According to appleinsider sources, the form factor of the phone you may have seen in images is only a test mule based on a diff moto phone.
That's funny. I mean, its true and all, but its not exactly news considering that the FA points this out in the fourth sentence:
But a Motorola representative clarified on Friday that the phone shown during the keynote was not the actual iTunes phone that is slated for release this year. Instead, it was a Motorola E398 equipped with the iTunes functionality for the demonstration.
Then again, its not like its stuff that matters either, so no biggie.
That won't necessarily save you, I'm afraid. If the machine is running any software that through feature or an exploit allows a remote user to run uploaded code, you're screwed. That's because as soon as you're running that code, it can use this type of hole to grant itself full root privileges. Once its done that, what makes you think that its going to be nice enough to check/etc/passwd and spawn a requested shell (not that that would be terribly useful for this type of remote exploit). At that point, the sky's the limit I'm afraid.
Well, yes and no. There's a difference between being vulnerable to those with physical access (pretty much always true, but very limited) and vulnerable to those folks with the ability to run something on your machine locally (fewer than true remote users, but much higher in number than those folk with actual physical access). All you need for this exploit is a way to run unpriv. code on the machine. Note that using a network exploit to run said code is a great way of gaining access - suddenly the fact that your webserver is running as "nobody" doesn't really matter any more.
The one that gets me is the following. I learned that an organization/band/etc... is a single entity. Usage would be "The Houston Symphony Orchestra claims to have...." rather than "The Houston Symphony Orchestra claim to have...." In writetn media, I often see it written as the latter.
Context is key here. If you're talking about the business, its singular. "The HSO claims to have signed a new 100 year lease for its new janitor's closet." The hard part is that the collective noun for a group of musicians could be an orchestra - so if you see "The orchestra claim to have urinated off the top of the bridge," its talking about the individual members that make up the collective, not the business that represents them.
I agree with many of your points, but a couple of them off the top of my head - Mail.app has a Bcc: field. Go to preferences and you can set it to appear - or not - as you choose, just like many other mail applications. And if you don't want to see a real name, just an email address, there are two easy choices... either don't add it to the address book, or enter the email address for their name.
On Safari, you say that it doesn't have a "Save as Text" option. Well, no, it doesn't, but that's far from intutitive either... what's it supposed to do with complex sites? Now, some software does have "save as text" and will automangle web pages, but I believe it falls into the category of "features" that are anything but. You can always cut-and-paste text off the webapge too...
I am disappointed that Safari doesn't embed links into the PDF, I'd never tried that but since PDFs do support URLs, it would seem that that's more of a bug than an intentional omission.
As for the office trial - yikes. Sounds like some of the code designed to stop you just installing it repeatedly to get around the purchase issues was considerably less friendly than it should have been. Still, that's typical of that type of product.
don't know where you got the 1/4 from. Things were WAY cheaper then
Actually, I took them from your previous post:
Personally I would rather work for the $3.10 and be able to buy a loaf of bread for $0.35 and a gallon of gas for $0.50
Bread now - $1.40/loaf is pretty reasonable. Gas - I'd say that $2.00 is above the national average at the moment, but not by a lot. That's all. I figured that using the examples that you gave was a pretty reasonable thing to do...
This is great in a civilian setting. But how about in a military situation? In a war zone? You want courts, judges, lawyers, media, CourtTV operating in Iraq? You wants "Cops: Baghdad"? That's absurd. If you are in a war zone, you are subject to the ravages of war. The military does screen on the spot.
Which is fine. I have - as I said - absolutely no problems with that. As long as, when there's some time, there is a full review. That's why if you have that kind of situation, with people being picked up for suspicion, you need some kind of review after the fact - not permanent detention without trial.
Hey, personally I agree with you. I never defended using GPA as a filter. My point was that, in this situation, you have to have something to cut down the chaff. I don't care that much about grades at least partly because I've been working in the field since HS and never got a degree. So don't worry there. But - realistically - you're not always going to be able to interview everyone. You need something.
I disagree vehemently. WHen I was going to school I would get punished for taking the extra steps. For example once I failed a programming assignment because my program had a GUI and "we haven't learned that yet".
That depends. Did your program also execute perfectly as described in the specifications?
