You would be right except that the issuing bank would freeze the card after several attempts. Also, as noted elsewhere, merchant processing gateways can do "IP velocity checks" -- to determine the quantity and frequency of credit card transactions from a given computer IP number, and only allow a specific # of transactions per day.
Yeah, the CVV2 check is not infallible. The IP velocity checks are useful, and some merchant accounts (like Verisign's Payflow Pro) offer this as a built-in feature. Another approach is to set up minimum donation amounts (like $10 or $25) which are more likely to be noticed by the credit card holder than just a $1.
I've set up and managed online donation systems for various charities, and see this happen all the time. Most of the time, the donor doesn't bother asking for a request, although they may inquire about it. Requiring the CVV2 code (the extra 3 digits on the back of Visa/MC or the extra four digits for AmEx) really does make a difference for fraud prevention: our logs show people attempting to use the same credit card number with wildly different CVV2 codes, failing time after time. They're just guessing and eventually give up.
Nice assumptions. I'm not a "Microsoft hater" in the least. Like anything: when their software works, it works great.
Anyway, you said "Excel doesn't simply contain data. There are whole applications built around and through Excel. Excel can call.NET code, access SQL databases, and transfer/collect information over the web with the proper coding and tools." That is all very true -- for technically expert people. (I've worked on Excel/Access/internet integrated apps in the past.) For the vast majority of Excel users, however, Excel DOES just simply contain data. Or at least that's all they expect from it. And if average people put their computers at risk just by opening Excel files, then it's a problem. Just because they are not computer experts, does not mean they are idiots.
It's as if I complained that Brand X knives break too easily under normal household use, and you responded that professional chefs use Brand X knives because they can use it to cook six-course meals with one hand tied behind their backs. Well, yay for chefs. We're still talking about something being dangerous for normal, average people doing normal, average things -- and it shouldn't be dangerous.
That has nothing to do with Microsoft, anything that touches data that someone else generated can have a security vulnerability, which is almost everything you would ever want to run in this crazy internet enabled world of ours.
Really? If I generate a spreadsheet of budget projections for a project, and I send it to my colleagues for review, there's absolutely no reason why they should have to worry about the file somehow pwning their PC. If my mother uses Excel for organizing names and addresses for my sister's wedding, and sends it to me for some formatting issues, I shouldn't have to worry about somehow losing data because I'm using someone else's spreadsheet.
It is simply a sad state of affairs that Excel has the power to corrupt or expose your computer. And that is definitely a Microsoft problem. I suspect that OpenOffice's spreadsheet, or AppleWorks' spreadsheet, do not have the same security issues, whether or not you share data with someone else.
I know, this shouldn't affect me, but it still boggles my mind (a little) that we need security updates for a SPREADSHEET APPLICATION. An OS? Server software? Sure. But Excel? It's a sad commentary on Microsoft's software that such a thing is necessary.
In a pacemaker the beating of the human heart would be strong enough to keep the magnets inside the device wobbling.
It's interesting that just the heart's beating would be strong enough to work. If this assumes the rest of the body is motionless, then even more electrical output is possible. Many people with pacemakers are still active physically -- walking around, riding in cars, having sex, etc. -- so, more vibration energy!
This fails because it would be overwhelmed by trolls, shills, astroturfers and spammers.
Quite probably. But you could require that contributors undergo an authenticity check, so that patent examiners (and maybe the world?) would have the real name and contact information of the trolls. It would confirm that the contributor is a real live person, not just an AC, and patent examiners could flag contributors who seem to be nice people versus trolls, etc.
Hey, it's just an idea, and it may be stupid, but it seems to me that a few layers of authenticity checks could make the idea workable. And even a few trolls slipping through the cracks would be an improvement over the current system (in my understanding, albeit limited).
Personally, I don't think we can record all the blindingly obvious stuff we think of, mainly because it's blindingly obvious. Or very often, we can think of salient prior art that would probably invalidate any patent claims, so we assume it's not worth mentioning.
I would rather see the patent process made a little more transparent: any patent application has to go through 90 days on a public wiki or discussion board, where we could view applications and immediately reference prior art. This might simplify the job of the patent reviewers, who cannot possibly know the history of entire industries. They could simply check out the claims of prior art (which themselves could be ranked by visitors for validity -- "oh ya, I remember THAT") and immediately see that, duh, one-click purchasing is a really dumb idea.
