There had better be some incentives for housing that kind data. For a busy ISP, that would mean GBs and GBs of data. Where's it going to be stored and who's going to pay for it?
Those are good points. I understand the need for admin authentication when installing some types of software. But the problem is that people have been desensitized to the reason why they need to enter the admin password. Education is needed.
I am a big supporter of Little Snitch. It let's me know when ever a program tries call home or anywhere else. Most programs try to call home to check version numbers and such. Little Snitch lets me see where they are going, so I can investigate the address, and provides me with a way to allow it once, until the program stops, or forever. I can even deny the same way. If I want the program to see if a newer version is available it should be configurable in the Preferences. Nothing should call out without express permission and including the statement in the EULA does not count. GAIN comes to mind...
Does it matter? The point is that there exists a method of performing checks on files to help ensure the validity of those files. Whether people use those techniques or not is beside the point.
It would be great if people would incorporate such technology into the installers. But until that day comes, people will continue to install software without validating it.
It's basically the same thing. That's why it's important to know exactly what you are installing, where it came from, etc. Checking the checksum values are also an effective way of validating a program/distribution. It's not perfect but it's better than nothing at all.
The primary problem with OS X is the indiscriminate use of the administrative password. Mac users are so used to typing in that password that if an installation ask for it the user automatically types it in. Instant root-kit installation. Now, let's see if Symantec, with all their ridiculous doom and gloom crap, detects it.
I totally agree with you. NASA was always one of those organizations who inspired young people, myself included, to study science so that they could understand how scientist unravelled the mysteries of the universe.
I suppose the really sad thing is how NASA has become so unfocused in their endeavors these past 15-20 years.
It's sad that this may have to happen. Some of the most beautiful pictures ever taken were taken by Hubble. But, higher priorities have come up and Hubble must take a back seat to human life.
Actually, of all the movies listed, Dr. Strange is the only one that has the possibility of being a CG boom. I always read Dr. Strange. His story is the deepest of most of the comic heroes Marvel ever produced.
It promotes good coding practices both at the browser level and at the (X)HTML/CSS level. Why some browsers still (after all these years) do render various elements according to established standards is beyond me.
The "design for all browsers" paradigm isn't a good one. It promotes the use of non-compliant browsers. It's much better to design to the standards no matter what.
It's good to see that you're moving on to something more modern. HTML 3.2 is very antiquated and isn't CSS friendly. It would more work to move to XHTML 1.0 Transitional but I would think that it would pay off big dividends in the future.
This was started when hard drives became reasonably price and companies saw that selling to the masses was extremely profitable. I remember buying hard drives that told what their actual byte count was on the box. Seagate, Quantum and Western Digital come to mind.
Unfortunately, these companies handed their technical information over to marketing who must have felt that it was better to dumb-down the information so that people would understand it more easily.
I think the average consumer would be more impressed with "1 GB = 1,073,741,824 bytes" instead of "1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes". If the average consumer wants to know why, let them become more educated.
Traditionally, hard drives were only sold to computer savvy people (e.g. IT professional, small business computer shops, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
Now that's a scary thought!
There had better be some incentives for housing that kind data. For a busy ISP, that would mean GBs and GBs of data. Where's it going to be stored and who's going to pay for it?
If one tries to validate the HTML via W3 one will get a 403 forbidden.
Those are good points. I understand the need for admin authentication when installing some types of software. But the problem is that people have been desensitized to the reason why they need to enter the admin password. Education is needed.
I am a big supporter of Little Snitch. It let's me know when ever a program tries call home or anywhere else. Most programs try to call home to check version numbers and such. Little Snitch lets me see where they are going, so I can investigate the address, and provides me with a way to allow it once, until the program stops, or forever. I can even deny the same way. If I want the program to see if a newer version is available it should be configurable in the Preferences. Nothing should call out without express permission and including the statement in the EULA does not count. GAIN comes to mind...
Does it matter? The point is that there exists a method of performing checks on files to help ensure the validity of those files. Whether people use those techniques or not is beside the point.
It would be great if people would incorporate such technology into the installers. But until that day comes, people will continue to install software without validating it.It's basically the same thing. That's why it's important to know exactly what you are installing, where it came from, etc. Checking the checksum values are also an effective way of validating a program/distribution. It's not perfect but it's better than nothing at all.
The primary problem with OS X is the indiscriminate use of the administrative password. Mac users are so used to typing in that password that if an installation ask for it the user automatically types it in. Instant root-kit installation. Now, let's see if Symantec, with all their ridiculous doom and gloom crap, detects it.
I totally agree with you. NASA was always one of those organizations who inspired young people, myself included, to study science so that they could understand how scientist unravelled the mysteries of the universe.
I suppose the really sad thing is how NASA has become so unfocused in their endeavors these past 15-20 years.
It's sad that this may have to happen. Some of the most beautiful pictures ever taken were taken by Hubble. But, higher priorities have come up and Hubble must take a back seat to human life.
Redundant? That's a first! I don't see how but this is /. you know.
Yeah, and monkeys might fly out my butt!
He was good, too. A bit on the moody side but well worth reading.
Actually, of all the movies listed, Dr. Strange is the only one that has the possibility of being a CG boom. I always read Dr. Strange. His story is the deepest of most of the comic heroes Marvel ever produced.
Free as in "free to move about in shackles".
That's a good point. Maybe I should have stated that as you did, "isn't as CSS-friendly..."
Thanks.
It promotes good coding practices both at the browser level and at the (X)HTML/CSS level. Why some browsers still (after all these years) do render various elements according to established standards is beyond me.
There already appears to be a problem with validating Slashcode.com's HTML 4.01 Strict main page.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2FwwThe "design for all browsers" paradigm isn't a good one. It promotes the use of non-compliant browsers. It's much better to design to the standards no matter what.
It's good to see that you're moving on to something more modern. HTML 3.2 is very antiquated and isn't CSS friendly. It would more work to move to XHTML 1.0 Transitional but I would think that it would pay off big dividends in the future.
This was started when hard drives became reasonably price and companies saw that selling to the masses was extremely profitable. I remember buying hard drives that told what their actual byte count was on the box. Seagate, Quantum and Western Digital come to mind.
Unfortunately, these companies handed their technical information over to marketing who must have felt that it was better to dumb-down the information so that people would understand it more easily.
I think the average consumer would be more impressed with "1 GB = 1,073,741,824 bytes" instead of "1 GB = 1,000,000,000 bytes". If the average consumer wants to know why, let them become more educated.
Traditionally, hard drives were only sold to computer savvy people (e.g. IT professional, small business computer shops, etc.).Another graduate of the Sally Fields School of Mass Marketing Technology!
From the article: