Just because there are a diversity of ideas on the "denier" side, I don't think that invalidates their positions.
I wasn't talking about invalidating their opinions. The original contention was that this paper validated the views of deniers. My response was that this does nothing to validate all deniers, only the tiny subset who claimed that it was getting warmer, but that it will not get as warm as the models predict. The scientists in question still say that it is getting warmer, and that CO2 is to blame. This does not vindicate the claim of those people who (for example) say that the earth is actually getting colder or that there is no link between CO2 and temperature.
Are you saying that we would be able to increase plant CO2 absorption?
Yes, by planting more trees. There is an entire industry being built up around this idea.
I far prefer the term global warming skeptic to your term "denier" though, as denier makes it sound like they are heretics blaspheming the church.
In this case, a skeptic is someone who questions the claims of global warming. But if you are questioning something, then you should be willing to accept the answer (no matter what it is). If you are presented with evidence that answers your question, and yet you still keep asking the same question regardless, then you are a denier. You are not legitimately asking a question, but are using questions to build FUD.
The problem is that people who do this will still claim to be a skeptic, and will often get quite irate if you use the wrong term for them. This whole thing of being offended by this term is just another distraction from the real issues. I have seen it used as a strategy for deflecting attention from the main argument of a message. Losing an argument? Just focus on this word to get you out of the mess.
why is it so important to you that the factions be in lockstep and monolithic thinkers?
You misunderstood what I wrote. I never said that people should adhere to some groupthink. In fact, that is exactly what I was arguing against. The original poster said that this new paper proved the deniers were correct, and I maintained that this isn't the case because deniers believe a multitude different ideas and that none of them were the same as what the NASA scientists postulated.
nobody at all argues that human industry has not emitted CO2 over the last 200 years... but how much compared to natural sources?
Yes, that is one of the standard arguments that I could have added my list. The answer is: enough to tip the balance. If the input and output of any system is fairly equal, and the humans add 1% in one direction then that is it doesn't matter how much we produce compared to other sources. It is still 1% too much. And scientists do understand this about CO2, that is why one of the answers that is being investigated is too increase nature's absorbtion or decrease its production. If nothing else finding a solution like this would at least buy us some time.
I read "skeptic" blogs and "established science" blogs
I'm going to stop you there. The opposite of science is not skepticism. An example of this is can be found in this/. story. A bunch of scientists questioned the results of other scientists and found something that they think is lacking. Other scientists will then be skeptical of these ones and check their findings, and they will publish their results whether they agree or disagree. That is how the scientific world is entirely based on skepticism. It is also why you occasionally hear of studies that investigate things that we all "know" to be true, which makes us ask why they wasted their time. The answer is that scientists requestion everything.
But skeptics don't have to be scientists, nor do they have to be in favor of global warming. What they do need to do to separate themselves from the deniers/true believers is to be willing to change their minds. Too many deniers call themselves skeptics when they have no intention of ever conceding a point in an argument. If somebody rebuts their claims, they just move on to other (often conflicting) claims.
And conversely, some AGW true believers can be similarly short sighted. Sure, the arguments that they copy and paste as their own tend to be a bit more scientific than the other side, but they can still be jerks.
So the deniers are always wrong? Even when the proponents change their models to reveal that they were right?
Who has been proven to be correct? Which deniers have ever stated that doubling CO2 will result in a 1.64C rise? I doubt anyone has said that before. Instead we get a range of responses, such as:
an increase in CO2 doesn't result in an increase in temperature
the Earth is actually cooling
temperature rises precede CO2 rises
it's all natural and not man-made
You can't keep guessing at a thousand different outcomes and then claim success when one of those guesses comes true. It is just not scientific. It is the same as trying to claim you have ESP because you can accurately predict the outcome of a coin toss 50% of the time.
The word "liberators" assumes that what is being liberated wants to escape. Whether you are copying games, music, films or books, none of these things actually desires to be liberated. Instead, the pirate wants to use the product without paying for it, so they just take it. It is a completely selfish act, and a label with a negative tone is quite apt.
I'm not going to go all Marge Simpson here and say "don't do that". All I ask is that the pirates don't try and sugar coat what they do as something noble.
Sorry, but the government has no business imposing costs on me in order to protect ME against my will.