Why would anyone participate? First, it's in our nature. You might have heard of Slashdot, where people with varying kinds of brain matter make varying kinds of comments about varying kinds of "news." But second and more importantly, it would be protection. If you work in a business that would be affected by a one-click patent, you have incentive to make sure nobody can charge you for it, or sue you for using it, if it isn't really an original idea.
Today's patent process in the U.S. is slightly public, I know, but how about making it totally Web 2.0 and buzzword-compliant?
What annoys some of us is that it's being presented as revolutionary. It's not. It might be, if it takes off and in the future changes most peoples outlook on phones. It took the iPod to bring mp3 players to the masses but it wasn't really an evolution change in technology. It was more marketing and design, such as the white headphones serving as a constant "join us, it's great!" advertisement.
Actually the iPod starting its dramatic take-off before the slick advertising began, but you can remember it your way if it helps.
The "design" is exactly the revolution. With the iPod, Apple made something was small, ridiculously simple to use, and did what 90% of the world wanted it to do. The iPhone is the same. The revolution is not in the technology. It's in the usability. Next you're going to tell me that the automatic transmission wasn't revolutionary because it was just an improvement on the manual transmission. And, frankly, the latter offers more precise control and better fuel efficiency. But the former made automobiles much more "user friendly" for the masses. It revolutionized the way American society used cars. This, on a different scale, is what makes the iPod and iPhone revolutionary: not that they were the first ever in the world, or even the most full-featured, but they changed the way a large mass of people looked at the technology. That's a revolution.
Suppose I released a Microsoft Office plug in, and just listed 'any edition of Microsoft Office 2003 or later' as the requirement. Would you really expect it to work with "Microsoft Office 2004: Mac" without a specific mention of the Mac platform? Of course not.
I probably wouldn't, but I think a lot of people would, and I wouldn't blame them for that.
This the kind of thing Mac users have run into for decades. Most know -- or at least learn very quickly -- that you can't just walk into any old store that has a "software" department and expect to find Mac-compatible products. MAYBE some of the hardware is Mac-compatible (USB devices like printers, memory sticks, webcams, etc.) but software? "Rotsa ruck," as Scooby would say.
As has been amply noted elsewhere, Windows x64 is not exactly "mainstream". iTunes will undoubtably be 64-bit compatible in future (and very near, too), but Apple probably focused on other stuff first (like changing the landscape of the mobile phone industry).
I wouldn't mind the service fees so much if it dispensed chocolate bars with my money.
Anyway, FTA: "Mr Shepherd-Barron came up with the idea when he realised that he could remember his six-figure army number. But he decided to check that with his wife, Caroline. 'Over the kitchen table, she said she could only remember four figures, so because of her, four figures became the world standard,' he laughs." This is a great example of how simple, even mundane decision processes can affect millions, even billions of people. Imagine if he'd stayed with six digits, and people felt it was too hard? Or if he had gone with three, and everyone's account was easily hacked (relatively speaking)?
For some time now, China has been blockingsites like BBC News, CBS News, Wikipedia, WordPress, LiveJournal, U.S. Department of State, etc. I am surprised Slashdot is not on the list, bunch of freedom-loving Linux-huggers that we are.
In reading the actual findings, I'm a little confused. They fault one company for using "web beacons" and another for using "pixel tags" -- but those are the same thing, so why not be consistent in terminology? They fault Apple because it "kept quiet on the potential watermarking of DRM-free iTunes songs" when this topic only broke out within the last week, and there is zero evidence of actual watermarking (versus plain text additions of your name and email address -- yes, there is a difference). They fault AOL for preventing Mac users from viewing videos, but that's hardly a privacy concern (hello, competing video formats!). For Google, "Privacy mandate is not embedded throughout the company," whatever THAT means. Finally, a majority of the listed sites have no information listed in the categories of "responsiveness", "ethical compass", and "corporate leadership" -- so how can you adequately compare them to the bigger sites who have such information?
David Wilson, a Sony spokesman, told The Times newspaper: "It is game-created footage, it is not video or photography. "It is entertainment, like Doctor Who or any other science fiction. It is not based on reality at all. Throughout the whole process we have sought permission where necessary."
