springs withdraw the mirror so fast into its initial position that it can be tilted several thousands times per second. Suitably the high mobility the researchers accelerated electronics. It decides within the range of nanoseconds, how it must modulate the laser light, so that each pixel in the correct brightness appears. In order to avoid errors in the projection, a second laser serves as control. It radiates likewise on the mobile mirror; the reflected light meets however a photodiode, which locates, as the mirror tilted. "the mirror changes its position for example by vibrations inadvertently, notices control this", explains Hofmann. "electronics can react then flexibly to it and adapt the picture information accordingly." The system is thereby to a large extent insensitively in relation to disturbances from the outside. Still the demonstrator fits into no mobile telephone. "for the test we had not made, say electronics smaller yet to a minimum" Hofmann. That is however one of the next goals of the researchers, who in addition the frequency of the mirror movement and so the dissolution would like to increase. Also in other place it hooks still: As tiny source of light with sufficient life span and leuchtstaerke there are so far only red laser diodes. Within this range the researchers wait now for developments of their colleagues. They however already prepared their system for the multi-color enterprise.
Gaim is NOT integrated into the OS.
I did not refer to Gaim, but I would include the apparent more severe issues spoken about in the grandparent posts such as "libxml2 and httpd" and "Xfree86".
Of course there don't seem to be any more of these on the security charts for Apple right now, however such security flaws come and go amongst the various OS's (moreso on Windows it seems). I cannot guarantee OSX or any other UNIx-like OS will not be on the charts again in the future with a browser problem. As far as owning the machine every time, well Microsoft does take that category.
I disagree that I have to find more than one vulnerability. It only takes one for a breach to occur. As I said in another post, where security is concerned, majority does not rule because numbers play differently.
Only one is needed for a breach to occur. When security is concerned, majority does not rule. Numbers play differently.
"Please step away from the gun, you are not authorized to use it."
Okay, so you can play with the Linux gun, but the guy before you cannot. However now YOU may
"Please step away from the security gun." Thanks.
See items described as "delivers a number of security enhancements and is recommended for all Macintosh users".
Sometimes people single out a certain kid in the playground because of jealousy. Microsoft's not in the "in group" here for obvious reasons. But c'mon, let's pick our fights fairly.
Um, the last time I checked he was still dead.
We (programmers) unionize. They (companies) outsource the work to overseas, or open the main branch of the company elsewhere.
I believe unionization -- at least in North America -- at this point could be more of a detriment to programmers.
Does ANYONE WITH A LEXMARK PRINTER (that has the tracking software installed by Lexmark) have a EULA that they can post for us to see? That would be great so we can check it out ... no matter how dumb, boring, or theoretically unenforceable it might be. Some of us just want to see if it covers that tracking software aspect.
TIA
I went solely Firefox before XP SP2 because I was concerned about my security and hated the popups. However after SP2, just for jumping on the computer and doing some casual surfing, I have no problem with either IE or Firefox; whichever is the most handy will suffice. (Note however that I still miss tabbed browsing in IE so I'd have to say I'm still leaning closer to Firefox instead of standing in the exact middle of the road.)
However as developer or power user or whatever you want to call it, I prefer the flexibility of Firefox. Firefox is more likely to have a cult following than IE, but not among average home users.
If Microsoft keeps adding just the needed features to keep the average user happy and secure, I'm sure they will fend off Firefox with ease. It's unfortunate, but I believe it's true.
Maybe all of us should ride our bicycles.
If too many people cycle in the same direction to work each day, then will we change the earth's climate by creating unusually thin winds vectors?
Maybe we should walk instead.
If everybody walks, will the cumulative staccato bi-ped shocks cause the worms to move lower in the ground and cause our soil to become less rich and fertile?
Ya, you can tell my take on all this stuff is just slightly sarcastic. Maybe it's just because I got home late from work and am in the mood for a fight. Ya, in fact everything looks stupid right now. I'm going to bed.
For anybody who is interested, here's a theory (bottom of the page): "one theory says the moon formed when a big, molten chunk of crust was knocked/blown off from the rest of the planet". And much more info about it.
Doesn't this mean earth should have some huge dent in it, and not be so round? Look at the sizes of Mars and Earth. Are you surprised earth is still here after a crash of that magnitude? I am. Maybe earth was a lot bigger before a Mars-like planet destroyed itself crashing into earth, but then I go back to my question about the roundness of the earth.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable wants to talk about that. The article doesn't go into any great detail on that, which causes a lot of questions to be raised.