That corporate paycheck won't buy you time on a supercollider. Most academic scientists would rather play with state of the art lab equipment than drive a Porsche.
I don't have any antivirus software installed on my computers, but I do occasionally (about once a year) take image copies of the hard drives and run them through virus scanners in single-purpose sandboxes. This procedure has never detected any malware over the last 10 years.
What I absolutely do not ever trust is a virus detector running on a potentially compromised system to give accurate results. I also don't particularly trust antivirus software itself, which is why I only run it on disk image copies. This level of "paranoia" is probably what has kept the malware out for so long.
They probably did that as well, but the idea was to show that Apple is intentionally screwing up the heat sink assembly. I.e., that it's not just one "bad apple" that happened to be photographed; they're all like that. As such it is almost certainly fair use of copyright materials. Trade secret status of the manual is a little less obvious.
After reading that about turbocow yesterday, I tried my own experiment: started registering a (pronounceable) gibberish domain name on Godaddy, then aborted the transaction before paying the registration fee. Today I checked back and the domain name is still available. Call me skeptical.
Calling him "moron" and "fool" is harsh and unwarranted. His experiment succeeded -- demonstrating security weaknesses in OSX -- and all it cost him was the time to zero the HDD and restore from backup. I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if my Mac got trashed. Maybe you're way too attached to yours?
I'm not familiar with the ZX-81, but my TRS-80 Coco had graphics similar to those described. The text mode had special "graphics character" glyphs consisting of 2x2 blocks per character cell. So you could have 32x16 text and 64x32 graphics simultaneously. (Woo hoo!) The text glyphs were of course higher resolution than 2x2 but the pixels were not individually addressable in text mode. One interesting side effect of such "text mode graphics" was that all lit pixels in each 2x2 block had to be the same color even though 8 colors were available. That made for some hideously ugly graphics!
I just about had a heart attack upon poking the thing into a true bitmapped high-res graphics mode (256x192 mono, ZOMG!!!1) and drawing some lines and circles. Then they released the "Extended BASIC" upgrade with high-res support built in....
It was a joke. Greg Fitzsimmons is a comedian. That's why teh pr0n starz "roared with laughter." He must have great delivery, to get such a great response with such crappy old cliche material.
Sort of like having a beautiful but high maintenance girlfriend who's a tiger in the sack - you learn to walk on eggshells, but with every great performance you convice yourself it's worth it.
The point of domain names is to provide a quick and easy way to remember and communicate internet locations.
Not having invented the Internet I'm sure what the "point" of domain names is, but I know that their major utility is as a layer of indirection to raw IP addresses. IP addresses are strongly tied to routing -- unless you can afford a/19 your IPA will be owned and routed by your ISP, and changing ISP (or a network reorganization by your ISP) will change your IPA. To get a stable and consistent IPA you'd have to pay a lot of money for a (large) routable address block, or pay your ISP a lot to guarantee that your current IPA will always be routed to you regardless of what happens to their network. Or you can register a domain name for $10/year and assign stable hostnames to your ephemeral IP addresses. If your ISP screws you, you can pick up and move to a new one (and a new IPA) with little or no disruption of your Internet presence. If your ISP can be more efficient by occasionally reorganizing its network and shuffling its customers to new IP addresses, you can handle that too.
People don't type in domain names much, unless the names are really short and easy to remember. They use bookmarks, address books, search engines, and links. Those are all DNS-based, and as long as we have a stable and accessible DNS those will continue to work.
The point is, it doesn't matter what domain name you get as long as you can get one at a reasonable price. That is currently the case, and I don't see how the UN could improve on the situation much.
If you're waiting for someone unbiased to tell you the truth, you're hopeless. If you want the truth you're going to have to sift through all the data and figure it out for yourself. There's a lot more data on the Internet than on TV or even in newspapers, and it much less subject to centralized control and manipulation. Sure, there are a lot of lies and nonsense on the web, but the crap on TV news is just a bad -- it's just more slickly polished and believable.