Manchester Cathedral is private property, correct? It belongs to the Church of England? If so, and if you were going to show the interior of Manchester Cathedral (or any private property) in Doctor Who (or any television show or movie) I believe you have to seek permission of the property owner. Of course, if Sony were publishing a novel about it, I doubt the Church of England would care much -- but Sony has specifically aligned the game with video-based works rather than written fiction.
I think this is a valid consideration; however, it's hardly a "PC versus Mac" issue. You may face the same issue upgrading from one version of Windows to another, especially if you are leaping a whole generation. For example, a year or two ago, I helped a relative migrate from an older Windows 98 system to a new Windows XP system. Surprise -- there were no reliable drivers for his scanner. The scanner manufacturer had dropped support for that model and no longer kept the drivers updated. So he went out and bought a new scanner.
And this is hardly limited to hardware. There are some real screwball formatting issues with old versions of Microsoft Word versus new versions (same OS or not)... and let's not reopen some old QuarkXPress upgrade wounds, shall we?
It's called "working offline". I work for an international organization that is moving more and more of our systems to be web-based, but there are a lot of times you simply don't have Internet access. If there was a way to maintain usability of these apps, even when you're in the Bolivian mountains or rural Ethiopia, then sync up when you get back to an Internet connection... that would be great. Sure, we could write our own standalone apps but we have a multitude of OS's to consider (Windows, Mac OS X, Linux). It would be easier to standardize on a browser across all platforms and go from there. Using DHTML/Javascript/CSS/AJAX/Web 2.0/Buzzword 2007 would be simpler for our global I.T. staff to manage than Java or other multiplatform coding platforms.
I submitted this article, largely because it is of personal interest. I do a lot of communications-related work for nonprofit organizations (U.S. and international) and I know how hard these people work to raise money. So when scientists come along and say, "Look, people are predisposed to be generous/altruistic!", I feel like asking the old question from those Wendy's commercials: where's the beef?
I think the fatal flaw in the research is that participants were responding to hypothetical and closely monitored situations. It cost them nothing (except a little time) to make an altruistic choice; there was no actual money involved. And when people are watching you make a choice, you tend to make the one that looks more acceptable. I'd like to see another test: send people $100 in the mail along with donation forms for a bunch of charities, and see how much money those charities get back via that form. Throw in the incentive of a matching donation program (e.g. for every dollar they donate, you will also donate a dollar). I would be shocked if people sent back a third of the money you sent them.
While I agree that the Creationist view of the world is generally a pile of steaming brown matter, I have to disagree with you on this:
Most scientists are accustomed to honest, civilized debate. Scientific conferences are full of disagreements and arguments, make no mistake about that. But (almost) all the participants are aiming to understand the universe better, to examine their assumptions and use experimental evidence and logic to figure out whether or not they need to change their assumptions or ideas. They might attack a speaker's ideas if they believe that a mistake is being made, but there's nothing very personal at stake.
Maybe I've just seen the worst of it, and maybe I am a jaded cynic, but after being part of the academic world for more than 30 years, I suggest that science is very frequently personal. Your average, random-sampled group of scientists will have as many bigots and self-promoters and assholes as an equally random group of Creationists (or any other group: Italians, homosexuals, diabetics, school kids, people who wear boxer shorts, Slashdot readers, etc.). Let's not pretend otherwise. Now, when faced with a common enemy (e.g. a Creationist), most scientists will team up to support each other, but that can be expected of most any group.
You are right: the MacBook Pro specifies the display being capable of 24 bits per pixel. My apologies for quoting the MacBook section before (vs. the MacBook Pro section).
The MacBook computer announced in November 2006, based on the Intel Core 2 Duo, has a 13.3-inch, glossy, widescreen flat-panel display (measured diagonally). The display has a Low Reflection Glossy Polarizer (LRGP). Display depths up to 24 bits per pixel at all supported screen resolutions.
The MacBook supports an LCD display size of 1280x800 pixels at 114 dpi, 250 nits single bulb and shows up to millions of colors.
It is not clear (to me, anyway) that "up to 24 bits per pixel" specifically refers to the capabilities of the monitor or the video subsystem. The last sentence specifically refers to the LCD monitor; however, the "24 bits" sentence may refer to the subsystem, e.g. if you plug in an external monitor you can get up to 24 bits of color, but the internal LCD supports "millions". You may be quite right, but the specific verbiage is not completely clear.