Now, if you were told to write a command line program, did so, and then produced a GUI that either ran the console app in the background or used the same library code as the console app, and accomplished the same results, that would have been pretty damn cool. If you were asked for a console app and failed to deliver one - regardless of what else you came up with - then your professor was absolutely 100% correct to fail you.
Doing more should never be an excuse for doing less.
So how does your system handle people who did poorly their first year, left, did something useful, came back and excelled? One bad year can easily drop a person out of running in your view. Our society encourages many people who shouldn't be in college yet to go, which can often result in a bad first year.
That's just it - the system doesn't have to. The goal of the employer is to - say - fill 2 positions. Lets say that they have 100 resumes and that 10% of those resumes represent a hireable individual. They're going to turn away 8 qualified people no matter what happens. You need a first pass filter that cuts the total number of possibilities down as much as possible without much risk that the number of hireable candidates drops below your threshold. That's all. Spending time identifying all 10 good candidates when you only need two is a waste of your time - and, by extension, the company's money.
Unless you have something or some document I can't find, the US can view any captured in a war zone as either (1) a mercenary if they are from a foreign land, (2) a spy, or (3) an un-uniformed solider and execute them on the spot in compliance with international law.
Oh, really? Well, you're missing a word from that sentence, so this may be a little unfair, but was that "any one" or "any soldier"? One of the issues is that right now anyone living in a "war zone" (which can be very loosely defined and includes a ton of people) can be picked up as an "enemy combatant." Anyone at all. That's the scary part.
Now, screening people right then and there is quite difficult. This wouldn't be too bad if there was due process to separate true combatants from people who just happen to, say, be living there at the time. Most people aren't complaining about the fact that these folk can be detained, but in the fact that there's no way to decide if they should have been. Guilty until proven innocent, indeed.
Pointing a laser and blinding a pilot on final approach is the same as having broken into the cockpit and putting your hands over his or her eyes. You should and would be right to be charged with as many counts of attempted murder as there are people on the plane.
There's one major difference. Its very, very hard to accidentally break down the armored door of an airplane cockpit and cover up the pilot's eyes. Its trivially easy to be playing with a laser pointer and hit a plane with it. Heck, at a long range its easy enough to be using those green pointers to point at distant stars and lower it down to a plane saying, "Well, I think that one is - no, wait, that's a plane" and move on to something else.
Yes, this was a potentially dangerous action. By that argument though, anyone who weaves in their lane on the highway - even though the person in the next lane slows down, weaves, or whatever to correct the situation, should be tried under the same charge. And you can extend the "logic" out to a huge number of daily occurences as well, just as legitimately.
While I agree with the thrust of your post, I did find this somewhat amusing...
I and others absolutely did not fit into the mold in college. The crowd we ran with was decidedly counter culture and the kids with the funny hair (us)...
So you did fit into a group, and a fairly solid one that most people have no problem envisioning. It wasn't the "preppy" group, but it was a group nonetheless, and almost certainly displayed the same kind of requirements as the more "mainstream" ones. You may think not, how do you think someone who typically wore Gucci, Prada, and the like would have been accepted into that crowd?
In 1972 I made 3.10 and hour here in the US. I had a nice house a car took trips and could afford to go our on the town every now and then. Now I make $20.00 per hour and I can't hardly afford to live. My life style hasn't changed except for the fact that a dollar will not buy what it would in 1972. Personally I would rather work for the $3.10 and be able to buy a loaf of bread for $0.35 and a gallon of gas for $0.50
Now that's some odd math.
You'd be happy making 1/7 as much if you could purchase goods and services for 1/4 as much? Hmm. And this in a post called, "redo your math"? Whatever...
I do agree with your other point that the dollar is currently far from strong, by the way. Just not your examples of countermath.
Re:Explanation for foreigners
on
Sir Peter Molyneux?
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Readers of this post who may be less familiar with Yes Minister the delevision series may find that this clip seems a little familiar.
The basic idea is that the web server starts up some CGI program, lets it do all its initialization, and lets it run to the point that it is ready to accept data for a specific transaction. Then it makes a call to wait for transaction data. When a transaction comes in, the server forks off a new copy of the initialized transaction program. That copy deals with one user transaction, and then exits.