There's no way you can be sure there isn't spyware or malware in the computer's ROM, or a logger on some data bus (USB, PCI, memory, whatever). Once you plug your USB flash drive into someone else's computer, all your data are belong to them.
Sending and receiving secret data over someone else's network can be safe if you trust both ends (your own notebook and the remote server) and your encryption scheme. Do you have some specific reason to think, say, 128-bit SSL isn't reasonably secure?
My guess is that a car engine running at peak efficiency produces way more power than typical household appliances can possibly use. Therefore it's best to run the engine for short periods to charge the battery, and leave it off the rest of the time.
I'm sure the root cause of cowboy coding is in Microsoft's quest for being able to put check marks in feature boxes...
That's incorrect. At Microsoft the programmers do not decide which features go into the product. At least, they didn't when I worked there 15 years ago. "Cowboy coding" happens because the programming standards are very loose -- indent like this, name variables like so, and that's about it. To a large extent every programmer is allowed their own style and techniques, including algorithm design and verification. Each programmer is trusted to know what he is doing. If you look at this source code it's very obvious that different part were written by different programmers. Back in the 80s and 90s this sharply contrasted with the "IBM style" of programming in which programmers were heavily constrained to produce code according to strict standards -- the source code for IBM projects was virtually uniform, and some would say soulless, lacking artistic flair. Microsoft programmers are very individualistic and very proud, and this shows in their code.
Checkbox marketing is something completely different. Product requirements are determined by managers, not programmers, and development of those features is assigned by the project leader to individual programmers or small teams. Occasionally an individual programmer will code up a proof-of-concept feature that was not assigned to him, and occasionally a program manager will decide to include that feature in the product, but this is the exception and not the rule.
I doubt that the difference between "cowboy programming" and highly structured large-team software engineering is directly visible to the end user, in terms of software quality or feature counts. It really only affects development -- i.e. how long it takes and how much it costs to get a usable product out the door, and how hard it is to maintain the product over the long term. Historically Microsoft has had enough time and money to get by with a fairly chaotic and loosely managed development system. TFA (and the long, expensive delays in Longhorn/Vista) suggests that this is changing.
Another example of "cowboy programming" is the Linux kernel. Coding standards in that project make Microsoft look tightly regimented. The question is not whether "cowboy programming" works but how long it can be maintained.
I loaded the article with Opera, Mozilla, and wget, and found the word "satire" only in the comments section, wherein commentors speculated that the article might be satire. Where do you see that quote?
Am I the only one who has a hard time remembering which party is red and which party is blue? The colors are hardly intuitive and the only mnemonic I've come up with is that all the letters of "blue" are in "republican" and all the letters of "red" are in "democrat". I wish people would stop using the terms "red state" and "blue state" as the assignments of color to party are purely arbitrary and transient, and are scheduled to switch in 2008 as they did in 2000. (The rule is: alternating colors are assigned to the incumbent party each presidential election. In 1992 and 1996 it so happened that "red" meant "Democrat". According to the rule, that will also be the case in 2008, so we'll have to come up with a new mnemonic.)
Slashdot Mirror
That corporate paycheck won't buy you time on a supercollider. Most academic scientists would rather play with state of the art lab equipment than drive a Porsche.
What I absolutely do not ever trust is a virus detector running on a potentially compromised system to give accurate results. I also don't particularly trust antivirus software itself, which is why I only run it on disk image copies. This level of "paranoia" is probably what has kept the malware out for so long.
They probably did that as well, but the idea was to show that Apple is intentionally screwing up the heat sink assembly. I.e., that it's not just one "bad apple" that happened to be photographed; they're all like that. As such it is almost certainly fair use of copyright materials. Trade secret status of the manual is a little less obvious.
Yellow River use IP freely!