However, in possible support of your point, the section about iMacs from January 2006 says this:
The iMac computers announced in January 2006, based on the Intel Core Duo microprocessor, include a built-in 17-inch widescreen or 20-inch widescreen flat-panel display (measured diagonally). Both displays use TFT (thin-film transistor) technology for high contrast and fast response, and they are backlit by a cold cathode fluorescent lamp (CCFL). Both displays support 3D acceleration and display depths up to 24 bits per pixel at all supported screen resolutions. For more information, see "Graphics ICs."
The 17-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1440 x 900 pixels at 100 dpi. The graphics card temporally dithers the 6 bits per component to show up to millions of colors.
The 20-inch model supports an LCD display size of 1680 x 1050 pixels at 98 dpi and supports 8 bits per component to show up to millions of colors.
(Emphasis added by me.)
In other words, Apple specifies that one iMac model has 6 bits per component color that is dithered to achieve "millions," while another has 8 bits per component to achieve the same thing. They simply don't specify this in the MacBook Pro description; they limit it to "millions of colors."
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, it has a better sound to it than some of the alternatives. Anybody wanna Poogle?
You would be right except that the issuing bank would freeze the card after several attempts. Also, as noted elsewhere, merchant processing gateways can do "IP velocity checks" -- to determine the quantity and frequency of credit card transactions from a given computer IP number, and only allow a specific # of transactions per day.
Yeah, the CVV2 check is not infallible. The IP velocity checks are useful, and some merchant accounts (like Verisign's Payflow Pro) offer this as a built-in feature. Another approach is to set up minimum donation amounts (like $10 or $25) which are more likely to be noticed by the credit card holder than just a $1.
I've set up and managed online donation systems for various charities, and see this happen all the time. Most of the time, the donor doesn't bother asking for a request, although they may inquire about it. Requiring the CVV2 code (the extra 3 digits on the back of Visa/MC or the extra four digits for AmEx) really does make a difference for fraud prevention: our logs show people attempting to use the same credit card number with wildly different CVV2 codes, failing time after time. They're just guessing and eventually give up.
Nice assumptions. I'm not a "Microsoft hater" in the least. Like anything: when their software works, it works great.
Anyway, you said "Excel doesn't simply contain data. There are whole applications built around and through Excel. Excel can call .NET code, access SQL databases, and transfer/collect information over the web with the proper coding and tools." That is all very true -- for technically expert people. (I've worked on Excel/Access/internet integrated apps in the past.) For the vast majority of Excel users, however, Excel DOES just simply contain data. Or at least that's all they expect from it. And if average people put their computers at risk just by opening Excel files, then it's a problem. Just because they are not computer experts, does not mean they are idiots.
It's as if I complained that Brand X knives break too easily under normal household use, and you responded that professional chefs use Brand X knives because they can use it to cook six-course meals with one hand tied behind their backs. Well, yay for chefs. We're still talking about something being dangerous for normal, average people doing normal, average things -- and it shouldn't be dangerous.
Really? If I generate a spreadsheet of budget projections for a project, and I send it to my colleagues for review, there's absolutely no reason why they should have to worry about the file somehow pwning their PC. If my mother uses Excel for organizing names and addresses for my sister's wedding, and sends it to me for some formatting issues, I shouldn't have to worry about somehow losing data because I'm using someone else's spreadsheet.
It is simply a sad state of affairs that Excel has the power to corrupt or expose your computer. And that is definitely a Microsoft problem. I suspect that OpenOffice's spreadsheet, or AppleWorks' spreadsheet, do not have the same security issues, whether or not you share data with someone else.
"Excel, XP, Vista, Server 2003..."
I know, this shouldn't affect me, but it still boggles my mind (a little) that we need security updates for a SPREADSHEET APPLICATION. An OS? Server software? Sure. But Excel? It's a sad commentary on Microsoft's software that such a thing is necessary.
You're either looking to get someone pregnant, or contract an STI. I guess that's the price you pay for fighting the "hypocritical diaper society".
It's interesting that just the heart's beating would be strong enough to work. If this assumes the rest of the body is motionless, then even more electrical output is possible. Many people with pacemakers are still active physically -- walking around, riding in cars, having sex, etc. -- so, more vibration energy!