And yet that is exactly what governments do, so maybe you are wrong. The statistics show that the car safety laws that have been introduced over the years do save lives and reduce serious injuries. On the other hand, you want to save a bit of money. What kind of selfish prat is willing to sacrifice thousands of lives and allow many more thousands of serious injuries just so they can save a small percentage of the cost of a car?
the 1913 public domain version of Webster's that is widely distributed on the Internet includes the infringement definition for "pirate"
Wow, you are right! You can even look back further than that and see that even the 1828 version contained "To take by theft or without right or permission, as books or writings".
I have never understood why the term generates such a massive response here. All language is fluid. Even if the definition wasn't in these old dictionaries, it is in the modern ones because that is the term that people use for the act. Just live with it, I say.
My bad for not rtfa. I'm not going to register to read.
I see. Well if you are basing your comments on just the blog entry, then I would suggest that you find a more impartial and informed source. The only reason that you think Basel lost credibility is because you had an unrealistic expectation of what the pledge program was set to achieve. You should think of the program as a stepping stone towards a certification process.
But a certification process is still only as good as the level of oversight it provides and the punishment that it can dish out to companies that do the wrong thing. Even the executive director of the Basel Action Network says "One of the things we have to do is get a ban at the federal level".
If the government does step in with their big stick, there will still be some companies that sneak through the system by exporting e-waste. There is too much financial incentive to do the wrong thing. But just because you will never get 100% compliance doesn't mean that you shouldn't try, and it certainly doesn't mean that the entire program loses all credibility at the first sign of someone getting caught out.
It's like Al Gore going around claiming the sky is falling due to global warming while he's making untold millions off of global warming.
You are going off topic here, but that is an argument that is way off base. If Al Gore didn't invest in green companies, then the criticism would be that he should put his own money where his mouth is. If he was trying to push a point that wasn't backed up by all the scientific evidence then you might have a point. But even if he went away today you would still be left with exactly the same facts found by exactly the same scientists.
The funny thing is that I bet this strategy was hypocritically thought up in some right wing think-tank that was funded by the oil industry. It probably happened at the same time that they came up with the laughable one about climate scientists just being in it for the money, despite the obvious notion that the pockets are much deeper on the side that wants to keep the status quo. But even if the big corporations who want to convince us that global warming isn't happening went away today you would still be left with exactly.... nothing.
Do you not understand "credibility", or is it "RIP" with which you're struggling?
Oh please, you are not off to a great start there. That was a stupid bit of juvenile wordplay that (rather ironically) robs your post of credibility. Only people who can't think through a full argument have to resort to this sort of tactic.
Do you not understand that when Organization Z, which has set itself up as the Conscience_of_America with respect to recycling, says Company X is evil for using this practice and we certify that Company Y would never do that, that their assertion must be true?
But they didn't certify that Company Y would never do it, merely that the company pledged that they would not do it. Trusting businesses is the weakness in the pledge system, and that is why the group has discontinued the pledge program in favour of a certification program. Yet another reason why the original blog post and/. summary appear to be making a mountain out of a molehill.
Perhaps the original blogger should have mentioned that the entire program had been superceded by something that would have more of a chance of preventing the e-waste exports. I said in my original post that the biased wording of the summary made me suspect that we were not being told the whole truth. Looks like I was right.
I'm still trying to work out the "Credibility RIP" line. Does that refer to some pledge, the blogger or Slashdot for reposting such drivel? As a non-Californian, I had no knowledge of the subject matter. But the most obvious thing that I found on my first reading of the summary was that it was it was written in completely biased manner. Without knowing what the story was, I already got wary that I was being preached to, and so I assumed that whatever I was being told was probably not the whole truth.
On further reading, my next impression was that somebody was making a mountain out of a molehill. Some company that is willing to do the wrong thing is also capable of lying to people. How amazing, eh? Just because some company made a pledge seven years ago doesn't mean that they don't need someone checking to see if they are telling the truth.
Finally, how many people even know what companies have made pledges? How important is this to anyone? Maybe they have a similar scheme going in my neighborhood - I wouldn't know because I can't think of many people who would actually care.
"Various versions of NT family operating systems have been released for a variety of processor architectures, initially Intel IA-32, MIPS R3000/R4000 and Alpha, with PowerPC, Itanium and AMD64 supported in later releases."
I just got a box with a small icon in the top corner. No PDF there. This is with IE8 on XP (without antivirus).
