[Bill] Gates in an email to Mr. Belfiore asked why Apple's remote control had just six buttons. The standard Media Center remote from Microsoft has 39 buttons. (Mr. Belfiore's explanation: Front Row computers don't have TV or digital video recorder functions and thus don't need as many buttons.)
Typical Microsoft. I wonder when they'll realize that Windows XP is not appliance-ready? AFAIK, Media Center is just XP Pro with an extra app (the main Media Center app) installed. I've personally worked with XP Embedded (a componentized version of XP Professional) and it's a total BITCH. You have to hack it to make it "embedded" by setting registry settings, and installing things that click "OK" to modal dialogue boxes and so on. If I can't get XP Embedded working like an embedded appliance, what makes MS think that they can make a standard XP Pro installation work for the average consumer?
Media Center is great for people like me, and also people on Slashdot that don't foam at the mouth every time MS is mentioned, mumbling "Linux! Linux!!". It's also pretty awesome as a bedroom computerTV or for a dorm, but I just can't see it making significant inroads into the living room. Apple may change things somewhat by simplfying things, and so perhaps will the Xbox360, which is where I'm putting my money (not literally of couse).
TFA indicates that fairly warm surface temperatures are required for the particular technology they're working on. It relies on the ability to boil some refridgerant that boils at 67 degrees. It also mentions that the sea by the equator, plus or minus 20 degrees, is the appropriate place for this technology.
Therefore, it's not going to work in the Great Lakes, as I assume they're pretty damn cold most of the time! Might be wrong, but I doubt it....
Lack of funding or interest by management is, right now, on the reverse. CEOs and boards of directors are asking their CIOs if their tapes are safe, and if they encrypt the data. The answer is "give me the money" and then things change.
But it does take time, and companies do need money to invest in this. Without legislation, the road to change can be a long one and can depend as much on consumer interest than anything else...
A single block error could render an entire encrypted archive useless.
I no cryptographer, but I personally have worked with encryption standards that work on 64bit blocks. If that was corrupted, the rest of the data would be fine...
Also, I would propose that the problem of key management is less of a problem than the problem of unencrypted data out in the wild. If you lose it - who cares!
I'm getting fed up of these irresponsible companies backing up sensitive data with NO ENCRYPTION. We're talking about International companies here, sending plain-text data around on tapes. Sometimes, companies have been caught sending tapes through UPS!
It's realistic to expect that there is sensitive data out there - the answer is not to say "don't store my SSN", although that should certainly be restricted.
It seems to me that the answer is ENCRYPTION! Encrypt the data and you can back it up on fucking postcards and send it to my grandmother for all I care..
Anyway, could *someone* explain to me if it is the case that we used to only record hurricanes? From what I'm reading, that doesn't seem to be the case.
When I read the parent post, I just assumed they were referring to what I call "money" and didn't assume that they had actually purchased and stored several ounces of a precious metal.
Its been over 48hrs and they still can't produce a patch.
My guess would be that they HAVE produced a patch and they did it very quickly indeed. However, there is a balance of risks they need to consider. On the one hand, releasing too quickly (without adequate regression testing) risks breaking a whole bunch of other stuff. On the other hand, releasing too slow risks infections, bad press, etc.
When you have such a huge OS and huge installed-base, you have to be really careful.
All software has bugs, and even if the quality of the free libraries is ten times higher (unlikely) there will still be plenty of memory tramplings and buffer overruns.
One of the things about Open Source code that *may* make it of a higher quality is that it can be peer-reviewed. If you, as a user, want to make sure that Apache is safe you can go through the source code. Of course, most people would never do this and we shouldn't expect them to. However, if a large company like IBM says "hey, let's use Apache", it has the resources to go through the code, fix it (if needed), and then submit the patches back to the project. This benefits everyone.
The script kiddies aren't the ones finding the flaws, they are just using the knowledge gained from others to attack people/computers. Those actually finding the flaws are intelligent, determined, and often misguided people that would have little trouble switching to a different OS. In fact, I'd bet that it would be a welcome challenge...