Congratulations - you've just invented FastCGI. At least, you would have done if you'd come along a decade or so ago (its been around at least since 1996).
And yes, its available for use with C, Perl, Python and Java - oh, and Smalltalk, Lisp, Ruby, VMS, and others as well. You can even get supported plug-ins for the more common webservers.
Alright, so you specify a forced fork rather than an optional one. Still, that's a pretty trivial difference.
You do realize that you've just fallen into the same trap, right? That doesn't fix the problem worth a damn. I mean, sure it doubles the amount of changes. And yes, 64,000 should be enough. But, hey, 32,000 should have been enough too, right?
Programs have internal limits. That's kosher. What's not appropriate is allowing the user base to exceed them or - for something like this - come close to exceeding them, without giving some kind of warning that notifies people of an impending problem and provides possible solutions (purge data, etc). Now you may point out that adding that kind of security increases the cost and complexity of software. Yup. That's why true enterprise software is expensive. Because that's what you're paying for.
Another alternative would have been for the software wrap and start purging existing records to make room for new ones. Either way, there should have been some defined strategy for the boundary condition, and there wasn't.
The other thing that the software vendor should have done when pushing their upgrade is point out that the previous version wouldn't allow flights to continue in that situation, but the new version expanded it to (some large number). Instead, they probably said, "We're 32 bit!" or something totally meaningless to the people evaluating the business case for the upgrade.
You could have ignored it completely - the flashing stops after, what, three flashes?
Since you're unfamiliar with the "idiot bar" you could have chosen one of the options to learn more about it, wherein you would have learnt that:
You could have done the bog-standard Windows action of clicking the little X on the right hand side of the bar, at which point it would have closed up nicely.
This WiFi service is a wonderful way for the family to experience the stars, the birds, the other animals, the lakes, the trees, in a contemporary relevent fashion. A kid is not neccesarily going to trudge through a book when he or she can search the web.
Or, of course, the kid could just look up and enjoy the sights of the stars, birds, et cetera without necessarily having to know right then what that particular bird's migration path might be. They can always take a picture and look it up later, for example. Why not just take the time to sit back and enjoy nature while you still have the chance?
The whole point of Qt is to make it easier to have software run on multiple OS's, but I can't test any of my stuff on Windows. Oh well, still kick ass software.
Actually, the whole point of Qt from the perspective of TrollTech is to make money to feed their families (and, I guess, to allow them to buy US$50,000 kittens if they so choose). Providing free Mac/Linux implementations was a strategic business decision towards that goal.
Note: I'm a big Qt fan, and this should be taken as an endorsement rather than criticism. Better yet, it should probably just be ignored.
Its a friggin' crime to spend all that money on a cat when there are hundreds of thousands of strays out there.
Cool. And buy a $500 car while you're at it - oh, and no new computer equipment for at least five years. Et cetera. In this culture, most money is spent on things that many other people consider "wasteful," no matter who's spending it.
Re:More money than brains I guess
on
Re-Pet a Reality
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
If these people really loved animals and would quit trying to relive the past with a facsimile-pet the $50K (or less) would be better used if donated to a pet shelter for food and sterilization programs.
Yeah, they could. Of course, people who loved animals could take the $3000 they spent on a new computer to replace their barely-a-year-old computer and donate it to a pet shelter as well. People spend money. The vast majority of it goes to things that other people think are "wasteful," at least in this country. The only thing that changes is the perspective.
As to the wisdom of spending $50k on a cat - any cat - I'd say that it depends a lot on your overall financial picture.
And as for cloning, well, that's another debate entirely. Two debates actually, one on the ethics of it and another one on the effectiveness. Ah, joy.
I had large quantities of the stuff. My dad would go to the US (we lived in the UK at the time) back in the 80s, and would bring back whatever the largest kit was at the time as a kind of, I don't know, guilt offering or something. That was way cool, you could build all sorts of stuff - especially with the floats involved. Impellers, worm drives, mmm...
And, naturally, I have no idea wtf happened to it all. Ah, well.
Slashdot Mirror
According to appleinsider sources, the form factor of the phone you may have seen in images is only a test mule based on a diff moto phone.
