First, the definition of innovative does not include the introduction of something to a "mass audience." It means "to introduce innovations." Innovation, in turn, means "the introduction of something new" or "a new idea, method or device." That's according to Webster's. Other dictionaries are similar.
Second, innovative most certainly is a synonym for inventive, at least according to Roget's and the Oxford American Thesaurus.
Third, I doubt you have any idea what exact information would be disclosed by the FCC nor do you know that the manufacturer of the iPhone couldn't be quite easily identified with Apple.
Your other speculations are essentially the same rhetoric we heard when the iPod was introduced and they'll probably turn out to be just as accurate.
I can't tell you if SHA-512 is stronger than some combination of hashing functions you might come up with. The reason I can't tell you is because I'm not a cryptographer, which is my point -- neither are you.
What I can tell you is that actual cryptographers are researching SHA-512 and, so far, it's held up pretty well. No one is researching your custom hashing recipe. It might be fantastically strong, but, if history is any indication, it's more likely to be highly vulnerable to an attack that you didn't think about.
For example, OSX, although uses a few tricks, is more monolithic, where NT is less monolithic and employs a unique kernel design that abstracts the core NT architecture from the subsystem OSes that run on it, hence the client/server concept of the architecture. This is also why NT can natively run a BSD subystem along side the Win32 and Win64 subsystems, as each subsystem is their on OS running on a unified architecture.
First, I could dismiss the NT macrokernel (Microsoft's term) as "a few tricks" just as easily as you dismiss the XNU kernel. It wouldn't really mean anything. Second, NT does not have a BSD subsystem running alongside Win32 or Win32 and Win64 subsystems running simultaneously. While a lot of things are possible in theory on a lot of kernels, you're not describing the implemented architecture of the NT kernel. Microsoft apparently does have a combined Win32/Win64 API and a POSIX API written on top of the Win32 API, but I don't think you were talking about APIs.
OSX merely does a form of double buffering, where Vista actually brings the GPU into a functional accelerator of even non 3D applications, speeding up basic Window drawing and virtualizing RAM as well as setting a model for multi-tasking of the GPU for multiple 3D applications to share system RAM and run side by side.
You're way off here, at least in regard to OS X. Here's an Ars Technica article that clearly describes how OS X offloads basic 2D rendering to the GPU with "Quartz 2D Extreme" and the substantial improvements they've made to this technology over the last few versions of the OS. It's nice that Microsoft is finally adopting these ideas, but it hardly qualifies as an advantage for Vista over OS X.
Also it is worth noting that Vista is far more of a technical and architectual change in the Windows OS than just the UI changes that many reviewers focus on and try to compare to OSX. Applications on Vista load increadibly fast, using the GPU as Vista does, applications like CorelDraw/AI/Photoshop process and display images 10x faster than WindowsXP or OSX even. These are important changes that the end user will notice but are not something that is obvious to the casual reviewer.
As mentioned above, OS X already has these advancements in 2D rendering performance via Quartz 2D Extreme. And, yes, end users do notice them. In addition, the "UI changes that many reviewers focus on" are extremely important to most users, so they're certainly a valid subject for consumer-focused reviews.
Even the new audio subsystem in Vista brings computer fidelity to a new level, and playing old Mp3s or any music has a new level of richness due to these changes. Vista can even monitor a microphone to self tune itself to the enviroment the computer is in, and even self configure 7.1 speakers based on the room acoustics, but again, most common reviewers wouldn't even think to check things like this out.Even the new audio subsystem in Vista brings computer fidelity to a new level, and playing old Mp3s or any music has a new level of richness due to these changes. Vista can even monitor a microphone to self tune itself to the enviroment the computer is in, and even self configure 7.1 speakers based on the room acoustics, but again, most common reviewers wouldn't even think to check things like this out.
You're talking about some DSP sound enhancement. Not terribly exciting and already built into iTunes. The "self tuning with a microphone" stuff is more of a marketing gimmick than anything else. Home users are highly unlikely to have the type and quality of microphone required for accurate spectrum analysis (fairly high end omnidirectional condenser), not to mention knowledge of proper mic placement, etc. Without this, they would probably get better results tuning by ear.
With CoreAudio (too much to explain here -- Google it f
For what it's worth, and to counter the weirdo that attacked you, I found all your points to be quite reasonable.
Something that's been annoying the hell out of me lately is the trend to label anyone who says "I prefer OS X to Windows" as a fanboy or fanatic. I think your attitude is typical of most Mac users, especially those who recently purchased their first Mac. We buy Macs because we think Apple makes a better computer -- not because of some undefined cultish allegiance. Same with networking products, as you mentioned. They are simply more reliable and easier to use and I'm happy to pay a small premium for the higher quality.
Anyway, as a long-time Mac user and purchaser of many Apple products, I wholeheartedly welcome you to "my" platform;)
If it's non-acedemic to crack an MD5 hash, please tell me the plaintext for this:
f6540dee6b248c863bb90fcaa784fef9
Here's a quote from Bruce Shneier regarding the SHA-1 research under discussion:
For the average Internet user, this news is not a cause for panic. No one is going to be breaking digital signatures or reading encrypted messages anytime soon. The electronic world is no less secure after these announcements than it was before.
He goes on to talk about why this research is certainly important, but your assertion that even MD5 is "well and truly broken, and not just in the acedemic sense" runs counter to Shneier's opinion on the matter, especially regarding SHA-1.
I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't move to stronger hashing functions (I currently use SHA-256 at a minimum). I am suggesting that there's no need for panic and that even MD5 is not trivially crackable in a practical sense.
I'll grant you that the output of SHA-512 is going to be longer than combining several small hashes, but I don't intuitively see that it's necessarily more secure.
Intuition doesn't have anything to do with it. SHA-512 has not been cracked and so it meets the definition of a "secure" hash function. Concocting your own recipes, especially based on hash functions currently known to be insecure, is a classic mistake made by non-cryptographers.
WEP is a good example of what happens when non-cryptographers decide to make up a cryptographic function.
Have you spent even 1/10 the amount of time learning about OS X administration a you have about Windows administration? The fact that you don't know what the Finder is (and in fact refer to it as the "mac explorer") indicates that your OS X knowledge is extremely limited.