Hang on, I will try it in my trusted sites zone. Again, no. Different icon this time - was the red X one. Wait, I will have a look at Tools->Manage Addons. Ah yes, some clever bunny has disabled anything from Adobe. It is amazing how much more secure ANY operating system is once you get rid of software from that company.
Obviously I have fiddled with my system. An easier way to do it would be to use an alternative PDF viewer that doesn't want to be one with the web browser. It is a multitasking, windowing environment - I can handle a PDF popping up in another window rather than overwriting my current web page.
Still, if you are not comfortable changing the browser settings, then AV software is the way to go.
If it is, my money says the Linux crowd will employ it first, Apple will make it sexy, and Windows will blatantly copy it. In that order.
Yes, because Microsoft is so behind the game. Apple did patent this back in 2006, and as far as I am aware Microsoft don't have patents for this technology. But it is not as if it was that revolutionary an idea even back in 2006, as this paper from 2005 shows.
I am sure that it is not an easy thing to implement, so the real proof of the pudding will be when one company finally ships a commercial product. That is the problem with the patent system. You get rewarded just for coming up with an idea that you can't possibly implement. Then you wait until everyone else solves the implementation problems and comes out with their prototypes and then you can call the lawyers.
Mind you, knowing how secretive Apple is about forthcoming products, they may be on the verge of releasing their system right now. If that is the case then they will deserve credit as innovators.
IIRC internet filtering came from an Independent, and without a doubt the only reason either major party continues to give it lip service is to buy the votes of independents on other issues.
You mean Senator Brian Harradine? Yes, he was definitely in favour of it. However, he left the senate in 2005, a year before Labor committed itself to the ISP level filtering. That 2006 version did have an opt-out clause, so it wasn't mandatory.
The Family First party have had a policy of mandatory filtering for a long time. But they didn't introduce the currently proposed system. Their representative, Senator Fielding, has been voted out now anyway.
It wasn't until 2008 that Labor remove the opt-out ability of their proposal. The status now is that it is on hold until 2011, which means it is off the table until at least 2015, because it would never get through the current lower house or senate.
Obviously, there's nothing that can't be blamed on the Greens and Independents. Major party comes up with a stupid idea? It must be the fault of the smaller parties for holding the balance of power!
Huh? I can't tell if you are being funny or are sarcastically saying that I am blaming the Greens and independents for the faults of the major parties. My contention was that it is the small group of non-mainstream politicians who are keeping the bastards honest.
That is what you get these days with the balance of power being held by the Greens and independents. It used to be that the independents and small parties would come up with the looney ideas, but more and more we are seeing the big parties filling that role. EG. The Internet Filter aka The Great Firewall of Australia.
Seriously, you're thinking like a geek. Mind you, I don't mean that in a bad way. But I do mean that someone with your perspective is not someone who would most likely be disadvantaged by someone else hiding the URL bar, as you'd be wary and experienced enough to notice, and wonder what was up.
Yes, but by the same reckoning only a geek would go into the advanced options of the security settings in the first place. Considering that the facility is switched off by default, then you are worried about nothing.
a separate build that saves space would indeed be very much desired
I have used IE in kiosk mode to knock up an info system for customers. At no time was there a need for a cut down build of Internet Explorer. If you are using a system that can run Windows, then you can easily handle the normal browser code being loaded even if it isn't used.
Is there any utility for end users of a full-on desktop browser installation for an option to hide the URL bar? I see plenty of utility for others -- megacorps, phishers, and assorted other ne'er-do-wells -- but I can think of no compelling use for regular old end users.
I once wrote an HTML application (see also HTA) to categorise and sort my travel photos into my journal system. It was quite easy to do, and it didn't require all the heavy coding to do the graphics that was required by other languages at the time. It was quite convenient to make a program that used a completely borderless, full screen window in an interpreted language that required no additional install on a Windows computer.
I have also used pop up windows without an address line on some Intranet applications, although when they started displaying with the URL is wasn't a deal-breaker to be bother reconfiguring everyone's systems to hide it.
Why should they have to maintain a separate build just for the sake of not having a single checkbox in the configuration options? Surely not to save space, because it wouldn't take much code to check a setting before adding the address and status lines.
It is not even one of the more esoteric options on offer. Even a novice would be able to work out what it means.
How stupid is it that the summary about the lost domain is double the length of the page that it links to (234 vs 117 characters)? I clicked the link to get more information, not less!
