So how often will I be able to change my mind before I have to reactivate? As many times as you want. Unless you get a lobotomy, or a sex change operation, of course. But those details are in the fine print of the EULA.
Now, if you lose your mind, you have to buy another one. Ain't technology great?
"HEY EVERYONE! I'M REALLY ANGRY BECAUSE I READ A HEADLINE ON A NERD TABLOID SITE WITH LESS-THAN-STELLAR JOURNALISM! I'M CANCELING MY ACCOUNT AND REPORTING BLIZZARD TO THE POLICE, THE CIA, AND NATO! WE MUST TAKE ACTION NOW AGAINST THIS GRIEVOUS INJUSTICE!"
The problem is most people just say things instead of actually doing them. Moderating such comments up is a way of supporting such sentiments. I think there's a special set of emo-nerds around here who read a particular article on technology and manage to start frothing at the teeth about it before they manage to hit the submit button.
There won't be a single API that is maintained. Inevitably such a project will eventually fork because one of the chief maintainers will go crazy because someone deviated from using the correct brace style.
As quaint as it sounds, I'm a big fan of static linking when it comes to APIs that are not a part of the base operating system. This is probably because I expect the user to lose each and every related dependency, configuration file, and other random file that my app needs to run. You don't know how nice it is to have a single executable file that you know will run on most everyone's computer without any problems. I will gladly take slightly larger executable size in exchange for this. The biggest problem with static linking is that your program won't benefit from updates to the libraries because they're statically linked in. Only you can determine whether that is acceptable or not, based on how often the library is updated, the nature of the updates, and your application's attack surface.
I really hope that people who want to program for the phone be extra careful. A few security slip-ups can easily result in customers getting charged outrageous data fees, provider networks being saturated with worms, and cellular providers having second thoughts about the whole thing.
Looks like Ballmer's poor attempt at creating a reality distortion field, particularly with the, "Windows Mobile rules the phone scene" comment. Seriously, does it now? Or do you just wish it does, Ballmer?
I suppose if CEOs were made to be reasonable and only say truthful things that they wouldn't say very much after all.
This site is an excellent example of how people don't deal with cognitive dissonance very well. All you need to do is look at articles that paint popular companies in a slightly bad light. Rather than try to reconcile the fact that something they like did something they don't like, they just try to rationalize it away. There's always someone that leaps to the front with a carefully constructed, big-ass explanation of why this issue is overblown, or it isn't an issue at all. It is almost like they're on the payroll for said companies. In more extreme cases, the apologist may be forced to concede that the act was bad, but they can always backpedal and say, "well, at least they aren't murdering puppies all the time like this other company!" Ah, nothing like capitalizing on the popularity of moral relativism to make weak arguments.
...often the reality is much simpler and mundane... What are you doing bringing reality into this? We're trying to film the nerd equivalent of 90210 here, and you barge in with your 'reality' like it actually means something!
why care SO much that you HOPE people end up being unhappy? don't you worry there's something wrong with you? Funny how everyone here hopes that the general public is unhappy with Vista so they will switch to something else, and nobody sees that as abnormal. But, if you have the gall to hate something that is en vogue, then all of the sudden there's something wrong with you.
I'm not a fan of Vista, I'm just saying you can't have it both ways and expect that it makes logical sense.
They are desperately trying to put the web back in the original box they intended it to be in which is people without access to the latest version of the full Win32 API, and an X86 processor will be denied access to all online content. Care to cite your sources on this? I'm curious why they care so much about the processor type.
Actually, I generally think IT is caught in a spiral of downward mediocrity driven by users who demand more silly features, pretty graphics, and aren't willing to pay for bugfixes, engineers who don't take their job seriously enough, and management who doesn't understand what is going on most of the time. The whole industry is very immature and quality is the exception, not the norm. I'm not okay with that. It is absurd that most of the applications we use nowadays don't feel significantly faster than they did 5 years ago, despite the huge increase in RAM and processor speed.