If a Linux user was having problems installing software on FreeBSD and mentioned "FreeBSD's RPM, or whatever it's called", I would tell them the same thing I'll tell you: please buy a book on the subject and read it. There are several good ones available from Amazon.
I realize I won't change your opinion, and don't really care to. However that attitude that OS X is clearly better and only ignorance could blind a person, is offensive and stupid. I've never heard someone with OS X and PC experience argue persuasively why/how a Mac is better.
I can't make a "persuasive" argument because you've already made up your mind. What you cannot argue with, however, is the empirical evidence that the vast majority of users who spend a roughly equal amount of time on both Windows and Mac OS do prefer Mac OS. Just tally up the opinions in this or any similar discussion and compare that to the relative market share of both platforms. Feel free to factor in the technical bias of Slashdot users (i.e. more likely to own a Mac) and the widely held belief that Mac users are more vocal about their platform preference. Those factors still won't bridge the gap between the 90/4 market share difference vs the 50/50 or better preference of OS X over Windows.
Also, your statement that "with OS X even routine tasks are awkward everytime" indicates that you are simply not very familiar with OS X, just like most of the small number of people who claim to use both operating systems but still prefer Windows. If routine tasks in OS X are truly awkward, why do most users who prefer OS X cite ease of use and a more intuitive UI among the primary reasons for their preference?
None of this makes your opinion invalid or wrong, but it is a fringe opinion. Most current Mac users as well as the rapidly growing number of people who are switching from Windows to Mac strongly disagree with you.
First, Font Book is the built-in font manager for OS X. Every user has this since it comes with the OS.
Second, your performance problem is caused by having too many fonts *enabled* at the same time. You can have as many fonts installed as you like with no performance penalty. For example, my girlfriend has over 3 thousand fonts installed (yes, 3,000) with no detectable difference in overall performance. Until the recent purchase of a new iMac, these were installed on an old dual G4 867Mhz PowerMac.
Third, the "garbled text" you see is a symptom of a corrupted font. Like the performance issue, the solution is effective font management. Newly installed fonts should be "quarantined" and disabled until they have been tested.
If your designers have enough fonts to get these kinds of problems, they could probably use something more powerful than Font Book. According to my girlfriend, Extensis Suitcase is the current tool of choice for font management on OS X (it used to be ATM, but that's a dead product on Mac now with no version for OS X).
Last, the performance and corruption issues you are having could/would happen on any OS. The OS can't know which fonts you want enabled, all enabled fonts have to be loaded into memory (which will obviously slow things down if you have thousands of them) and no OS I know of does real-time font validation to detect corrupted or slightly incompatible fonts (I believe Extensis Suitcase includes a font repair and conversion tool to help in this area).
Agree 100% about virtual desktops. I think the only reason Apple didn't add them sooner is because they thought new users might be confused by the feature and they wanted to come up with a really "friendly" implementation (which I think they have in Leopard).
Regarding the start menu, I couldn't disagree more. Compare the number of movements it takes to open an app from the start menu vs opening from the dock. The reason the dock is resizable, movable, has customizable magnification and uses high-res, scalable icons (well, the entire OS uses the same icons but they are particularly effective in the dock) is to strongly encourage you to use it as your primary app launching tool.
What you need to do is ruthlessly customize the dock. Is there an app on there you've never opened? Drag it off. Something you haven't clicked on for a month? Drag it off too. Is there an app you open from the finder more than once a week? Drag it on to the dock. Nothing is ever moved or lost when dragging to or from the dock, so go crazy.
You mentioned (parenthetically) that a user would have to know which icon an app uses to open it from the dock. The name of each app pops up instantly as you mouse over the icon so, no, you don't have to know the icons in advance.
The following FAQ from the EPA contradicts your underlying implication that human activity may not be the primary cause of the depletion of "good" ozone: Brief Questions and Answers on Ozone Depletion
If you continue to research the issue, you'll find these same basic facts stated and supported over and over: 1) The depletion of "good" ozone was and is caused by man-made chemicals. 2) Treaties were signed to reduce and eventually eliminate the chemicals that cause said depletion. 3) The reduction in emissions has resulted in a measurable slowing in the rate of depletion and should eventually lead to the restoration of the ozone layer. 4) There are no alternate theories of the cause of this depletion (i.e. the significant man-made part) that are supported by evidence, including natural cyclic variations or solar activity.
An important point to keep in mind is that, even though action was taken relatively quickly to curb our ozone-depleting emissions, it is estimated that we won't see a full recovery for roughly another 60 years. I really don't know of a more poignant example of how important it is that we recognize the damage we are causing to the environment and take action to change course quickly. Time is not on our side when it comes to climate change.
As for the Kyoto treaty, people are very naive if they think there were no politics involved. Less industrialized nations are very eager to put limits on the US industry because is helps close the technology gap.
Well, a treaty is a political construct pretty much by definition, right? Anyway, I think I know what you meant. The problem with getting caught up in the political winners and losers here is that our choices sort of boil down to this: refuse to give an inch economically but suffer a worldwide economic catastrophe later (at the very least) or work seriously towards a relatively smooth transition to new sources of energy. And by "work seriously" I mean be ready to give up a few things to acheive that goal. The U.S. has enjoyed a lot of advantages over other countries by not having to pay the costs of our pollution. Giving up some of those advantages to keep our overall economic prosperity and security sounds like a reasonable political compromise to me.
The reality is that the treaty called for a meager 5.2% reduction in industrially produced CO2 world-wide.
That's better than the 0% reduction we're engaged in now, isn't it? Look, no one is going to agree to curtail emissions by 20% over night. The important thing is to get the ball rolling. Get people and governments to accept our role in climate change and to start thinking about the changes in behavior and technology that will be required to assure our survival in the future (and hopefully a comfortable survival at that!).
I'm skeptical of both sides and believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's not the doom-gloom that environmental groups preach, or the rosy-nothing-is-wrong view espoused by our current administration.