That's funny. I mean, its true and all, but its not exactly news considering that the FA points this out in the fourth sentence:
But a Motorola representative clarified on Friday that the phone shown during the keynote was not the actual iTunes phone that is slated for release this year. Instead, it was a Motorola E398 equipped with the iTunes functionality for the demonstration.
Then again, its not like its stuff that matters either, so no biggie.
That won't necessarily save you, I'm afraid. If the machine is running any software that through feature or an exploit allows a remote user to run uploaded code, you're screwed. That's because as soon as you're running that code, it can use this type of hole to grant itself full root privileges. Once its done that, what makes you think that its going to be nice enough to check /etc/passwd and spawn a requested shell (not that that would be terribly useful for this type of remote exploit). At that point, the sky's the limit I'm afraid.
Well, yes and no. There's a difference between being vulnerable to those with physical access (pretty much always true, but very limited) and vulnerable to those folks with the ability to run something on your machine locally (fewer than true remote users, but much higher in number than those folk with actual physical access). All you need for this exploit is a way to run unpriv. code on the machine. Note that using a network exploit to run said code is a great way of gaining access - suddenly the fact that your webserver is running as "nobody" doesn't really matter any more.
Does that mean "Cheap Trick says" is correct while "the band say" is also correct?
Surprisingly enough, I believe that it does. You can sometimes make them clearer by adding in missing words...
"[The band known as ]Cheap Trick says that it will be touring yet again."
Notice also that you use the singular "it" not a plural "they."
"The band say that they all love ice cream, but not when its covered in ants."
And, while that second one is definately awkward, I believe that it is correct.
The one that gets me is the following. I learned that an organization/band/etc... is a single entity. Usage would be "The Houston Symphony Orchestra claims to have...." rather than "The Houston Symphony Orchestra claim to have...." In writetn media, I often see it written as the latter.
Context is key here. If you're talking about the business, its singular. "The HSO claims to have signed a new 100 year lease for its new janitor's closet." The hard part is that the collective noun for a group of musicians could be an orchestra - so if you see "The orchestra claim to have urinated off the top of the bridge," its talking about the individual members that make up the collective, not the business that represents them.
I agree with many of your points, but a couple of them off the top of my head - Mail.app has a Bcc: field. Go to preferences and you can set it to appear - or not - as you choose, just like many other mail applications. And if you don't want to see a real name, just an email address, there are two easy choices... either don't add it to the address book, or enter the email address for their name.
... what's it supposed to do with complex sites? Now, some software does have "save as text" and will automangle web pages, but I believe it falls into the category of "features" that are anything but. You can always cut-and-paste text off the webapge too...
On Safari, you say that it doesn't have a "Save as Text" option. Well, no, it doesn't, but that's far from intutitive either
I am disappointed that Safari doesn't embed links into the PDF, I'd never tried that but since PDFs do support URLs, it would seem that that's more of a bug than an intentional omission.
As for the office trial - yikes. Sounds like some of the code designed to stop you just installing it repeatedly to get around the purchase issues was considerably less friendly than it should have been. Still, that's typical of that type of product.
don't know where you got the 1/4 from. Things were WAY cheaper then
Actually, I took them from your previous post:
Personally I would rather work for the $3.10 and be able to buy a loaf of bread for $0.35 and a gallon of gas for $0.50
Bread now - $1.40/loaf is pretty reasonable. Gas - I'd say that $2.00 is above the national average at the moment, but not by a lot. That's all. I figured that using the examples that you gave was a pretty reasonable thing to do...
This is great in a civilian setting. But how about in a military situation? In a war zone? You want courts, judges, lawyers, media, CourtTV operating in Iraq? You wants "Cops: Baghdad"? That's absurd. If you are in a war zone, you are subject to the ravages of war. The military does screen on the spot.
Which is fine. I have - as I said - absolutely no problems with that. As long as, when there's some time, there is a full review. That's why if you have that kind of situation, with people being picked up for suspicion, you need some kind of review after the fact - not permanent detention without trial.
GPAs makes a poor metric of future performance.
Hey, personally I agree with you. I never defended using GPA as a filter. My point was that, in this situation, you have to have something to cut down the chaff. I don't care that much about grades at least partly because I've been working in the field since HS and never got a degree. So don't worry there. But - realistically - you're not always going to be able to interview everyone. You need something.