Back on topic, there is a price that you pay for a fairly unregulated domain name market, and that is the occasional stuff up as described here. I have had the opposite problem in the past, attempts to get a domain transfered have been held up despite the owner agreeing to the transfer. Admittedly, losing a name is far worse than the temporary hassles of delays in transferals.
The fact that this even exists as an option is... interesting, shall we say.
If you think that is interesting then your mind is going to be blown when you eventually learn of about:config in Firefox. There are options for EVERYTHING there!
Seriously, I'm not sure why you think it is interesting. Microsoft changed the behaviour of the browser, but kept an option around for people who need or prefer the old ways. By having the option in the security tab, you also have the ability to having different settings in each zone so that Intranet applications can still hide the browser cruft. Microsoft has stuffed up a lot of things in IE over the years, but this doesn't seem particularly controversial.
Just as an example, suppose that marking your package "Fragile" actually results in better handling on average. Telling people the opposite of that is not just publishing entertaining stories, it's doing actual harm.
Oh yes, that is actually a very good point. I was wrong in thinking of this as a harmless discussion because I didn't consider the real consequences to people believing what this stuff. I have been disadvantaged by some misinformation on this site before, so I'm amazed that I didn't pick up on this point.
Slashdot is supposed to be "stuff that matters."
I thought they gave up on that idea a long time ago!
Just put it in Airplane Mode to shut off the radios, and they could've gotten several days of battery life.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. My iPhone has abysmal battery life, and even in airplane mode I'm not sure that it would be able to keep up the constant data logging for too long. Also, I just turned on airplane mode to test it, and it couldn't determine my location. I guess GPS requires the radio.
The number of times they tested the same route with the same carrier was 0. The results are meaningless.
Nice one, Sherlock. They did say that in TFA:
"The parcel was shipped a dozen times (we had neither the time nor the budget to make the hundreds of trips necessary for statistical significance), a modest experiment to see how the device performed and gather enough data to draw broad conclusions."
Fortunately this wasn't submitted for a peer review journal.
As you have noted, it does take a commitment to learn any system. For personal projects where you answer to no one else, you should use whatever you think will be useful to know in the future. The factors involved are: what will be used for future projects at work, how important is cross platform programming, and what looks good on a resume.
For cross platform work, Qt is the way to go. Or Java I suppose, but I have found myself moving away from that language. Not for any ideological reason, I've just had a few frustrations with it over time. But you can't argue that it can be handy for the resume.
Alternatively, if you are interested in web programming, then it is amazing what you can do using HTML (especially HTML5 with its new canvas tag). If you are after a full screen application, then you can try the kiosk modes in Internet Explorer or Firefox. IE doesn't support HTML5 yet, so you would either need to limit yourself down to HTML4 can provide (which still isn't bad) or use Firefox.
If you want to learn a language that has a compiler installed by default on the majority of computers in the world, then C# is the way to go. While Visual Studio makes it easy to generate the user interface elements, it is also handy to know how to use the language in straight vanilla code so you can use the command line compiler that comes with the.NET runtime. I have knocked out a few quick hacks on other people's systems just with Notepad and C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.5\csc.exe.
The GP lost his credibility the instant he said that, so far as I'm concerned. "Windows can be trusted on an untrusted network". That's dangerous misinformation. I hope he doesn't work IT at a power plant.
Prove it. What is the mechanism that is used to infect a Windows computer merely by plugging it into an untrusted network? Which port is attacked? Do you have a link to a security advisory describing a vulnerability?
I have had a look at the details of a few of the recent worms, and they wouldn't work on a Public network because it doesn't allow services like RPC. That is why the worms have multiple attack vectors like Autorun on flash drives so they can get access to Private or trusted networks. (Autorun is definitely a major security hole that Microsoft deserve to be blamed)
You can see what ports are allowed on a Public network by going into "Windows Firewall with Advanced Security" (Run as administrator). Under "Inbound Rules" set "Filter by Profile" to "Filter by Public Profile".
Personally, if I was going to attack a computer that had plugged into my network, I would intercept the traffic to and from the computer to inject malware. As a simplistic example, if an email message was being downloaded then you could append an attachment to it. But that sort of attack wouldn't be restricted to the Microsoft platform. Windows just isn't worse than any other operating system when connected to an untrusted network.
Slashdot Mirror
Just because there are a diversity of ideas on the "denier" side, I don't think that invalidates their positions.