All that said, I have a good life outside of software development, and I don't see the point in bitching on a website because people don't run my choice of operating system. Really, your choice of OS doesn't matter that much, because technology doesn't matter that much in life. I've stopped giving two shits whether people say good or bad things about what OS I run. It doesn't matter at all. I get my work done, and I do it well. I enjoy computing, most of the time, and I'm able to express myself. I don't need to have other people agree with me to feel validated. 99% of people will use what gets the job done and stop there. That is a perfectly acceptable use of the technology, despite what you might think.
If you want to join a religion, then find a religion. Don't make open source your religion just for the sake of needing to be a part of something bigger.
Wait, given that Java is Sun's baby, why does Apple have to provide anything? Java 6's lack of inclusion in Leopard just means that Apple doesn't want to keep up with it anymore. I'm pretty sure they announced they weren't going to maintain the Java bindings any longer, so that is why they didn't include it.
Why should it be included with the base OS? Some customers may prefer not to have the bloated JVM automatically installed.
Why can't people be more moderate? Because people at this site attach exaggerated importance to the choice of one's operating system when it really doesn't matter. Additionally, extremist viewpoints are rewarded with mod points, so there's little point in being moderate, because you won't get attention. Since there are so many voices, recognition becomes a coveted thing.
That said, intelligence and dogmatism (about technology) usually don't run hand-in-hand. Technology is about solving problems, not getting into pissing matches about your preferred technology. Unfortunately, few people seem to be able to see beyond themselves.
... so if Leopard trusts the service (it's a root process, or it's signed with an acceptable crypto signature), it will have access through the firewall. Since Leopard ships with cryptographically-signed binaries/packages, I guess I'm not seeing the problem - if Jo(e)-evil-cracker already has 'root' on the system, the firewall isn't going to help save the system, after all... Perhaps Heise are just used to using Linux, where the firewall trumps all ? And what happens in the event the trust system is subverted somehow? Either the user accidentally trusts malware, or malware manages to squeeze itself in, what would the user do? The only option they have left is to pull the network connection. At least with a real firewall, a savvy user can lock down their machine and safely investigate further.
You could argue that the 'Block all incoming connections' is badly worded, but you could argue that reading the documentation for a new firewall would be a useful thing to do as well. I thought the appeal of Apple was that Things Just Work and it is so intuitive you don't have read the documentation? This is a major bug. Don't try to downplay it like its no big deal. Security is always a big deal. I thought we all learned that from the countless Windows worms?
I'm not sure how anyone can be against this, as long as people know it isn't explicitly supported by Apple, and the people doing this buy copies of the operating system.
I don't care how many features the program has. If it can't keep up with my rate of typing, it is a worthless text editor. There are these great things called threads that let you do work off of the UI thread and keep it uncontested. If the IDE programmers are so inept that they cannot do this, then I'm not touching it. And that includes garbage collection. There is NO reason a GC should halt the UI thread. Making the application unresponsive for 5-10 seconds occasionally is extremely rude and disrupts the programmer's flow. I find it sad that people put up with this crap and actually defend it.
It is crappy engineering all around. Using a language that is not suited for the desktop, with a memory management system that is not tailored for the particular needs of the application, failing to delegate tasks that assist the programmer to secondary threads, and then consuming large chunks of RAM. Gee, what a great product!
Don't worry, the next version of Java will fix all that, you'll only have to wait another year for it to be released, and it will probably not be compatible with anything that's out there. Actually, it probably won't fix what you're talking about, but everyone will say it will and hand-wave your argument away because RAM is cheap.
Yeah, good point. However, the whole thing is still highly repulsive, and I wish MS didn't give software developers so many ways to screw over your system.