I disagree vehemently. WHen I was going to school I would get punished for taking the extra steps. For example once I failed a programming assignment because my program had a GUI and "we haven't learned that yet".
That depends. Did your program also execute perfectly as described in the specifications?
Now, if you were told to write a command line program, did so, and then produced a GUI that either ran the console app in the background or used the same library code as the console app, and accomplished the same results, that would have been pretty damn cool. If you were asked for a console app and failed to deliver one - regardless of what else you came up with - then your professor was absolutely 100% correct to fail you.
Doing more should never be an excuse for doing less.
So how does your system handle people who did poorly their first year, left, did something useful, came back and excelled? One bad year can easily drop a person out of running in your view. Our society encourages many people who shouldn't be in college yet to go, which can often result in a bad first year.
That's just it - the system doesn't have to. The goal of the employer is to - say - fill 2 positions. Lets say that they have 100 resumes and that 10% of those resumes represent a hireable individual. They're going to turn away 8 qualified people no matter what happens. You need a first pass filter that cuts the total number of possibilities down as much as possible without much risk that the number of hireable candidates drops below your threshold. That's all. Spending time identifying all 10 good candidates when you only need two is a waste of your time - and, by extension, the company's money.
Which is pretty bizarre, if you consider that within its problem domain, ~ means "approximately."
Unless you have something or some document I can't find, the US can view any captured in a war zone as either (1) a mercenary if they are from a foreign land, (2) a spy, or (3) an un-uniformed solider and execute them on the spot in compliance with international law.
Oh, really? Well, you're missing a word from that sentence, so this may be a little unfair, but was that "any one" or "any soldier"? One of the issues is that right now anyone living in a "war zone" (which can be very loosely defined and includes a ton of people) can be picked up as an "enemy combatant." Anyone at all. That's the scary part.
Now, screening people right then and there is quite difficult. This wouldn't be too bad if there was due process to separate true combatants from people who just happen to, say, be living there at the time. Most people aren't complaining about the fact that these folk can be detained, but in the fact that there's no way to decide if they should have been. Guilty until proven innocent, indeed.
Pointing a laser and blinding a pilot on final approach is the same as having broken into the cockpit and putting your hands over his or her eyes. You should and would be right to be charged with as many counts of attempted murder as there are people on the plane.
There's one major difference. Its very, very hard to accidentally break down the armored door of an airplane cockpit and cover up the pilot's eyes. Its trivially easy to be playing with a laser pointer and hit a plane with it. Heck, at a long range its easy enough to be using those green pointers to point at distant stars and lower it down to a plane saying, "Well, I think that one is - no, wait, that's a plane" and move on to something else.
Yes, this was a potentially dangerous action. By that argument though, anyone who weaves in their lane on the highway - even though the person in the next lane slows down, weaves, or whatever to correct the situation, should be tried under the same charge. And you can extend the "logic" out to a huge number of daily occurences as well, just as legitimately.
While I agree with the thrust of your post, I did find this somewhat amusing...
I and others absolutely did not fit into the mold in college. The crowd we ran with was decidedly counter culture and the kids with the funny hair (us)...
So you did fit into a group, and a fairly solid one that most people have no problem envisioning. It wasn't the "preppy" group, but it was a group nonetheless, and almost certainly displayed the same kind of requirements as the more "mainstream" ones. You may think not, how do you think someone who typically wore Gucci, Prada, and the like would have been accepted into that crowd?
In 1972 I made 3.10 and hour here in the US. I had a nice house a car took trips and could afford to go our on the town every now and then. Now I make $20.00 per hour and I can't hardly afford to live. My life style hasn't changed except for the fact that a dollar will not buy what it would in 1972. Personally I would rather work for the $3.10 and be able to buy a loaf of bread for $0.35 and a gallon of gas for $0.50
Now that's some odd math.
You'd be happy making 1/7 as much if you could purchase goods and services for 1/4 as much? Hmm. And this in a post called, "redo your math"? Whatever...
I do agree with your other point that the dollar is currently far from strong, by the way. Just not your examples of countermath.
Readers of this post who may be less familiar with Yes Minister the delevision series may find that this clip seems a little familiar.