I wasn't talking about invalidating their opinions. The original contention was that this paper validated the views of deniers. My response was that this does nothing to validate all deniers, only the tiny subset who claimed that it was getting warmer, but that it will not get as warm as the models predict. The scientists in question still say that it is getting warmer, and that CO2 is to blame. This does not vindicate the claim of those people who (for example) say that the earth is actually getting colder or that there is no link between CO2 and temperature.
Are you saying that we would be able to increase plant CO2 absorption?
Yes, by planting more trees. There is an entire industry being built up around this idea.
I far prefer the term global warming skeptic to your term "denier" though, as denier makes it sound like they are heretics blaspheming the church.
In this case, a skeptic is someone who questions the claims of global warming. But if you are questioning something, then you should be willing to accept the answer (no matter what it is). If you are presented with evidence that answers your question, and yet you still keep asking the same question regardless, then you are a denier. You are not legitimately asking a question, but are using questions to build FUD.
The problem is that people who do this will still claim to be a skeptic, and will often get quite irate if you use the wrong term for them. This whole thing of being offended by this term is just another distraction from the real issues. I have seen it used as a strategy for deflecting attention from the main argument of a message. Losing an argument? Just focus on this word to get you out of the mess.
why is it so important to you that the factions be in lockstep and monolithic thinkers?
You misunderstood what I wrote. I never said that people should adhere to some groupthink. In fact, that is exactly what I was arguing against. The original poster said that this new paper proved the deniers were correct, and I maintained that this isn't the case because deniers believe a multitude different ideas and that none of them were the same as what the NASA scientists postulated.
nobody at all argues that human industry has not emitted CO2 over the last 200 years... but how much compared to natural sources?
Yes, that is one of the standard arguments that I could have added my list. The answer is: enough to tip the balance. If the input and output of any system is fairly equal, and the humans add 1% in one direction then that is it doesn't matter how much we produce compared to other sources. It is still 1% too much. And scientists do understand this about CO2, that is why one of the answers that is being investigated is too increase nature's absorbtion or decrease its production. If nothing else finding a solution like this would at least buy us some time.
I read "skeptic" blogs and "established science" blogs
I'm going to stop you there. The opposite of science is not skepticism. An example of this is can be found in this /. story. A bunch of scientists questioned the results of other scientists and found something that they think is lacking. Other scientists will then be skeptical of these ones and check their findings, and they will publish their results whether they agree or disagree. That is how the scientific world is entirely based on skepticism. It is also why you occasionally hear of studies that investigate things that we all "know" to be true, which makes us ask why they wasted their time. The answer is that scientists requestion everything.
But skeptics don't have to be scientists, nor do they have to be in favor of global warming. What they do need to do to separate themselves from the deniers/true believers is to be willing to change their minds. Too many deniers call themselves skeptics when they have no intention of ever conceding a point in an argument. If somebody rebuts their claims, they just move on to other (often conflicting) claims.
And conversely, some AGW true believers can be similarly short sighted. Sure, the arguments that they copy and paste as their own tend to be a bit more scientific than the other side, but they can still be jerks.
So the deniers are always wrong? Even when the proponents change their models to reveal that they were right?
Who has been proven to be correct? Which deniers have ever stated that doubling CO2 will result in a 1.64C rise? I doubt anyone has said that before. Instead we get a range of responses, such as:
You can't keep guessing at a thousand different outcomes and then claim success when one of those guesses comes true. It is just not scientific. It is the same as trying to claim you have ESP because you can accurately predict the outcome of a coin toss 50% of the time.
The word "liberators" assumes that what is being liberated wants to escape. Whether you are copying games, music, films or books, none of these things actually desires to be liberated. Instead, the pirate wants to use the product without paying for it, so they just take it. It is a completely selfish act, and a label with a negative tone is quite apt.
I'm not going to go all Marge Simpson here and say "don't do that". All I ask is that the pirates don't try and sugar coat what they do as something noble.
Sorry, but the government has no business imposing costs on me in order to protect ME against my will.
And yet that is exactly what governments do, so maybe you are wrong. The statistics show that the car safety laws that have been introduced over the years do save lives and reduce serious injuries. On the other hand, you want to save a bit of money. What kind of selfish prat is willing to sacrifice thousands of lives and allow many more thousands of serious injuries just so they can save a small percentage of the cost of a car?
the 1913 public domain version of Webster's that is widely distributed on the Internet includes the infringement definition for "pirate"
Wow, you are right! You can even look back further than that and see that even the 1828 version contained "To take by theft or without right or permission, as books or writings".