The theory of ID on its own makes no claim as to whom this being might be, what its motives were, or how we should regard it.
Phew, because if ID were to say "God did it" then it would be unconstitutional to teach it in public school science classrooms. It's so FORTUNATE that the controversial ID book "Of Pandas and People" doesn't mention Creationism at all! Then we can call it a science, and put it in the science classroom. (sigh) This is what has happened so far in this whole mess.
The judge in the Dover school board case was shown evidence that showed that "Of Pandas and People" was Creationism, rebadged. Please read the following link.
"According to documents released in a 2005 court case in Pennsylvania, the outcome of the case prompted major editorial changes to the book. It was initially focused entirely on creationism but was extensively edited to refer to "intelligent design" instead. The first draft was called Creation Biology (1983); the next was Biology and Creation (1986); the third, Biology and Origin (1987); and later in 1987, the authors settled on the final title, Of Pandas and People. [3] They also deleted more than 250 references to "creationism" and the "creator" and replaced them in the final version with "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer.""
One can teach intelligent design without bringing the Chrisitian God, Buddha, Allah or whoever's teachings into it.
Good idea! By doing that we could bring it back into the classroom as a "science" and that would get around some pesky Constitutional Amendment that doesn't allow us to teach religion (or creationism) in public school science classrooms. Maybe we could modify an old book about Creationism, change every instance of "creationism" with "Intelligent Design", call the book "of pandas and people" and lobby school boards to get it into the science classroom!
Rant aside, please read the link and research the history of Intelligent Design. It is rebadged Creationism-lite Pseudoscience. As a theory, it's entirely valid in Theology or in private schools far away from my tax dollars.
Most of them *do* have an open mind. But they require decent scientific theories do actually consider. Intelligent Design is the weakest theory around, and it's not science. You can't pitch a scientific theory against something that is not a scientific theory.
ID is better explored in philosophy or theology (where is used to be before it was rebadged as ID).
Remember the period table 50 years ago had less elements than they do now
They may be true but it doesn't matter! Good scientists would have assumed that more elements may be found, given that they kept finding them! Intelligent design says, "I don't understand that - it looks way too tricky and complicated - God must have done it! Hooray for God, I was just *looking* for something to credit Him with".
I am sure that some Religious fundaments will call this ruling of some crazy liberal judge.
This "liberal" judge was appointed to the bench by someone you might have heard of - George W. Bush - in 2002. You're correct that some are calling him an activist judge, but I imagine that will be limited in scope given that he's a Bush appointee.
Science is not guaranteed to be absolute truth, science is a process of observations and finding a theory that best fits the observation, if a pattern cannot be found it is called random.
No it isn't. Some simply say "we have not yet found a pattern - more study is required". When you assign "random" occurrences to God instead of just accepting your lack of understanding, then I believe that you're looking for validation of your belief. It's easier to believe in something when you can assign events or circumstances to it. "I don't understand lightning and therefore it must be that God is angry at us". But wait - it's just something to do with clouds n' ice n' stuff. Man I feel silly...
I'm not religious myself, but am very glad that others have found a faith that makes them happy. All that I ask is that thoey leave me alone, stop trying to "save" me, and also leave science alone.
Unless it has a 7,200rpm hard drive in it - I doubt it does - then it's absolutely nowhere near being a desktop replacement. As far as my experience with laptops/desktops goes, the biggest reason for a "slow" laptop has nothing to do with the CPU - it's all disk-bound and the hard drive is the major limiting factor.
You might be right, but the benchmarks do seem to indicate that this is a fair statement to make. Do you have any benchmarks, tests or information to the contrary?
I tend to agree with you on this, but there is another side to it. Even with the tax breaks, it's still more expensive to have kids than to *not* have kids. So if the tax breaks were eliminated then it would be more + more expensive! Why should you care? Well, if like me you don't plan on having children, then you should care because the population needs to be replaced and someone needs to pay taxes when you're old and grey. You really don't want to be like Italy (I think) where the population is declining and there will be hardly anyone left when you're retired.