A couple of problems with that. First, it's the scientists and their climate models that are predicting doom and gloom if we don't make drastic changes soon. The environmentalists simply bring as much attention to the issue as they can. Second, being "somewhere in the middle" on this issue is tantamount to saying that nothing needs to change. *Not* advocating for meaningful reductions in greenhouse gasses is, in practice, not much different th
I can go along with the current theories that we are having an influence on the climate but we certainly are not as significant as the political rallying groups would like you to believe.
Give me a break. Who are these "political rallying groups" to whom you refer? Greenpeace? Yeah, they have a really horrible track record of disinformation campaigns and so much political influence -- wait, that description does fit the oil companies who recently set an advertisting spending record in California to defeat our clean energy initiative. Curiously, their message on this issue is exactly what you're saying now. "Don't worry about it. There are natural explanations. The scientists only have theories. No consensus, blah blah."
Unfortunately for them, if you talk to an actual scientist or acedemic who works in this area, they will tell you that a consensus has existed for quite some time now that human contribution to global climate change is *significant*. What's of course unknown is the exact degree of significance. It could be so significant that it's now too late because we have already kicked off a feedback loop that will make this planet uninhabitable within a few decades. Does that sound extreme? It's no more extreme than the ridiculously optimistic, counterintuitive and totally unsubstantiated claim that the hundreds of millions of metric tons of pollutants we pump into the atmosphere every year have little to no effect.
IF they were correct after all, the ozone hole would not be getting smaller.
I know others have already beaten you up over this, but it bears repeating. The ozone hole is getting smaller because we *listened* to the scientists who told us it was our CFCs that were causing the problem. There was then a worldwide effort to reduce or eliminate them and, guess what? When we stopped emitting this substance, it stopped the damage to the ozone layer. The ozone/CFC issue is a supporting argument *for* the reduction of man-made pollutants within the framework of something like the Kyoto accords -- not against it. In fact, how can you live in this world, with an internet connection, and not know that? The history of the ozone hole, how it came to be and why it is now getting smaller is not a mystery or up for debate. It's not exactly simple, but there is a clear cause and effect -- just like we're now being told by the vast majority of scientists that there is a clear cause and effect relationship between man-made pollution and dangerously rapid climate change.
Asking if the earth would begin cooling "right now" if we stopped burning fossil fuels is an irrelevant question. First, burning fossil fuels is only one of many human activities that contribute to a greenhouse effect. We contribute to both sides of the problem by emitting greenhouse gasses while reducing the Earth's ability to absorb them. Second, an agreement to significantly reduce our emissions *signed today* would take at least a decade or two to really kick in. Maybe a decade or two after that we could see the climate reacting to the reduction. So, since you brought it up, yes, the Bush administration has indeed wasted valuable time by not pursuing any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
I call bullshit on people who can't understand cause and effect in cycles of more than a few years and who try to apply overly simplified logic to a complex system with lots of variables and feedback mechanisms (i.e. the atmosphere and its climate).
I'm sure that if I were to use Linix or Apple (*dons protective flame suit*) I would encounter just as many problems as Windows.
No, that's simply untrue. I use Windows and Mac OS every day and the Macintosh consistently delivers a superior experience with far fewer problems (no security problems, easier maintenance, more stability, more intuitive UI, useful built-in software, etc). My experience mirrors that of every Mac owner I know. None of them have come to the conclusion that you predict and they, unlike you, actually use both operating systems.
One of the main reasons I promote Macs to my friends and family is because I spend a lot less time having to support the Macs. That's because *gasp* there is actually a difference in quality between these competing brands.
So you don't like his review because he gets right to the point?
I thought his tone was refreshingly (if perhaps brutally) honest and that made the review far more useful than your average, formulaic list of pros/cons and regurgitated marketing material.
Command Prompt has several PostgreSQL developers on staff so, as a company, I think they know plenty about PostgreSQL internals and are probably highly competent. However, I can't speak for their support offerings and I doubt that the developers I'm talking about work in the support department. Sorry to hear they didn't live up to your expectations.
I get the feeling that EnterpriseDB understands a lot more than Command Prompt about what companies need in terms of support and what it takes to get them to switch from Oracle to PostgreSQL. Whether or not they are competently addressing those needs is another matter (I don't have any personal experience with them), but I would say it's worth a phone call if your company is serious about evaluating PostgreSQL.
While many of these companies (I'm looking at the North America region) may be too small/unknown for your tastes, companies like EnterpriseDB (and Command Prompt) are well established and have some very large clients including Sony Online and Vonage.
If you're a Solaris shop, don't forget that Sun offers PostgreSQL support, and obviously they can handle support for fairly large corporations.
By the way, here is a picture from the latest PostgreSQL developer's conference. There are very few "19 year old kids" in that group.
And your job posting for a senior J2EE developer makes it clear that they will be using legacy crap. A few examples:
- Java/J2EE technologies (Java Enterprise Application Development,including JSP, Servlets, EJB, Taglibs, JDBC) *No one* wants to use raw JSP/Servlets/Taglibs or EJB2 anymore (I assume the ad would mention EJB3 specifically, so I'm guessing it's EJB2). It's unnecessarily painful, which is why everything in that list except JDBC has been replaced by something better.
- In-depth Experience with at least one of the following application servers: JBoss, BEA WebLogic, IBM WebSphere and cross-application-server development (knowledge of xdoclet is a plus) I would rather write an entire RDBMS in JavaScript (OK, bad example since it's been done and is actually pretty cool) than have to deal with all three of those monsters at the same time! I understand that not every web app can run on Tomcat and that app servers offer real value, but they're hardly on most programmers' "fun to play with" list.
- Hands-on Experience in web application technologies (HTML, Javascript, CSS, Struts) Wow, what's this "Struts" thing? Is it one of those exciting new Java web frameworks I've heard so much about? Oh, no, it's that ancient bucket of code that's so cumbersome and outdated, even the original author has no interest in it anymore. Try Tapestry, Echo, JSF -- anything but Struts, JSP, Servlets and Taglibs.
- Practical experience in *Unit testing tools (JUnit, HttpUnit, JWebUnit, Cactus) OK, this one is debatable but most of us have moved on to TestNG.
