I'm not a big fan of Camino, but I will be using it unitl this exploit is fixed... I personally prefer Safari, becasue it looks like the finder. I wish all OSX apps had the brushed steel look.
Yep... I don't know why I wasn't even thinking of that when I originally posted. But that is just all the more reason why this is an important issue, and "worth a story."
I would guess the team (or more possibly even the individual) working on the "help" system probably didn't have security as their top priority. Infact, I would be suprised if they even thought about it.
I don't know about you, but I don't always take a look at my status bar before I click on a link. It is kind of nice to know such a exploit exists, because now I will be more careful (until Apple releases a patch). It is rediculous that a url can be used to execute malicious code.
On a related note, Safari is one of the best browsers I have ever used. I hope Apple releases a fix for this quickly.
It just doesn't make any sense in this case. If a stream of particles is coming towards the Earth, Earth's gravity will not cause those particles to veer off and miss the planet. Unless there is such a thing as negative mass, gravity is always attractive.
Umm... Why would a massive body like Earth "deflect" particles (which have mass) with gravity? I'm not a physicist either, but as far as I know gravity causes atraction, not deflection.
Were you also disappointed by the N64 Zelda games?
No, because they seemed reasonable given the technology in the N64. If they could have used cel-shading, it would have made them better games I would think. I certainly wasn't let down by those games, because it wasn't until I saw Wind Waker that I realized how cool Zelda could look.
If you liked Wind Waker _because_ of the cel shading, then you're an exception.
I liked Wind Waker because it had awsome game play. However, the only reason I bought a GameCube was to play Wind Waker, and the only reason I wanted to play it was because of the awsome graphics. Once I had it, I loved it for other reasons. The graphics combined with the story, and the gameplay made it my favorite Zelda game of all time (maybe tied with Link to the Past).
I did, and I meant it. I saw the trailer, and I wasn't impressed at all. The graphics are any better than any other game out there that tries to be "realistic." I don't see why real == better. Especially on the GameCube, where the hardware just isn't up to the task of making it actually look real. I loved the fact that wind waker embraced the technology they had and gave it character. Zelda is a fantasy game, and giving it a cartoon feel seemed to fit in well in my opinion.
Like I said before, none of this will keep me from playing the new game, I just hope they go back to cel shading in future versions. Zelda isn't real, why should it look it?
I don't understand why a "realistic" Zelda game is a good idea. Wind Waker was awesome because it looked and felt like a cartoon. I'm still going to buy it when it comes out, because Nintendo doesn't make bad Zelda games. Despite the down grade in graphics, I'm sure the game play will be top notch as always.
On the plus side, fighting from the horse seems like an awesome idea.
I'm sorry, I was just a little put off by your suggestion that we just go do some more research. There has been lots of research that suggests that we are having an impact on gloabl climate change, but plenty of people just flat out reject it. Why go do some more research to try to prove we are affecting our climate? When instead we can accept the research which has already been done that suggests CO2 emissions and other green house gases contribute to global warming, and refocus our research on something productive, like say reducing said emissions.
How much more time do we have to spend convincing the public that we mere humans actually have the power to affect our environment?
Here's the thing:
We have research that suggests a trend towards global warming
Global warming is bad for us (rising sea levels, eratic weather patterns, etc.).
We have research that suggests that we contribute to global warming.
Conclusion: Even if we are not the direct cause of the trend, perhaps we should be finding ways to slow/stop it rather than encourage it?
I definitely agree that lower emissions is not a bad idea.
Are we causing our demise by driving around? No. Factories killing us? No. Do those things contribute? Sure!
So you admit that they contribute, but you don't think they are a problem? If you have enough "contributions" they eventually add up to some nasty effects.
Now stop the panic and go do more research.
Hey great idea! Maybe we can finish the research just in time to show conclusive evidence that we did indeed mess up our planet beyond repair. Or maybe we could just try to cut down on those "contributions" now, until we can convince you crack pots that we are a danger to our environment.
Oh, I hear you now... I was just coming at this assuming that they actually knew how to do this effectively at the application layer (since they claim to). I personally would think that this would be very difficult to pull off at that layer for reasons similar to what you mentioned (Not to mention the complete lack of control of when a packet is sent out over something like TCP).
I suppose that perhaps their "applications" are just built right on top of IP (or some other network protocol), which is kind of bogus if you ask me.
Do you realize that Wi-Fi goes over the unlicesed 2.4GHz band? Wi-Fi isn't the only thing that uses it either (there are protable phones, bluetooth, etc.). Even if they didn't, how can you predict statically how often you are going to have collisions with other Wi-Fi devices? The interference is very random, and depends completely on what else is using the frequency band.
Well actually I wasn't being clear about what I meant by routing. Technically routing is done in overlay networks, but the routing is through a virtual network, not the real network it is built over. What I meant was that at the application layer you really can't affect some of the decisions made by the lower layers (i.e. network routing).
But, what happens when product X that you totally depend on applies this at the application layer, and then product Y, which your business is "betting the farm" on, requires that it be applied at the protocol layer?
You can't do it. They aren't supposed to be able to talk to each other. Either you will have to implement it at the protocol layer on both, or you will have to implement it at the application layer on both.
This is analogous to secure sockets vs. ipsec. Both offer security, but one does it at the transport layer, and one does it at the network layer. They aren't interoperable, because by design they aren't meant to be. This doesn't mean that they both aren't valuable just because they can't talk to each other.