Quite probably. But you could require that contributors undergo an authenticity check, so that patent examiners (and maybe the world?) would have the real name and contact information of the trolls. It would confirm that the contributor is a real live person, not just an AC, and patent examiners could flag contributors who seem to be nice people versus trolls, etc.
Hey, it's just an idea, and it may be stupid, but it seems to me that a few layers of authenticity checks could make the idea workable. And even a few trolls slipping through the cracks would be an improvement over the current system (in my understanding, albeit limited).
Darn, I was just on my way to patent my idea, too!
:-)
Personally, I don't think we can record all the blindingly obvious stuff we think of, mainly because it's blindingly obvious. Or very often, we can think of salient prior art that would probably invalidate any patent claims, so we assume it's not worth mentioning.
I would rather see the patent process made a little more transparent: any patent application has to go through 90 days on a public wiki or discussion board, where we could view applications and immediately reference prior art. This might simplify the job of the patent reviewers, who cannot possibly know the history of entire industries. They could simply check out the claims of prior art (which themselves could be ranked by visitors for validity -- "oh ya, I remember THAT") and immediately see that, duh, one-click purchasing is a really dumb idea.
Why would anyone participate? First, it's in our nature. You might have heard of Slashdot, where people with varying kinds of brain matter make varying kinds of comments about varying kinds of "news." But second and more importantly, it would be protection. If you work in a business that would be affected by a one-click patent, you have incentive to make sure nobody can charge you for it, or sue you for using it, if it isn't really an original idea.
Today's patent process in the U.S. is slightly public, I know, but how about making it totally Web 2.0 and buzzword-compliant?
Actually the iPod starting its dramatic take-off before the slick advertising began, but you can remember it your way if it helps.
The "design" is exactly the revolution. With the iPod, Apple made something was small, ridiculously simple to use, and did what 90% of the world wanted it to do. The iPhone is the same. The revolution is not in the technology. It's in the usability. Next you're going to tell me that the automatic transmission wasn't revolutionary because it was just an improvement on the manual transmission. And, frankly, the latter offers more precise control and better fuel efficiency. But the former made automobiles much more "user friendly" for the masses. It revolutionized the way American society used cars. This, on a different scale, is what makes the iPod and iPhone revolutionary: not that they were the first ever in the world, or even the most full-featured, but they changed the way a large mass of people looked at the technology. That's a revolution.
The universe DOES recreate itself, each time stranger than before...
This the kind of thing Mac users have run into for decades. Most know -- or at least learn very quickly -- that you can't just walk into any old store that has a "software" department and expect to find Mac-compatible products. MAYBE some of the hardware is Mac-compatible (USB devices like printers, memory sticks, webcams, etc.) but software? "Rotsa ruck," as Scooby would say.
As has been amply noted elsewhere, Windows x64 is not exactly "mainstream". iTunes will undoubtably be 64-bit compatible in future (and very near, too), but Apple probably focused on other stuff first (like changing the landscape of the mobile phone industry).
I wouldn't mind the service fees so much if it dispensed chocolate bars with my money.
Anyway, FTA: "Mr Shepherd-Barron came up with the idea when he realised that he could remember his six-figure army number. But he decided to check that with his wife, Caroline. 'Over the kitchen table, she said she could only remember four figures, so because of her, four figures became the world standard,' he laughs." This is a great example of how simple, even mundane decision processes can affect millions, even billions of people. Imagine if he'd stayed with six digits, and people felt it was too hard? Or if he had gone with three, and everyone's account was easily hacked (relatively speaking)?
For some time now, China has been blocking sites like BBC News, CBS News, Wikipedia, WordPress, LiveJournal, U.S. Department of State, etc. I am surprised Slashdot is not on the list, bunch of freedom-loving Linux-huggers that we are.
In reading the actual findings, I'm a little confused. They fault one company for using "web beacons" and another for using "pixel tags" -- but those are the same thing, so why not be consistent in terminology? They fault Apple because it "kept quiet on the potential watermarking of DRM-free iTunes songs" when this topic only broke out within the last week, and there is zero evidence of actual watermarking (versus plain text additions of your name and email address -- yes, there is a difference). They fault AOL for preventing Mac users from viewing videos, but that's hardly a privacy concern (hello, competing video formats!). For Google, "Privacy mandate is not embedded throughout the company," whatever THAT means. Finally, a majority of the listed sites have no information listed in the categories of "responsiveness", "ethical compass", and "corporate leadership" -- so how can you adequately compare them to the bigger sites who have such information?