In short, you're either looking for a maintenance programmer here or you've been living in a technology-free zone for the last 3-5 years. You don't even mention Java 5 or any kind of IOC container (and I personally would not go back to a world without annotations, generics, autoboxing or IOC). So even if I thought SourceForge would be a cool place to work (and I do), I wouldn't touch this job with a proverbial 9-foot pool.
Top-level programmers, as a general rule, do not want to work with painful technology. And it's not just because we want to "play with new toys" -- most of the new developments in Java are demonstrably "better" than the stuff they replace. They are more expressive and far more productive. They allow us to spend more time on important things like domain and data modeling, effective UI design, testing, security, scalability and performance tuning.
Those are good points, but the presentation is still highly problematic. Your conclusion is that it was their choice not to disclose details.
That's as reasonable as any other theory, but then why do something so thoroughly confusing and potentially misleading as to prominently feature a MacBook in the video presentation but then use the 3rd-party card? Furthermore, in the video, Maynor says "Don't think, however, just because we're attacking an Apple [that] the flaw itself is in an Apple. We're actually using a 3rd-party wireless card." I don't detect any ambiquity in that statement. He's clearly stating that the flaw does *not* apply to Apple hardware and that's why he must use a 3rd-party card.
Later he apparently said that the flaw *does* apply to Apple hardware. So which is it? There is no way to know. It is a direct contradiction.
Furthermore, Maynor was quoted as saying something about wanting to stick a lit cigarette in the eye of Apple *users*, because he doesn't like the Mac ads(?!). This brings his motivations into question, and I think reasonably so. It's certainly not the comment of a professional researcher, whom one would hope would be above that kind of petty fanboyism.
Anyway, I'm not defending the article here and I'm not defending Apple or claiming to have any specific knowledge about the situation. I'm just pointing out that the only words we have from Maynor himself about Apple's vulnerability to this attack is what I quoted above: that Apple hardware does not have this flaw. I think Maynor and/or his company end up looking like publicity whores with questionable credibility no matter how this ends up. Unfortunately, that only distracts people from the actual security issue at hand, whatever it may be.
You are assuming that an increased minimum wage will result in a proportionate degree of job loss. While that's a valid concern, you are not taking into account the economic stimulation that has historically been associated with redistribution of wealth. Higher minimum wages create more disposable income and therefore more spending, which usually leads to more jobs.
This is not to say that redistribution of wealth create's a magical, market-defying cycle of prosperity, but there are positive offsetting effects. A good illustration of this is the GI bill which, through legislation rather than market forces, created increased opportunities for lower-income Americans and resulted in wide-spread economic prosperity.
You also assume that the funds to pay an increased minimum wage must come out of the pockets of other low to mid-level workers rather than the compensation of corporate executives and similarly over-paid top-level employees. If less money was available for excessive salaries and benefits, normal market forces would bring those compensation packages in line with the actual worth/productivity of the individuals who receive them (e.g. I do not believe that the contribution of *any* CEO is worth 500 times more than my contribution as a senior engineer in terms of raw economic value). Many corporations could also withstand a small decrease in profit margins without any noticeable disruption, thus allowing them to retain their current labor force.
Regarding your last point, it is incorrect to equate an increased minimum wage with advocacy of a socialist system with guaranteed 100% employment. The former is a desire for a certain degree of redistribution of wealth within a capitalist system, while the latter is essentially anti-capitalist. Most people in United States support a welfare state that provides relief for the mentally ill and others with little or no ability to compete in the market. Welfare should not be confused with a livable minimum wage for qualified workers.
I think one of the most difficult aspects of this issue is that it is, at its core, a moral position that is often sold in terms of an economic policy position. Ignoring or mischaracterizing the economic effects of redistribution of wealth is undoubtedly irresponsible. So is pretending that the market is inherently moral. As an admittedly hyperbolic, but I believe illustrative, example, slave labor is highly economically efficient and results in huge profits for those who own the slaves. Yet, most people support anti-slavery (and many other worker's rights) regulations that prevent corporations and wealthy individuals from pursuing policies that are in their best economic interest.
Since you asked the question "Suppose we raise it to $60 an hour. Better? Would you still have a job?", I'll attempt an answer. That is obviously a rhetorical question rather than an honest one, so I'll interpret it to mean "to what amount should the minimum wage be raised and at what point does a minimum wage begin to have a catastrophic effect on our economy?" Given that the peak purchasing power of the minimum wage occurred in 1968 at the level of about $9.00 per hour in 2005 dollars, I would say that the current minumum wage should be no lower than $7.00 per hour with individual states free to set a higher rate as they currently are. This is a small enough increase to avoid any immediate catastrophic effect, improve the quality of life for many people and give us a chance to observe the true effect of a meaningful change. I'm basing my "no catastrophic effect" assessment on the fact that we have maintained a much higher minimum wage over the 3 or 4 decades preceding the current one with no real ill effect and many would say an overall positive effect.
Keep in mind that if you do not support an increase to, say, $7 - $8 per hour, you are supporting an increase in the disparity of wealth. The current minimum wage is obviously worth less every year and has not been changed since 1997, so minimum wage earners are much poorer now than in the past. A decision to do nothing is a decision, after all.
"Why not use Windows? Primarily because I don't see any point in paying for a proprietary and incompatible system that offers me less than a Mac. Also, the Windows interface is an abomination. A hodgepodge of totally different (but equally hideous) skins, aliased fonts, and whizz-bang effects that do nothing but slow down any attempt at serious work. And the taskbar? Seriously, what were they smoking? I've seen hardened Microsoft fanatics break down in tears because they can't figure out how the taskbar is supposed to work. Microsoft stopped doing intuitive when they retired Windows 3.1. I'm surprised more people haven't noticed yet."
Sounds just as ignorant the other way around, doesn't it?
Forgot to post the link where I got the 0.27% number from: Global warming--a closer look at the numbers
The primary claim of this web page, and the point around which it's conclusions revolve - is that water vapor accounts for "around 95%" of earth's greenhouse gases. While a footnote is included giving the source of this data, the linked page unfortunately no longer exists. However, the web site this footnote points to - www.globalwarming.org - is not a source of scientific data, but rather a project of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a political group founded for the purpose of denying global climate change. The whois data for the site confirms that it was registered by the Nationial Consumer Coalition, a right-wing political lobbying group.