I have never understood why the term generates such a massive response here. All language is fluid. Even if the definition wasn't in these old dictionaries, it is in the modern ones because that is the term that people use for the act. Just live with it, I say.
My bad for not rtfa. I'm not going to register to read.
I see. Well if you are basing your comments on just the blog entry, then I would suggest that you find a more impartial and informed source. The only reason that you think Basel lost credibility is because you had an unrealistic expectation of what the pledge program was set to achieve. You should think of the program as a stepping stone towards a certification process.
But a certification process is still only as good as the level of oversight it provides and the punishment that it can dish out to companies that do the wrong thing. Even the executive director of the Basel Action Network says "One of the things we have to do is get a ban at the federal level".
If the government does step in with their big stick, there will still be some companies that sneak through the system by exporting e-waste. There is too much financial incentive to do the wrong thing. But just because you will never get 100% compliance doesn't mean that you shouldn't try, and it certainly doesn't mean that the entire program loses all credibility at the first sign of someone getting caught out.
It's like Al Gore going around claiming the sky is falling due to global warming while he's making untold millions off of global warming.
You are going off topic here, but that is an argument that is way off base. If Al Gore didn't invest in green companies, then the criticism would be that he should put his own money where his mouth is. If he was trying to push a point that wasn't backed up by all the scientific evidence then you might have a point. But even if he went away today you would still be left with exactly the same facts found by exactly the same scientists.
The funny thing is that I bet this strategy was hypocritically thought up in some right wing think-tank that was funded by the oil industry. It probably happened at the same time that they came up with the laughable one about climate scientists just being in it for the money, despite the obvious notion that the pockets are much deeper on the side that wants to keep the status quo. But even if the big corporations who want to convince us that global warming isn't happening went away today you would still be left with exactly.... nothing.
Do you not understand "credibility", or is it "RIP" with which you're struggling?
Oh please, you are not off to a great start there. That was a stupid bit of juvenile wordplay that (rather ironically) robs your post of credibility. Only people who can't think through a full argument have to resort to this sort of tactic.
Do you not understand that when Organization Z, which has set itself up as the Conscience_of_America with respect to recycling, says Company X is evil for using this practice and we certify that Company Y would never do that, that their assertion must be true?
But they didn't certify that Company Y would never do it, merely that the company pledged that they would not do it. Trusting businesses is the weakness in the pledge system, and that is why the group has discontinued the pledge program in favour of a certification program. Yet another reason why the original blog post and /. summary appear to be making a mountain out of a molehill.
Perhaps the original blogger should have mentioned that the entire program had been superceded by something that would have more of a chance of preventing the e-waste exports. I said in my original post that the biased wording of the summary made me suspect that we were not being told the whole truth. Looks like I was right.
I'm still trying to work out the "Credibility RIP" line. Does that refer to some pledge, the blogger or Slashdot for reposting such drivel? As a non-Californian, I had no knowledge of the subject matter. But the most obvious thing that I found on my first reading of the summary was that it was it was written in completely biased manner. Without knowing what the story was, I already got wary that I was being preached to, and so I assumed that whatever I was being told was probably not the whole truth.
On further reading, my next impression was that somebody was making a mountain out of a molehill. Some company that is willing to do the wrong thing is also capable of lying to people. How amazing, eh? Just because some company made a pledge seven years ago doesn't mean that they don't need someone checking to see if they are telling the truth.
Finally, how many people even know what companies have made pledges? How important is this to anyone? Maybe they have a similar scheme going in my neighborhood - I wouldn't know because I can't think of many people who would actually care.
Microsoft could have ported Windows to a MIPS architecture (for instance), but why would they?
Actually, they did. From Wikipedia:
"Various versions of NT family operating systems have been released for a variety of processor architectures, initially Intel IA-32, MIPS R3000/R4000 and Alpha, with PowerPC, Itanium and AMD64 supported in later releases."
See if you are prompted for this.
I just got a box with a small icon in the top corner. No PDF there. This is with IE8 on XP (without antivirus).
Hang on, I will try it in my trusted sites zone. Again, no. Different icon this time - was the red X one. Wait, I will have a look at Tools->Manage Addons. Ah yes, some clever bunny has disabled anything from Adobe. It is amazing how much more secure ANY operating system is once you get rid of software from that company.