The basic idea is that the web server starts up some CGI program, lets it do all its initialization, and lets it run to the point that it is ready to accept data for a specific transaction. Then it makes a call to wait for transaction data. When a transaction comes in, the server forks off a new copy of the initialized transaction program. That copy deals with one user transaction, and then exits.
Congratulations - you've just invented FastCGI. At least, you would have done if you'd come along a decade or so ago (its been around at least since 1996).
And yes, its available for use with C, Perl, Python and Java - oh, and Smalltalk, Lisp, Ruby, VMS, and others as well. You can even get supported plug-ins for the more common webservers.
Alright, so you specify a forced fork rather than an optional one. Still, that's a pretty trivial difference.
unsigned short numberScheduleChanges;
fixes the problem.
You do realize that you've just fallen into the same trap, right? That doesn't fix the problem worth a damn. I mean, sure it doubles the amount of changes. And yes, 64,000 should be enough. But, hey, 32,000 should have been enough too, right?
Programs have internal limits. That's kosher. What's not appropriate is allowing the user base to exceed them or - for something like this - come close to exceeding them, without giving some kind of warning that notifies people of an impending problem and provides possible solutions (purge data, etc). Now you may point out that adding that kind of security increases the cost and complexity of software. Yup. That's why true enterprise software is expensive. Because that's what you're paying for.
Another alternative would have been for the software wrap and start purging existing records to make room for new ones. Either way, there should have been some defined strategy for the boundary condition, and there wasn't.
The other thing that the software vendor should have done when pushing their upgrade is point out that the previous version wouldn't allow flights to continue in that situation, but the new version expanded it to (some large number). Instead, they probably said, "We're 32 bit!" or something totally meaningless to the people evaluating the business case for the upgrade.
- You could have ignored it completely - the flashing stops after, what, three flashes?
- Since you're unfamiliar with the "idiot bar" you could have chosen one of the options to learn more about it, wherein you would have learnt that:
- You could have done the bog-standard Windows action of clicking the little X on the right hand side of the bar, at which point it would have closed up nicely.
Just a couple of ideas.This WiFi service is a wonderful way for the family to experience the stars, the birds, the other animals, the lakes, the trees, in a contemporary relevent fashion. A kid is not neccesarily going to trudge through a book when he or she can search the web.
Or, of course, the kid could just look up and enjoy the sights of the stars, birds, et cetera without necessarily having to know right then what that particular bird's migration path might be. They can always take a picture and look it up later, for example. Why not just take the time to sit back and enjoy nature while you still have the chance?
The whole point of Qt is to make it easier to have software run on multiple OS's, but I can't test any of my stuff on Windows. Oh well, still kick ass software.
Actually, the whole point of Qt from the perspective of TrollTech is to make money to feed their families (and, I guess, to allow them to buy US$50,000 kittens if they so choose). Providing free Mac/Linux implementations was a strategic business decision towards that goal.
Note: I'm a big Qt fan, and this should be taken as an endorsement rather than criticism. Better yet, it should probably just be ignored.
Its a friggin' crime to spend all that money on a cat when there are hundreds of thousands of strays out there.
Cool. And buy a $500 car while you're at it - oh, and no new computer equipment for at least five years. Et cetera. In this culture, most money is spent on things that many other people consider "wasteful," no matter who's spending it.
If these people really loved animals and would quit trying to relive the past with a facsimile-pet the $50K (or less) would be better used if donated to a pet shelter for food and sterilization programs.
Yeah, they could. Of course, people who loved animals could take the $3000 they spent on a new computer to replace their barely-a-year-old computer and donate it to a pet shelter as well. People spend money. The vast majority of it goes to things that other people think are "wasteful," at least in this country. The only thing that changes is the perspective.
As to the wisdom of spending $50k on a cat - any cat - I'd say that it depends a lot on your overall financial picture.
And as for cloning, well, that's another debate entirely. Two debates actually, one on the ethics of it and another one on the effectiveness. Ah, joy.
I had large quantities of the stuff. My dad would go to the US (we lived in the UK at the time) back in the 80s, and would bring back whatever the largest kit was at the time as a kind of, I don't know, guilt offering or something. That was way cool, you could build all sorts of stuff - especially with the floats involved. Impellers, worm drives, mmm...
And, naturally, I have no idea wtf happened to it all. Ah, well.