Now, if we seek out an actual scientific source for claim that "water vapor accounts for 95% of greenhouse gases", we come up more or less empty-handed. I found this article on NASA's website, which doesn't give an overall figure for wator vapor but mentions that human-induced methane has a severe effect on the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere. This introductory article on greenhouse gases by the NOAA mentions that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere rises with the temperature, creating a feedback loop that I assume would amplify any human-made contributions.
Every "greenhouse gases overview" type of article I found mentions that water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas. The "closer look at the numbers" page's claim that "Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system" makes it sound as if the author has discovered some closely guarded secret, when in fact the opposite is true.
Another interesting thing I noticed on this page is "Table 1", which appears to be evidence of the intentional cover-up of water vapor as the most important greenhouse gas. First, the title of the DOE data has been changed, without explanation, from the original title of "Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations" to the more controversial sounding "The Important Greenhouse Gases". Second, two columns have been added to the table that do not exist in the DOE source, "Natural additions" and "Man-made additions." No mention is made of where these numbers come from or why they were inserted into the original data.
Second, if you take a look at the source of the DOE data, you will find that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2001 report says that "Water vapour is the strongest greenhouse gas" and that it is "central to the climate and its variability and change" but also that water vapor is "The most variable component of the atmosphere... in its various phases such as vapour, cloud droplets, and ice crystals." Is it possible that the "Cooler Heads Coalition" has access to more detailed scientific data than the IPCC, allowing them to raise the bar of water vapor measurement from "The most variable component of the atmosphere" to a solid, unconditional 95%? I guess we'll never know since, ultimately, no source is provided for this figure.
Every time I examine one of these climate change denial pieces, I find the same thing. Unsubstantiated or out-of-context facts; inferences of conspiracy on the part of scientific organizations who suggest that climate change is both real and heavily influenced by human activity; and a political lobbying group with a direct profit motive at its source.
Slashdot Mirror
First, the definition of innovative does not include the introduction of something to a "mass audience." It means "to introduce innovations." Innovation, in turn, means "the introduction of something new" or "a new idea, method or device." That's according to Webster's. Other dictionaries are similar.
Second, innovative most certainly is a synonym for inventive, at least according to Roget's and the Oxford American Thesaurus.
Third, I doubt you have any idea what exact information would be disclosed by the FCC nor do you know that the manufacturer of the iPhone couldn't be quite easily identified with Apple.
Your other speculations are essentially the same rhetoric we heard when the iPod was introduced and they'll probably turn out to be just as accurate.
I can't tell you if SHA-512 is stronger than some combination of hashing functions you might come up with. The reason I can't tell you is because I'm not a cryptographer, which is my point -- neither are you.
What I can tell you is that actual cryptographers are researching SHA-512 and, so far, it's held up pretty well. No one is researching your custom hashing recipe. It might be fantastically strong, but, if history is any indication, it's more likely to be highly vulnerable to an attack that you didn't think about.
Your extensive cryptographic knowledge impresses me, as does your command of the English language.
Note: If you'd like to be taken seriously, try to avoid calling people "dimwit" or similarly pejorative terms.
Yes, by all means. You should then tell me where you are using it so I can confirm that the system is indeed secure. I promise I won't tell anybody.
First, I could dismiss the NT macrokernel (Microsoft's term) as "a few tricks" just as easily as you dismiss the XNU kernel. It wouldn't really mean anything. Second, NT does not have a BSD subsystem running alongside Win32 or Win32 and Win64 subsystems running simultaneously. While a lot of things are possible in theory on a lot of kernels, you're not describing the implemented architecture of the NT kernel. Microsoft apparently does have a combined Win32/Win64 API and a POSIX API written on top of the Win32 API, but I don't think you were talking about APIs.
You're way off here, at least in regard to OS X. Here's an Ars Technica article that clearly describes how OS X offloads basic 2D rendering to the GPU with "Quartz 2D Extreme" and the substantial improvements they've made to this technology over the last few versions of the OS. It's nice that Microsoft is finally adopting these ideas, but it hardly qualifies as an advantage for Vista over OS X.
As mentioned above, OS X already has these advancements in 2D rendering performance via Quartz 2D Extreme. And, yes, end users do notice them. In addition, the "UI changes that many reviewers focus on" are extremely important to most users, so they're certainly a valid subject for consumer-focused reviews.
You're talking about some DSP sound enhancement. Not terribly exciting and already built into iTunes. The "self tuning with a microphone" stuff is more of a marketing gimmick than anything else. Home users are highly unlikely to have the type and quality of microphone required for accurate spectrum analysis (fairly high end omnidirectional condenser), not to mention knowledge of proper mic placement, etc. Without this, they would probably get better results tuning by ear.
With CoreAudio (too much to explain here -- Google it f
For what it's worth, and to counter the weirdo that attacked you, I found all your points to be quite reasonable.
;)
Something that's been annoying the hell out of me lately is the trend to label anyone who says "I prefer OS X to Windows" as a fanboy or fanatic. I think your attitude is typical of most Mac users, especially those who recently purchased their first Mac. We buy Macs because we think Apple makes a better computer -- not because of some undefined cultish allegiance. Same with networking products, as you mentioned. They are simply more reliable and easier to use and I'm happy to pay a small premium for the higher quality.
Anyway, as a long-time Mac user and purchaser of many Apple products, I wholeheartedly welcome you to "my" platform
Here's a quote from Bruce Shneier regarding the SHA-1 research under discussion: He goes on to talk about why this research is certainly important, but your assertion that even MD5 is "well and truly broken, and not just in the acedemic sense" runs counter to Shneier's opinion on the matter, especially regarding SHA-1.
I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't move to stronger hashing functions (I currently use SHA-256 at a minimum). I am suggesting that there's no need for panic and that even MD5 is not trivially crackable in a practical sense.
WEP is a good example of what happens when non-cryptographers decide to make up a cryptographic function.