After reading that about turbocow yesterday, I tried my own experiment: started registering a (pronounceable) gibberish domain name on Godaddy, then aborted the transaction before paying the registration fee. Today I checked back and the domain name is still available. Call me skeptical.
Calling him "moron" and "fool" is harsh and unwarranted. His experiment succeeded -- demonstrating security weaknesses in OSX -- and all it cost him was the time to zero the HDD and restore from backup. I certainly wouldn't shed a tear if my Mac got trashed. Maybe you're way too attached to yours?
I just about had a heart attack upon poking the thing into a true bitmapped high-res graphics mode (256x192 mono, ZOMG!!!1) and drawing some lines and circles. Then they released the "Extended BASIC" upgrade with high-res support built in....
Wikipedia is not public property.
What Sun is doing would be more properly called "dual licensing".
It was a joke. Greg Fitzsimmons is a comedian. That's why teh pr0n starz "roared with laughter." He must have great delivery, to get such a great response with such crappy old cliche material.
PPP over email? That's almost as good as RFC 1149!
I skipped going to the dentist for about 10 years once. Had some pretty serious dental problems, but no cavities.
People don't type in domain names much, unless the names are really short and easy to remember. They use bookmarks, address books, search engines, and links. Those are all DNS-based, and as long as we have a stable and accessible DNS those will continue to work.
The point is, it doesn't matter what domain name you get as long as you can get one at a reasonable price. That is currently the case, and I don't see how the UN could improve on the situation much.
If you're waiting for someone unbiased to tell you the truth, you're hopeless. If you want the truth you're going to have to sift through all the data and figure it out for yourself. There's a lot more data on the Internet than on TV or even in newspapers, and it much less subject to centralized control and manipulation. Sure, there are a lot of lies and nonsense on the web, but the crap on TV news is just a bad -- it's just more slickly polished and believable.
Sending and receiving secret data over someone else's network can be safe if you trust both ends (your own notebook and the remote server) and your encryption scheme. Do you have some specific reason to think, say, 128-bit SSL isn't reasonably secure?
My guess is that a car engine running at peak efficiency produces way more power than typical household appliances can possibly use. Therefore it's best to run the engine for short periods to charge the battery, and leave it off the rest of the time.
http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=16387 7&cid=13686095
Mod parent way up. This is by far the most cogent explanation of the situation so far.
Checkbox marketing is something completely different. Product requirements are determined by managers, not programmers, and development of those features is assigned by the project leader to individual programmers or small teams. Occasionally an individual programmer will code up a proof-of-concept feature that was not assigned to him, and occasionally a program manager will decide to include that feature in the product, but this is the exception and not the rule.
I doubt that the difference between "cowboy programming" and highly structured large-team software engineering is directly visible to the end user, in terms of software quality or feature counts. It really only affects development -- i.e. how long it takes and how much it costs to get a usable product out the door, and how hard it is to maintain the product over the long term. Historically Microsoft has had enough time and money to get by with a fairly chaotic and loosely managed development system. TFA (and the long, expensive delays in Longhorn/Vista) suggests that this is changing.
Another example of "cowboy programming" is the Linux kernel. Coding standards in that project make Microsoft look tightly regimented. The question is not whether "cowboy programming" works but how long it can be maintained.
I loaded the article with Opera, Mozilla, and wget, and found the word "satire" only in the comments section, wherein commentors speculated that the article might be satire. Where do you see that quote?
Am I the only one who has a hard time remembering which party is red and which party is blue? The colors are hardly intuitive and the only mnemonic I've come up with is that all the letters of "blue" are in "republican" and all the letters of "red" are in "democrat". I wish people would stop using the terms "red state" and "blue state" as the assignments of color to party are purely arbitrary and transient, and are scheduled to switch in 2008 as they did in 2000. (The rule is: alternating colors are assigned to the incumbent party each presidential election. In 1992 and 1996 it so happened that "red" meant "Democrat". According to the rule, that will also be the case in 2008, so we'll have to come up with a new mnemonic.)