Obviously I have fiddled with my system. An easier way to do it would be to use an alternative PDF viewer that doesn't want to be one with the web browser. It is a multitasking, windowing environment - I can handle a PDF popping up in another window rather than overwriting my current web page.
Still, if you are not comfortable changing the browser settings, then AV software is the way to go.
If it is, my money says the Linux crowd will employ it first, Apple will make it sexy, and Windows will blatantly copy it. In that order.
Yes, because Microsoft is so behind the game. Apple did patent this back in 2006, and as far as I am aware Microsoft don't have patents for this technology. But it is not as if it was that revolutionary an idea even back in 2006, as this paper from 2005 shows.
I am sure that it is not an easy thing to implement, so the real proof of the pudding will be when one company finally ships a commercial product. That is the problem with the patent system. You get rewarded just for coming up with an idea that you can't possibly implement. Then you wait until everyone else solves the implementation problems and comes out with their prototypes and then you can call the lawyers.
Mind you, knowing how secretive Apple is about forthcoming products, they may be on the verge of releasing their system right now. If that is the case then they will deserve credit as innovators.
IIRC internet filtering came from an Independent, and without a doubt the only reason either major party continues to give it lip service is to buy the votes of independents on other issues.
You mean Senator Brian Harradine? Yes, he was definitely in favour of it. However, he left the senate in 2005, a year before Labor committed itself to the ISP level filtering. That 2006 version did have an opt-out clause, so it wasn't mandatory.
The Family First party have had a policy of mandatory filtering for a long time. But they didn't introduce the currently proposed system. Their representative, Senator Fielding, has been voted out now anyway.
It wasn't until 2008 that Labor remove the opt-out ability of their proposal. The status now is that it is on hold until 2011, which means it is off the table until at least 2015, because it would never get through the current lower house or senate.
Obviously, there's nothing that can't be blamed on the Greens and Independents. Major party comes up with a stupid idea? It must be the fault of the smaller parties for holding the balance of power!
Huh? I can't tell if you are being funny or are sarcastically saying that I am blaming the Greens and independents for the faults of the major parties. My contention was that it is the small group of non-mainstream politicians who are keeping the bastards honest.
That is what you get these days with the balance of power being held by the Greens and independents. It used to be that the independents and small parties would come up with the looney ideas, but more and more we are seeing the big parties filling that role. EG. The Internet Filter aka The Great Firewall of Australia.
Seriously, you're thinking like a geek. Mind you, I don't mean that in a bad way. But I do mean that someone with your perspective is not someone who would most likely be disadvantaged by someone else hiding the URL bar, as you'd be wary and experienced enough to notice, and wonder what was up.
Yes, but by the same reckoning only a geek would go into the advanced options of the security settings in the first place. Considering that the facility is switched off by default, then you are worried about nothing.
a separate build that saves space would indeed be very much desired
I have used IE in kiosk mode to knock up an info system for customers. At no time was there a need for a cut down build of Internet Explorer. If you are using a system that can run Windows, then you can easily handle the normal browser code being loaded even if it isn't used.
Is there any utility for end users of a full-on desktop browser installation for an option to hide the URL bar? I see plenty of utility for others -- megacorps, phishers, and assorted other ne'er-do-wells -- but I can think of no compelling use for regular old end users.
I once wrote an HTML application (see also HTA) to categorise and sort my travel photos into my journal system. It was quite easy to do, and it didn't require all the heavy coding to do the graphics that was required by other languages at the time. It was quite convenient to make a program that used a completely borderless, full screen window in an interpreted language that required no additional install on a Windows computer.
I have also used pop up windows without an address line on some Intranet applications, although when they started displaying with the URL is wasn't a deal-breaker to be bother reconfiguring everyone's systems to hide it.
Why should they have to maintain a separate build just for the sake of not having a single checkbox in the configuration options? Surely not to save space, because it wouldn't take much code to check a setting before adding the address and status lines.
It is not even one of the more esoteric options on offer. Even a novice would be able to work out what it means.
How stupid is it that the summary about the lost domain is double the length of the page that it links to (234 vs 117 characters)? I clicked the link to get more information, not less!