Have you spent even 1/10 the amount of time learning about OS X administration a you have about Windows administration? The fact that you don't know what the Finder is (and in fact refer to it as the "mac explorer") indicates that your OS X knowledge is extremely limited.
If a Linux user was having problems installing software on FreeBSD and mentioned "FreeBSD's RPM, or whatever it's called", I would tell them the same thing I'll tell you: please buy a book on the subject and read it. There are several good ones available from Amazon.
Also, your statement that "with OS X even routine tasks are awkward everytime" indicates that you are simply not very familiar with OS X, just like most of the small number of people who claim to use both operating systems but still prefer Windows. If routine tasks in OS X are truly awkward, why do most users who prefer OS X cite ease of use and a more intuitive UI among the primary reasons for their preference?
None of this makes your opinion invalid or wrong, but it is a fringe opinion. Most current Mac users as well as the rapidly growing number of people who are switching from Windows to Mac strongly disagree with you.
First, Font Book is the built-in font manager for OS X. Every user has this since it comes with the OS.
Second, your performance problem is caused by having too many fonts *enabled* at the same time. You can have as many fonts installed as you like with no performance penalty. For example, my girlfriend has over 3 thousand fonts installed (yes, 3,000) with no detectable difference in overall performance. Until the recent purchase of a new iMac, these were installed on an old dual G4 867Mhz PowerMac.
Third, the "garbled text" you see is a symptom of a corrupted font. Like the performance issue, the solution is effective font management. Newly installed fonts should be "quarantined" and disabled until they have been tested.
If your designers have enough fonts to get these kinds of problems, they could probably use something more powerful than Font Book. According to my girlfriend, Extensis Suitcase is the current tool of choice for font management on OS X (it used to be ATM, but that's a dead product on Mac now with no version for OS X).
Last, the performance and corruption issues you are having could/would happen on any OS. The OS can't know which fonts you want enabled, all enabled fonts have to be loaded into memory (which will obviously slow things down if you have thousands of them) and no OS I know of does real-time font validation to detect corrupted or slightly incompatible fonts (I believe Extensis Suitcase includes a font repair and conversion tool to help in this area).
hth
Agree 100% about virtual desktops. I think the only reason Apple didn't add them sooner is because they thought new users might be confused by the feature and they wanted to come up with a really "friendly" implementation (which I think they have in Leopard). Regarding the start menu, I couldn't disagree more. Compare the number of movements it takes to open an app from the start menu vs opening from the dock. The reason the dock is resizable, movable, has customizable magnification and uses high-res, scalable icons (well, the entire OS uses the same icons but they are particularly effective in the dock) is to strongly encourage you to use it as your primary app launching tool. What you need to do is ruthlessly customize the dock. Is there an app on there you've never opened? Drag it off. Something you haven't clicked on for a month? Drag it off too. Is there an app you open from the finder more than once a week? Drag it on to the dock. Nothing is ever moved or lost when dragging to or from the dock, so go crazy. You mentioned (parenthetically) that a user would have to know which icon an app uses to open it from the dock. The name of each app pops up instantly as you mouse over the icon so, no, you don't have to know the icons in advance.
The following NOAA report directly contradicts your statement:
INTERNATIONAL TREATY DESIGNED TO RESTORE/PROTECT OZONE LAYER WORKING, SAY SCIENTISTS
The following FAQ from the EPA contradicts your underlying implication that human activity may not be the primary cause of the depletion of "good" ozone: Brief Questions and Answers on Ozone Depletion
If you continue to research the issue, you'll find these same basic facts stated and supported over and over: 1) The depletion of "good" ozone was and is caused by man-made chemicals. 2) Treaties were signed to reduce and eventually eliminate the chemicals that cause said depletion. 3) The reduction in emissions has resulted in a measurable slowing in the rate of depletion and should eventually lead to the restoration of the ozone layer. 4) There are no alternate theories of the cause of this depletion (i.e. the significant man-made part) that are supported by evidence, including natural cyclic variations or solar activity.
An important point to keep in mind is that, even though action was taken relatively quickly to curb our ozone-depleting emissions, it is estimated that we won't see a full recovery for roughly another 60 years. I really don't know of a more poignant example of how important it is that we recognize the damage we are causing to the environment and take action to change course quickly. Time is not on our side when it comes to climate change.
Well, a treaty is a political construct pretty much by definition, right? Anyway, I think I know what you meant. The problem with getting caught up in the political winners and losers here is that our choices sort of boil down to this: refuse to give an inch economically but suffer a worldwide economic catastrophe later (at the very least) or work seriously towards a relatively smooth transition to new sources of energy. And by "work seriously" I mean be ready to give up a few things to acheive that goal. The U.S. has enjoyed a lot of advantages over other countries by not having to pay the costs of our pollution. Giving up some of those advantages to keep our overall economic prosperity and security sounds like a reasonable political compromise to me.
That's better than the 0% reduction we're engaged in now, isn't it? Look, no one is going to agree to curtail emissions by 20% over night. The important thing is to get the ball rolling. Get people and governments to accept our role in climate change and to start thinking about the changes in behavior and technology that will be required to assure our survival in the future (and hopefully a comfortable survival at that!).
A couple of problems with that. First, it's the scientists and their climate models that are predicting doom and gloom if we don't make drastic changes soon. The environmentalists simply bring as much attention to the issue as they can. Second, being "somewhere in the middle" on this issue is tantamount to saying that nothing needs to change. *Not* advocating for meaningful reductions in greenhouse gasses is, in practice, not much different th
Unfortunately for them, if you talk to an actual scientist or acedemic who works in this area, they will tell you that a consensus has existed for quite some time now that human contribution to global climate change is *significant*. What's of course unknown is the exact degree of significance. It could be so significant that it's now too late because we have already kicked off a feedback loop that will make this planet uninhabitable within a few decades. Does that sound extreme? It's no more extreme than the ridiculously optimistic, counterintuitive and totally unsubstantiated claim that the hundreds of millions of metric tons of pollutants we pump into the atmosphere every year have little to no effect.