I can't believe you were modded "flamebait" when all you did was give an account of your experience installing software, and some other opinions. It's sad that most people moderate based on whether the post happens to agree with their opinions or bias.
Also, OSX is not Linux-based - it's BSD-based AFAIK...
I assume you're a US citizen? If so, what laws would *you* follow if you went on vacation or decided to do business in Europe? US law?
"Sorry Mr French police officer, but you cannot arrest me as I actually *am* allowed to turn right on a red light. I'm from California and it's allowed!".:)
Slashdot Mirror
Typical Microsoft. I wonder when they'll realize that Windows XP is not appliance-ready? AFAIK, Media Center is just XP Pro with an extra app (the main Media Center app) installed. I've personally worked with XP Embedded (a componentized version of XP Professional) and it's a total BITCH. You have to hack it to make it "embedded" by setting registry settings, and installing things that click "OK" to modal dialogue boxes and so on. If I can't get XP Embedded working like an embedded appliance, what makes MS think that they can make a standard XP Pro installation work for the average consumer?
Media Center is great for people like me, and also people on Slashdot that don't foam at the mouth every time MS is mentioned, mumbling "Linux! Linux!!". It's also pretty awesome as a bedroom computerTV or for a dorm, but I just can't see it making significant inroads into the living room. Apple may change things somewhat by simplfying things, and so perhaps will the Xbox360, which is where I'm putting my money (not literally of couse).
Therefore, it's not going to work in the Great Lakes, as I assume they're pretty damn cold most of the time! Might be wrong, but I doubt it....
But it does take time, and companies do need money to invest in this. Without legislation, the road to change can be a long one and can depend as much on consumer interest than anything else...
I no cryptographer, but I personally have worked with encryption standards that work on 64bit blocks. If that was corrupted, the rest of the data would be fine...
Also, I would propose that the problem of key management is less of a problem than the problem of unencrypted data out in the wild. If you lose it - who cares!
It's realistic to expect that there is sensitive data out there - the answer is not to say "don't store my SSN", although that should certainly be restricted.
It seems to me that the answer is ENCRYPTION! Encrypt the data and you can back it up on fucking postcards and send it to my grandmother for all I care..
I'm glad we use Celcius now - if we used Farenheit, the increase would have been *much* larger.
Anyway, could *someone* explain to me if it is the case that we used to only record hurricanes? From what I'm reading, that doesn't seem to be the case.
When I read the parent post, I just assumed they were referring to what I call "money" and didn't assume that they had actually purchased and stored several ounces of a precious metal.
That's just me though...
My guess would be that they HAVE produced a patch and they did it very quickly indeed. However, there is a balance of risks they need to consider. On the one hand, releasing too quickly (without adequate regression testing) risks breaking a whole bunch of other stuff. On the other hand, releasing too slow risks infections, bad press, etc.
When you have such a huge OS and huge installed-base, you have to be really careful.
One of the things about Open Source code that *may* make it of a higher quality is that it can be peer-reviewed. If you, as a user, want to make sure that Apache is safe you can go through the source code. Of course, most people would never do this and we shouldn't expect them to. However, if a large company like IBM says "hey, let's use Apache", it has the resources to go through the code, fix it (if needed), and then submit the patches back to the project. This benefits everyone.
That's the theory anyway...
The script kiddies aren't the ones finding the flaws, they are just using the knowledge gained from others to attack people/computers. Those actually finding the flaws are intelligent, determined, and often misguided people that would have little trouble switching to a different OS. In fact, I'd bet that it would be a welcome challenge...
"Go fuck yourself"
Phew, because if ID were to say "God did it" then it would be unconstitutional to teach it in public school science classrooms. It's so FORTUNATE that the controversial ID book "Of Pandas and People" doesn't mention Creationism at all! Then we can call it a science, and put it in the science classroom. (sigh) This is what has happened so far in this whole mess.