Not quite. I don't believe in a grand conspiracy or anything silly like that. But I do see absolutely asinine comments that contribute nothing to the discussion and are based purely on anecdotal or otherwise unreliable (e.g. unscientific) knowledge be moderated up simply because they are praising the Corporate Flavor of the Month. And I see other comments that are making actual, valid points be lost in the shuffle sometimes.
There is too much favoritism based upon whether the moderator/follow-up posters like the subject being discussed. The actual point is not as important. I suppose this is the price we pay for not actually reading the article and being informed: knowledge is nice to have, but not essential when discussing things. I notice you did not address this point in my post and am curious to know what you think about it. I'm not sure why this sort of intellectual laziness is tolerated so much around here. It only reinforces my point that much of the 'discussion' that goes on here is founded on emotional, anecdotal grounds.
And it is still a terrible idea. You can make very few safe assumptions about the target process. You don't know the state of the heap, so you have to use your own heap for that thread. You don't know the base address for DLLs, so you have to use only kernel32.dll functions (and that is luck that it always loads at the same base address for every process).
But the absolute worst part about CreateRemoteThread() isn't the fact that it does what it says. It is the simple fact that you need to actually inject your thread function into the target process. That is, you need to copy the assembly necessary to run your thread into the target process. WriteProcessMemory() is an API call that will get you flagged as malware by a lot of AV utilities, but is necessary to use CreateRemoteThread().
Oh please, you don't need to look hard to see what comments get moderated up on this site. Groupthink is strong here, whether you notice it or not. Say the right thing and you'll be rewarded with meaningless moderation points, and a bunch of "me too" responses. Throw in some classic Slashdot cliches to really fit in, and you'll do great. People would rather devolve every discussion into this needlessly epic "us vs. them" debate so they can justify their dogma. I'm not terribly surprised though, given that people pride themselves on not reading articles here. Knowing that, who wants their kudos anyway?
Overall the "there's more than one person here" argument is something you can say to feel better, but that doesn't make it true.
It is sad that a site that bills itself as "news for nerds" is inhabited by people that enjoy being ill-informed when discussing these topics. If there's anyone that should read the articles, it'd be people here. Instead, everyone would rather contribute to the overall noise level and spout the same opinion thats been repeated fifty other times.
Where'd you go? You insisted that unlocking phones was something only a small, insignificant portion of the population did. Then Apple turns around and says something like this.
Slashdot Mirror
Now, if you lose your mind, you have to buy another one. Ain't technology great?
How else are people going to get moderated up?
"HEY EVERYONE! I'M REALLY ANGRY BECAUSE I READ A HEADLINE ON A NERD TABLOID SITE WITH LESS-THAN-STELLAR JOURNALISM! I'M CANCELING MY ACCOUNT AND REPORTING BLIZZARD TO THE POLICE, THE CIA, AND NATO! WE MUST TAKE ACTION NOW AGAINST THIS GRIEVOUS INJUSTICE!"
The problem is most people just say things instead of actually doing them. Moderating such comments up is a way of supporting such sentiments. I think there's a special set of emo-nerds around here who read a particular article on technology and manage to start frothing at the teeth about it before they manage to hit the submit button.
There won't be a single API that is maintained. Inevitably such a project will eventually fork because one of the chief maintainers will go crazy because someone deviated from using the correct brace style.
As quaint as it sounds, I'm a big fan of static linking when it comes to APIs that are not a part of the base operating system. This is probably because I expect the user to lose each and every related dependency, configuration file, and other random file that my app needs to run. You don't know how nice it is to have a single executable file that you know will run on most everyone's computer without any problems. I will gladly take slightly larger executable size in exchange for this. The biggest problem with static linking is that your program won't benefit from updates to the libraries because they're statically linked in. Only you can determine whether that is acceptable or not, based on how often the library is updated, the nature of the updates, and your application's attack surface.
I really hope that people who want to program for the phone be extra careful. A few security slip-ups can easily result in customers getting charged outrageous data fees, provider networks being saturated with worms, and cellular providers having second thoughts about the whole thing.