I know others have already beaten you up over this, but it bears repeating. The ozone hole is getting smaller because we *listened* to the scientists who told us it was our CFCs that were causing the problem. There was then a worldwide effort to reduce or eliminate them and, guess what? When we stopped emitting this substance, it stopped the damage to the ozone layer. The ozone/CFC issue is a supporting argument *for* the reduction of man-made pollutants within the framework of something like the Kyoto accords -- not against it. In fact, how can you live in this world, with an internet connection, and not know that? The history of the ozone hole, how it came to be and why it is now getting smaller is not a mystery or up for debate. It's not exactly simple, but there is a clear cause and effect -- just like we're now being told by the vast majority of scientists that there is a clear cause and effect relationship between man-made pollution and dangerously rapid climate change.
Asking if the earth would begin cooling "right now" if we stopped burning fossil fuels is an irrelevant question. First, burning fossil fuels is only one of many human activities that contribute to a greenhouse effect. We contribute to both sides of the problem by emitting greenhouse gasses while reducing the Earth's ability to absorb them. Second, an agreement to significantly reduce our emissions *signed today* would take at least a decade or two to really kick in. Maybe a decade or two after that we could see the climate reacting to the reduction. So, since you brought it up, yes, the Bush administration has indeed wasted valuable time by not pursuing any reduction in greenhouse gas emissions.
I call bullshit on people who can't understand cause and effect in cycles of more than a few years and who try to apply overly simplified logic to a complex system with lots of variables and feedback mechanisms (i.e. the atmosphere and its climate).
No, that's simply untrue. I use Windows and Mac OS every day and the Macintosh consistently delivers a superior experience with far fewer problems (no security problems, easier maintenance, more stability, more intuitive UI, useful built-in software, etc). My experience mirrors that of every Mac owner I know. None of them have come to the conclusion that you predict and they, unlike you, actually use both operating systems.
One of the main reasons I promote Macs to my friends and family is because I spend a lot less time having to support the Macs. That's because *gasp* there is actually a difference in quality between these competing brands.
So you don't like his review because he gets right to the point?
I thought his tone was refreshingly (if perhaps brutally) honest and that made the review far more useful than your average, formulaic list of pros/cons and regurgitated marketing material.
Command Prompt has several PostgreSQL developers on staff so, as a company, I think they know plenty about PostgreSQL internals and are probably highly competent. However, I can't speak for their support offerings and I doubt that the developers I'm talking about work in the support department. Sorry to hear they didn't live up to your expectations.
I get the feeling that EnterpriseDB understands a lot more than Command Prompt about what companies need in terms of support and what it takes to get them to switch from Oracle to PostgreSQL. Whether or not they are competently addressing those needs is another matter (I don't have any personal experience with them), but I would say it's worth a phone call if your company is serious about evaluating PostgreSQL.
Talk to Sun if you're on Solaris, EnterpriseDB if you're on Windows or Command Prompt for Linux/BSD.
While many of these companies (I'm looking at the North America region) may be too small/unknown for your tastes, companies like EnterpriseDB (and Command Prompt) are well established and have some very large clients including Sony Online and Vonage.
If you're a Solaris shop, don't forget that Sun offers PostgreSQL support, and obviously they can handle support for fairly large corporations.
By the way, here is a picture from the latest PostgreSQL developer's conference. There are very few "19 year old kids" in that group.
And your job posting for a senior J2EE developer makes it clear that they will be using legacy crap. A few examples:
- Java/J2EE technologies (Java Enterprise Application Development,including JSP, Servlets, EJB, Taglibs, JDBC)
*No one* wants to use raw JSP/Servlets/Taglibs or EJB2 anymore (I assume the ad would mention EJB3 specifically, so I'm guessing it's EJB2). It's unnecessarily painful, which is why everything in that list except JDBC has been replaced by something better.
- In-depth Experience with at least one of the following application servers: JBoss, BEA WebLogic, IBM WebSphere and cross-application-server development (knowledge of xdoclet is a plus)
I would rather write an entire RDBMS in JavaScript (OK, bad example since it's been done and is actually pretty cool) than have to deal with all three of those monsters at the same time! I understand that not every web app can run on Tomcat and that app servers offer real value, but they're hardly on most programmers' "fun to play with" list.
- Hands-on Experience in web application technologies (HTML, Javascript, CSS, Struts)
Wow, what's this "Struts" thing? Is it one of those exciting new Java web frameworks I've heard so much about? Oh, no, it's that ancient bucket of code that's so cumbersome and outdated, even the original author has no interest in it anymore. Try Tapestry, Echo, JSF -- anything but Struts, JSP, Servlets and Taglibs.
- Practical experience in *Unit testing tools (JUnit, HttpUnit, JWebUnit, Cactus)
OK, this one is debatable but most of us have moved on to TestNG.
In short, you're either looking for a maintenance programmer here or you've been living in a technology-free zone for the last 3-5 years. You don't even mention Java 5 or any kind of IOC container (and I personally would not go back to a world without annotations, generics, autoboxing or IOC). So even if I thought SourceForge would be a cool place to work (and I do), I wouldn't touch this job with a proverbial 9-foot pool.
Top-level programmers, as a general rule, do not want to work with painful technology. And it's not just because we want to "play with new toys" -- most of the new developments in Java are demonstrably "better" than the stuff they replace. They are more expressive and far more productive. They allow us to spend more time on important things like domain and data modeling, effective UI design, testing, security, scalability and performance tuning.
Sorry for the rant, and good luck.
Those are good points, but the presentation is still highly problematic. Your conclusion is that it was their choice not to disclose details.
That's as reasonable as any other theory, but then why do something so thoroughly confusing and potentially misleading as to prominently feature a MacBook in the video presentation but then use the 3rd-party card? Furthermore, in the video, Maynor says "Don't think, however, just because we're attacking an Apple [that] the flaw itself is in an Apple. We're actually using a 3rd-party wireless card." I don't detect any ambiquity in that statement. He's clearly stating that the flaw does *not* apply to Apple hardware and that's why he must use a 3rd-party card.
Later he apparently said that the flaw *does* apply to Apple hardware. So which is it? There is no way to know. It is a direct contradiction.