FTA:
Manchester Cathedral is private property, correct? It belongs to the Church of England? If so, and if you were going to show the interior of Manchester Cathedral (or any private property) in Doctor Who (or any television show or movie) I believe you have to seek permission of the property owner. Of course, if Sony were publishing a novel about it, I doubt the Church of England would care much -- but Sony has specifically aligned the game with video-based works rather than written fiction.
I think this is a valid consideration; however, it's hardly a "PC versus Mac" issue. You may face the same issue upgrading from one version of Windows to another, especially if you are leaping a whole generation. For example, a year or two ago, I helped a relative migrate from an older Windows 98 system to a new Windows XP system. Surprise -- there were no reliable drivers for his scanner. The scanner manufacturer had dropped support for that model and no longer kept the drivers updated. So he went out and bought a new scanner.
And this is hardly limited to hardware. There are some real screwball formatting issues with old versions of Microsoft Word versus new versions (same OS or not)... and let's not reopen some old QuarkXPress upgrade wounds, shall we?
It's called "working offline". I work for an international organization that is moving more and more of our systems to be web-based, but there are a lot of times you simply don't have Internet access. If there was a way to maintain usability of these apps, even when you're in the Bolivian mountains or rural Ethiopia, then sync up when you get back to an Internet connection... that would be great. Sure, we could write our own standalone apps but we have a multitude of OS's to consider (Windows, Mac OS X, Linux). It would be easier to standardize on a browser across all platforms and go from there. Using DHTML/Javascript/CSS/AJAX/Web 2.0/Buzzword 2007 would be simpler for our global I.T. staff to manage than Java or other multiplatform coding platforms.
I submitted this article, largely because it is of personal interest. I do a lot of communications-related work for nonprofit organizations (U.S. and international) and I know how hard these people work to raise money. So when scientists come along and say, "Look, people are predisposed to be generous/altruistic!", I feel like asking the old question from those Wendy's commercials: where's the beef?
I think the fatal flaw in the research is that participants were responding to hypothetical and closely monitored situations. It cost them nothing (except a little time) to make an altruistic choice; there was no actual money involved. And when people are watching you make a choice, you tend to make the one that looks more acceptable. I'd like to see another test: send people $100 in the mail along with donation forms for a bunch of charities, and see how much money those charities get back via that form. Throw in the incentive of a matching donation program (e.g. for every dollar they donate, you will also donate a dollar). I would be shocked if people sent back a third of the money you sent them.
While I agree that the Creationist view of the world is generally a pile of steaming brown matter, I have to disagree with you on this:
Maybe I've just seen the worst of it, and maybe I am a jaded cynic, but after being part of the academic world for more than 30 years, I suggest that science is very frequently personal. Your average, random-sampled group of scientists will have as many bigots and self-promoters and assholes as an equally random group of Creationists (or any other group: Italians, homosexuals, diabetics, school kids, people who wear boxer shorts, Slashdot readers, etc.). Let's not pretend otherwise. Now, when faced with a common enemy (e.g. a Creationist), most scientists will team up to support each other, but that can be expected of most any group.
You are right: the MacBook Pro specifies the display being capable of 24 bits per pixel. My apologies for quoting the MacBook section before (vs. the MacBook Pro section).
Here is the full quote from the technical note:
It is not clear (to me, anyway) that "up to 24 bits per pixel" specifically refers to the capabilities of the monitor or the video subsystem. The last sentence specifically refers to the LCD monitor; however, the "24 bits" sentence may refer to the subsystem, e.g. if you plug in an external monitor you can get up to 24 bits of color, but the internal LCD supports "millions". You may be quite right, but the specific verbiage is not completely clear.
However, in possible support of your point, the section about iMacs from January 2006 says this:
(Emphasis added by me.)
In other words, Apple specifies that one iMac model has 6 bits per component color that is dithered to achieve "millions," while another has 8 bits per component to achieve the same thing. They simply don't specify this in the MacBook Pro description; they limit it to "millions of colors."