Precisely!
Hey, wait a sec...
Looks like Ballmer's poor attempt at creating a reality distortion field, particularly with the, "Windows Mobile rules the phone scene" comment. Seriously, does it now? Or do you just wish it does, Ballmer?
I suppose if CEOs were made to be reasonable and only say truthful things that they wouldn't say very much after all.
This site is an excellent example of how people don't deal with cognitive dissonance very well. All you need to do is look at articles that paint popular companies in a slightly bad light. Rather than try to reconcile the fact that something they like did something they don't like, they just try to rationalize it away. There's always someone that leaps to the front with a carefully constructed, big-ass explanation of why this issue is overblown, or it isn't an issue at all. It is almost like they're on the payroll for said companies. In more extreme cases, the apologist may be forced to concede that the act was bad, but they can always backpedal and say, "well, at least they aren't murdering puppies all the time like this other company!" Ah, nothing like capitalizing on the popularity of moral relativism to make weak arguments.
...often the reality is much simpler and mundane... What are you doing bringing reality into this? We're trying to film the nerd equivalent of 90210 here, and you barge in with your 'reality' like it actually means something!I'm not a fan of Vista, I'm just saying you can't have it both ways and expect that it makes logical sense.
Meta-sarcasm considered harmful? Or at least undetectable...
I'll bite.
Actually, I generally think IT is caught in a spiral of downward mediocrity driven by users who demand more silly features, pretty graphics, and aren't willing to pay for bugfixes, engineers who don't take their job seriously enough, and management who doesn't understand what is going on most of the time. The whole industry is very immature and quality is the exception, not the norm. I'm not okay with that. It is absurd that most of the applications we use nowadays don't feel significantly faster than they did 5 years ago, despite the huge increase in RAM and processor speed.
All that said, I have a good life outside of software development, and I don't see the point in bitching on a website because people don't run my choice of operating system. Really, your choice of OS doesn't matter that much, because technology doesn't matter that much in life. I've stopped giving two shits whether people say good or bad things about what OS I run. It doesn't matter at all. I get my work done, and I do it well. I enjoy computing, most of the time, and I'm able to express myself. I don't need to have other people agree with me to feel validated. 99% of people will use what gets the job done and stop there. That is a perfectly acceptable use of the technology, despite what you might think.
If you want to join a religion, then find a religion. Don't make open source your religion just for the sake of needing to be a part of something bigger.
Can someone explain to me the humor in this?
Wait, given that Java is Sun's baby, why does Apple have to provide anything? Java 6's lack of inclusion in Leopard just means that Apple doesn't want to keep up with it anymore. I'm pretty sure they announced they weren't going to maintain the Java bindings any longer, so that is why they didn't include it.
Why should it be included with the base OS? Some customers may prefer not to have the bloated JVM automatically installed.
That said, intelligence and dogmatism (about technology) usually don't run hand-in-hand. Technology is about solving problems, not getting into pissing matches about your preferred technology. Unfortunately, few people seem to be able to see beyond themselves.
... so if Leopard trusts the service (it's a root process, or it's signed with an acceptable crypto signature), it will have access through the firewall. Since Leopard ships with cryptographically-signed binaries/packages, I guess I'm not seeing the problem - if Jo(e)-evil-cracker already has 'root' on the system, the firewall isn't going to help save the system, after all... Perhaps Heise are just used to using Linux, where the firewall trumps all ? And what happens in the event the trust system is subverted somehow? Either the user accidentally trusts malware, or malware manages to squeeze itself in, what would the user do? The only option they have left is to pull the network connection. At least with a real firewall, a savvy user can lock down their machine and safely investigate further. You could argue that the 'Block all incoming connections' is badly worded, but you could argue that reading the documentation for a new firewall would be a useful thing to do as well. I thought the appeal of Apple was that Things Just Work and it is so intuitive you don't have read the documentation? This is a major bug. Don't try to downplay it like its no big deal. Security is always a big deal. I thought we all learned that from the countless Windows worms?I'm not sure how anyone can be against this, as long as people know it isn't explicitly supported by Apple, and the people doing this buy copies of the operating system.