Furthermore, Maynor was quoted as saying something about wanting to stick a lit cigarette in the eye of Apple *users*, because he doesn't like the Mac ads(?!). This brings his motivations into question, and I think reasonably so. It's certainly not the comment of a professional researcher, whom one would hope would be above that kind of petty fanboyism.
Anyway, I'm not defending the article here and I'm not defending Apple or claiming to have any specific knowledge about the situation. I'm just pointing out that the only words we have from Maynor himself about Apple's vulnerability to this attack is what I quoted above: that Apple hardware does not have this flaw. I think Maynor and/or his company end up looking like publicity whores with questionable credibility no matter how this ends up. Unfortunately, that only distracts people from the actual security issue at hand, whatever it may be.
You are assuming that an increased minimum wage will result in a proportionate degree of job loss. While that's a valid concern, you are not taking into account the economic stimulation that has historically been associated with redistribution of wealth. Higher minimum wages create more disposable income and therefore more spending, which usually leads to more jobs.
This is not to say that redistribution of wealth create's a magical, market-defying cycle of prosperity, but there are positive offsetting effects. A good illustration of this is the GI bill which, through legislation rather than market forces, created increased opportunities for lower-income Americans and resulted in wide-spread economic prosperity.
You also assume that the funds to pay an increased minimum wage must come out of the pockets of other low to mid-level workers rather than the compensation of corporate executives and similarly over-paid top-level employees. If less money was available for excessive salaries and benefits, normal market forces would bring those compensation packages in line with the actual worth/productivity of the individuals who receive them (e.g. I do not believe that the contribution of *any* CEO is worth 500 times more than my contribution as a senior engineer in terms of raw economic value). Many corporations could also withstand a small decrease in profit margins without any noticeable disruption, thus allowing them to retain their current labor force.
Regarding your last point, it is incorrect to equate an increased minimum wage with advocacy of a socialist system with guaranteed 100% employment. The former is a desire for a certain degree of redistribution of wealth within a capitalist system, while the latter is essentially anti-capitalist. Most people in United States support a welfare state that provides relief for the mentally ill and others with little or no ability to compete in the market. Welfare should not be confused with a livable minimum wage for qualified workers.
I think one of the most difficult aspects of this issue is that it is, at its core, a moral position that is often sold in terms of an economic policy position. Ignoring or mischaracterizing the economic effects of redistribution of wealth is undoubtedly irresponsible. So is pretending that the market is inherently moral. As an admittedly hyperbolic, but I believe illustrative, example, slave labor is highly economically efficient and results in huge profits for those who own the slaves. Yet, most people support anti-slavery (and many other worker's rights) regulations that prevent corporations and wealthy individuals from pursuing policies that are in their best economic interest.
Since you asked the question "Suppose we raise it to $60 an hour. Better? Would you still have a job?", I'll attempt an answer. That is obviously a rhetorical question rather than an honest one, so I'll interpret it to mean "to what amount should the minimum wage be raised and at what point does a minimum wage begin to have a catastrophic effect on our economy?" Given that the peak purchasing power of the minimum wage occurred in 1968 at the level of about $9.00 per hour in 2005 dollars, I would say that the current minumum wage should be no lower than $7.00 per hour with individual states free to set a higher rate as they currently are. This is a small enough increase to avoid any immediate catastrophic effect, improve the quality of life for many people and give us a chance to observe the true effect of a meaningful change. I'm basing my "no catastrophic effect" assessment on the fact that we have maintained a much higher minimum wage over the 3 or 4 decades preceding the current one with no real ill effect and many would say an overall positive effect.
Keep in mind that if you do not support an increase to, say, $7 - $8 per hour, you are supporting an increase in the disparity of wealth. The current minimum wage is obviously worth less every year and has not been changed since 1997, so minimum wage earners are much poorer now than in the past. A decision to do nothing is a decision, after all.
"Why not use Windows? Primarily because I don't see any point in paying for a proprietary and incompatible system that offers me less than a Mac. Also, the Windows interface is an abomination. A hodgepodge of totally different (but equally hideous) skins, aliased fonts, and whizz-bang effects that do nothing but slow down any attempt at serious work. And the taskbar? Seriously, what were they smoking? I've seen hardened Microsoft fanatics break down in tears because they can't figure out how the taskbar is supposed to work. Microsoft stopped doing intuitive when they retired Windows 3.1. I'm surprised more people haven't noticed yet."
Sounds just as ignorant the other way around, doesn't it?
Now, if we seek out an actual scientific source for claim that "water vapor accounts for 95% of greenhouse gases", we come up more or less empty-handed. I found this article on NASA's website, which doesn't give an overall figure for wator vapor but mentions that human-induced methane has a severe effect on the amount of water vapor in the stratosphere. This introductory article on greenhouse gases by the NOAA mentions that the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere rises with the temperature, creating a feedback loop that I assume would amplify any human-made contributions.
Every "greenhouse gases overview" type of article I found mentions that water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas. The "closer look at the numbers" page's claim that "Interestingly, many "facts and figures' regarding global warming completely ignore the powerful effects of water vapor in the greenhouse system" makes it sound as if the author has discovered some closely guarded secret, when in fact the opposite is true.
Another interesting thing I noticed on this page is "Table 1", which appears to be evidence of the intentional cover-up of water vapor as the most important greenhouse gas. First, the title of the DOE data has been changed, without explanation, from the original title of "Current Greenhouse Gas Concentrations" to the more controversial sounding "The Important Greenhouse Gases". Second, two columns have been added to the table that do not exist in the DOE source, "Natural additions" and "Man-made additions." No mention is made of where these numbers come from or why they were inserted into the original data.
Second, if you take a look at the source of the DOE data, you will find that the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's 2001 report says that "Water vapour is the strongest greenhouse gas" and that it is "central to the climate and its variability and change" but also that water vapor is "The most variable component of the atmosphere
Every time I examine one of these climate change denial pieces, I find the same thing. Unsubstantiated or out-of-context facts; inferences of conspiracy on the part of scientific organizations who suggest that climate change is both real and heavily influenced by human activity; and a political lobbying group with a direct profit motive at its source.