Back on topic, there is a price that you pay for a fairly unregulated domain name market, and that is the occasional stuff up as described here. I have had the opposite problem in the past, attempts to get a domain transfered have been held up despite the owner agreeing to the transfer. Admittedly, losing a name is far worse than the temporary hassles of delays in transferals.
The fact that this even exists as an option is ... interesting, shall we say.
If you think that is interesting then your mind is going to be blown when you eventually learn of about:config in Firefox. There are options for EVERYTHING there!
Seriously, I'm not sure why you think it is interesting. Microsoft changed the behaviour of the browser, but kept an option around for people who need or prefer the old ways. By having the option in the security tab, you also have the ability to having different settings in each zone so that Intranet applications can still hide the browser cruft. Microsoft has stuffed up a lot of things in IE over the years, but this doesn't seem particularly controversial.
Yeah, only IE8 respects that switch now, all modern browsers ignore it and show the bar anyway.
One of the security options in IE is "Allow websites to open windows without address or status bars" and it is disabled by default.
Just as an example, suppose that marking your package "Fragile" actually results in better handling on average. Telling people the opposite of that is not just publishing entertaining stories, it's doing actual harm.
Oh yes, that is actually a very good point. I was wrong in thinking of this as a harmless discussion because I didn't consider the real consequences to people believing what this stuff. I have been disadvantaged by some misinformation on this site before, so I'm amazed that I didn't pick up on this point.
Slashdot is supposed to be "stuff that matters."
I thought they gave up on that idea a long time ago!
Just put it in Airplane Mode to shut off the radios, and they could've gotten several days of battery life.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. My iPhone has abysmal battery life, and even in airplane mode I'm not sure that it would be able to keep up the constant data logging for too long. Also, I just turned on airplane mode to test it, and it couldn't determine my location. I guess GPS requires the radio.
The number of times they tested the same route with the same carrier was 0. The results are meaningless.
Nice one, Sherlock. They did say that in TFA:
"The parcel was shipped a dozen times (we had neither the time nor the budget to make the hundreds of trips necessary for statistical significance), a modest experiment to see how the device performed and gather enough data to draw broad conclusions."
Fortunately this wasn't submitted for a peer review journal.
As you have noted, it does take a commitment to learn any system. For personal projects where you answer to no one else, you should use whatever you think will be useful to know in the future. The factors involved are: what will be used for future projects at work, how important is cross platform programming, and what looks good on a resume.
For cross platform work, Qt is the way to go. Or Java I suppose, but I have found myself moving away from that language. Not for any ideological reason, I've just had a few frustrations with it over time. But you can't argue that it can be handy for the resume.
Alternatively, if you are interested in web programming, then it is amazing what you can do using HTML (especially HTML5 with its new canvas tag). If you are after a full screen application, then you can try the kiosk modes in Internet Explorer or Firefox. IE doesn't support HTML5 yet, so you would either need to limit yourself down to HTML4 can provide (which still isn't bad) or use Firefox.
If you want to learn a language that has a compiler installed by default on the majority of computers in the world, then C# is the way to go. While Visual Studio makes it easy to generate the user interface elements, it is also handy to know how to use the language in straight vanilla code so you can use the command line compiler that comes with the .NET runtime. I have knocked out a few quick hacks on other people's systems just with Notepad and C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v3.5\csc.exe.
The GP lost his credibility the instant he said that, so far as I'm concerned. "Windows can be trusted on an untrusted network". That's dangerous misinformation. I hope he doesn't work IT at a power plant.
Prove it. What is the mechanism that is used to infect a Windows computer merely by plugging it into an untrusted network? Which port is attacked? Do you have a link to a security advisory describing a vulnerability?
I have had a look at the details of a few of the recent worms, and they wouldn't work on a Public network because it doesn't allow services like RPC. That is why the worms have multiple attack vectors like Autorun on flash drives so they can get access to Private or trusted networks. (Autorun is definitely a major security hole that Microsoft deserve to be blamed)
You can see what ports are allowed on a Public network by going into "Windows Firewall with Advanced Security" (Run as administrator). Under "Inbound Rules" set "Filter by Profile" to "Filter by Public Profile".
Personally, if I was going to attack a computer that had plugged into my network, I would intercept the traffic to and from the computer to inject malware. As a simplistic example, if an email message was being downloaded then you could append an attachment to it. But that sort of attack wouldn't be restricted to the Microsoft platform. Windows just isn't worse than any other operating system when connected to an untrusted network.