I don't care how many features the program has. If it can't keep up with my rate of typing, it is a worthless text editor. There are these great things called threads that let you do work off of the UI thread and keep it uncontested. If the IDE programmers are so inept that they cannot do this, then I'm not touching it. And that includes garbage collection. There is NO reason a GC should halt the UI thread. Making the application unresponsive for 5-10 seconds occasionally is extremely rude and disrupts the programmer's flow. I find it sad that people put up with this crap and actually defend it.
It is crappy engineering all around. Using a language that is not suited for the desktop, with a memory management system that is not tailored for the particular needs of the application, failing to delegate tasks that assist the programmer to secondary threads, and then consuming large chunks of RAM. Gee, what a great product!
Don't worry, the next version of Java will fix all that, you'll only have to wait another year for it to be released, and it will probably not be compatible with anything that's out there. Actually, it probably won't fix what you're talking about, but everyone will say it will and hand-wave your argument away because RAM is cheap.
Wait, what about the parent is flamebait?
Oh, the fact he's making an unpopular comment about the corporate flavor of the month.
Yeah, good point. However, the whole thing is still highly repulsive, and I wish MS didn't give software developers so many ways to screw over your system.
Not quite. I don't believe in a grand conspiracy or anything silly like that. But I do see absolutely asinine comments that contribute nothing to the discussion and are based purely on anecdotal or otherwise unreliable (e.g. unscientific) knowledge be moderated up simply because they are praising the Corporate Flavor of the Month. And I see other comments that are making actual, valid points be lost in the shuffle sometimes.
There is too much favoritism based upon whether the moderator/follow-up posters like the subject being discussed. The actual point is not as important. I suppose this is the price we pay for not actually reading the article and being informed: knowledge is nice to have, but not essential when discussing things. I notice you did not address this point in my post and am curious to know what you think about it. I'm not sure why this sort of intellectual laziness is tolerated so much around here. It only reinforces my point that much of the 'discussion' that goes on here is founded on emotional, anecdotal grounds.
And it is still a terrible idea. You can make very few safe assumptions about the target process. You don't know the state of the heap, so you have to use your own heap for that thread. You don't know the base address for DLLs, so you have to use only kernel32.dll functions (and that is luck that it always loads at the same base address for every process).
But the absolute worst part about CreateRemoteThread() isn't the fact that it does what it says. It is the simple fact that you need to actually inject your thread function into the target process. That is, you need to copy the assembly necessary to run your thread into the target process. WriteProcessMemory() is an API call that will get you flagged as malware by a lot of AV utilities, but is necessary to use CreateRemoteThread().
Oh please, you don't need to look hard to see what comments get moderated up on this site. Groupthink is strong here, whether you notice it or not. Say the right thing and you'll be rewarded with meaningless moderation points, and a bunch of "me too" responses. Throw in some classic Slashdot cliches to really fit in, and you'll do great. People would rather devolve every discussion into this needlessly epic "us vs. them" debate so they can justify their dogma. I'm not terribly surprised though, given that people pride themselves on not reading articles here. Knowing that, who wants their kudos anyway?
Overall the "there's more than one person here" argument is something you can say to feel better, but that doesn't make it true.
It is sad that a site that bills itself as "news for nerds" is inhabited by people that enjoy being ill-informed when discussing these topics. If there's anyone that should read the articles, it'd be people here. Instead, everyone would rather contribute to the overall noise level and spout the same opinion thats been repeated fifty other times.
Where'd you go? You insisted that unlocking phones was something only a small, insignificant portion of the population did. Then Apple turns around and says something like this.
How'd that feel?