The judge in the Dover school board case was shown evidence that showed that "Of Pandas and People" was Creationism, rebadged. Please read the following link.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_pandas_and_people
"According to documents released in a 2005 court case in Pennsylvania, the outcome of the case prompted major editorial changes to the book. It was initially focused entirely on creationism but was extensively edited to refer to "intelligent design" instead. The first draft was called Creation Biology (1983); the next was Biology and Creation (1986); the third, Biology and Origin (1987); and later in 1987, the authors settled on the final title, Of Pandas and People. [3] They also deleted more than 250 references to "creationism" and the "creator" and replaced them in the final version with "intelligent design" and "intelligent designer.""
This is also very good reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wedge_strategy
Good idea! By doing that we could bring it back into the classroom as a "science" and that would get around some pesky Constitutional Amendment that doesn't allow us to teach religion (or creationism) in public school science classrooms. Maybe we could modify an old book about Creationism, change every instance of "creationism" with "Intelligent Design", call the book "of pandas and people" and lobby school boards to get it into the science classroom!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Of_pandas_and_people
Rant aside, please read the link and research the history of Intelligent Design. It is rebadged Creationism-lite Pseudoscience. As a theory, it's entirely valid in Theology or in private schools far away from my tax dollars.
JESUS CHRIST people - get with the times!!!!!!!
Most of them *do* have an open mind. But they require decent scientific theories do actually consider. Intelligent Design is the weakest theory around, and it's not science. You can't pitch a scientific theory against something that is not a scientific theory.
ID is better explored in philosophy or theology (where is used to be before it was rebadged as ID).
Remember the period table 50 years ago had less elements than they do now
They may be true but it doesn't matter! Good scientists would have assumed that more elements may be found, given that they kept finding them! Intelligent design says, "I don't understand that - it looks way too tricky and complicated - God must have done it! Hooray for God, I was just *looking* for something to credit Him with".
This "liberal" judge was appointed to the bench by someone you might have heard of - George W. Bush - in 2002. You're correct that some are calling him an activist judge, but I imagine that will be limited in scope given that he's a Bush appointee.
Science is not guaranteed to be absolute truth, science is a process of observations and finding a theory that best fits the observation, if a pattern cannot be found it is called random.
No it isn't. Some simply say "we have not yet found a pattern - more study is required". When you assign "random" occurrences to God instead of just accepting your lack of understanding, then I believe that you're looking for validation of your belief. It's easier to believe in something when you can assign events or circumstances to it. "I don't understand lightning and therefore it must be that God is angry at us". But wait - it's just something to do with clouds n' ice n' stuff. Man I feel silly...
I'm not religious myself, but am very glad that others have found a faith that makes them happy. All that I ask is that thoey leave me alone, stop trying to "save" me, and also leave science alone.
You must have a 32 bit brain or something...
Unless it has a 7,200rpm hard drive in it - I doubt it does - then it's absolutely nowhere near being a desktop replacement. As far as my experience with laptops/desktops goes, the biggest reason for a "slow" laptop has nothing to do with the CPU - it's all disk-bound and the hard drive is the major limiting factor.
You might be right, but the benchmarks do seem to indicate that this is a fair statement to make. Do you have any benchmarks, tests or information to the contrary?
I tend to agree with you on this, but there is another side to it. Even with the tax breaks, it's still more expensive to have kids than to *not* have kids. So if the tax breaks were eliminated then it would be more + more expensive! Why should you care? Well, if like me you don't plan on having children, then you should care because the population needs to be replaced and someone needs to pay taxes when you're old and grey. You really don't want to be like Italy (I think) where the population is declining and there will be hardly anyone left when you're retired.
Tons of governments right now run a surplus. Take a look at any oil-exporting country and you have a government running a surplus...
Also, OSX is not Linux-based - it's BSD-based AFAIK...
"Sorry Mr French police officer, but you cannot arrest me as I actually *am* allowed to turn right on a red light. I'm from California and it's allowed!". :)
When in Rome...