This is a big deal to me, because I live in an appartment complex that offers Internet access over Wi-Fi. Because there are so many people using it the connection is pretty flaky (due to collisions). I get high download rates, but poor response times. If this provides better collision avoidance I will get a significantly better connection (lower ping times and such).
Umm... it isn't so simple. You are missing the basic idea of a layered architecture. This is actually really cool that it can be implemented at any layer. Sometimes there are things that can't be done at the application layer because of the constraints created by the layers below it. For instance, it is pretty worthless to do routing at the application layer if you are using IP, because it is already taken care of at the network layer.
So to say that it is all just "software" misses the fact that there is a significant difference between how these peices of software work. It is really cool that this can be done at the application layer, because it will allow applications to be developed to take advantage of it with out even changing the drivers for your wi-fi card.
I noticed that all of the alternatives you mentioned are all proprietary software products. I like that the GIMP is being developed, because Photoshop is the most amazing peice of software out there graphic-design-wise, and it warrants an OSS rival.
But my question is where are the Illustrator and InDesign rivals in the OSS world (not to mention the Video editing sw like AfterEffects, and Premiere)? As far as I know there aren't any (I would be very pleased to hear differently, and there is no way that xfig counts).
I would use Linux for everything but graphic design at this point. I would really like Adobe to port their products to Linux, but it doesn't seem likely at the current time.
Unless, of course, she's actually a D & D half-dragon and thus receives mental pleasure from counting the value of her hoard.
That isn't the appeal at all. For her the appeal is being able to look down any time of the day and see a piece of glittering jewlery that reminds her of me. No matter what is happening in her day, it is like I am there with her because she has a symbol of my affection for her. It is a constant reminder that I care.
If you want to give a gift that actually means something, make it yourself or pick something that has some other significance than just having an artificially inflated price. For example, if she likes horses, a little horse statue would work nicely...
A very good point. I know that my girlfriend likes jewlery, so I buy her some from time to time. It isn't like that is the only kind of gift I have ever given her. I make her stuff from time to time too.
Sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice is idiotic.
Very true, but what I am talking about is sacrifice for her. It isn't for the sake of sacrifice. Besides a gift every now and again is hardly a very severe sacrifice (it certianly doesn't compare with "whipping yourself"). It just shows you care, and you are thinking of her.
By the way, the gifts I have recieved from my girlfriend are amazing. I always enjoy seeing what she has picked out for me.
Why does it have to cost a fortune to be a desirable possession ?
It doesn't. But jewlery is romantic partially because of the way the precious stones form over millions of years. Even if it is technically the same as a stone made in a lab it just isn't as neat in my eyes (my girlfriend agrees).
if you can actually afford to spend $10K on a ultimately useless thing spontaneously
I can't afford $10K, and I never have payed anywhere near that for a piece of jewlery. I just still don't think it is ultimately useless. I mean if you are so concerned with it having to have utility you could consider the fact that many peices of jewlery actually gain value over time. You don't hear about alot of people selling them later when they are worth more though. There is a reason for this, and that is that they have sentimental value. Perhaps you think this notion is silly, but I don't.
I guess to me the idea that the stone formed naturally over many years is kind of romantic to begin with.
Unlike diamonds which are apparently hard to tell the man made from the natural, I can clearly see the difference between natural and man made gem stones. All of the man made gem stones I have seen look very very fake because they are so "perfect". Real stones on the other hand are full of imperfections that add depth and character. In this case I would pick the naturals simply because they look cooler.
Actually in this post I wasn't even talking about diamonds. I was talking about other gem stones. And as I posted else where the only big diamond I ever bought my girlfriend was from Canada (bought in Canada while we were on vacation).
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not a big fan of Camino, but I will be using it unitl this exploit is fixed... I personally prefer Safari, becasue it looks like the finder. I wish all OSX apps had the brushed steel look.
Yep... I don't know why I wasn't even thinking of that when I originally posted. But that is just all the more reason why this is an important issue, and "worth a story."
This would be sweet on a machine with MMX running XMMS.
I would guess the team (or more possibly even the individual) working on the "help" system probably didn't have security as their top priority. Infact, I would be suprised if they even thought about it.
I don't know about you, but I don't always take a look at my status bar before I click on a link. It is kind of nice to know such a exploit exists, because now I will be more careful (until Apple releases a patch). It is rediculous that a url can be used to execute malicious code.
On a related note, Safari is one of the best browsers I have ever used. I hope Apple releases a fix for this quickly.
It just doesn't make any sense in this case. If a stream of particles is coming towards the Earth, Earth's gravity will not cause those particles to veer off and miss the planet. Unless there is such a thing as negative mass, gravity is always attractive.
Umm... no it doesn't
Why use a compass? GPS is much more useful/geeky anyway.
Umm... Why would a massive body like Earth "deflect" particles (which have mass) with gravity? I'm not a physicist either, but as far as I know gravity causes atraction, not deflection.
Were you also disappointed by the N64 Zelda games?
No, because they seemed reasonable given the technology in the N64. If they could have used cel-shading, it would have made them better games I would think. I certainly wasn't let down by those games, because it wasn't until I saw Wind Waker that I realized how cool Zelda could look.
If you liked Wind Waker _because_ of the cel shading, then you're an exception.
I liked Wind Waker because it had awsome game play. However, the only reason I bought a GameCube was to play Wind Waker, and the only reason I wanted to play it was because of the awsome graphics. Once I had it, I loved it for other reasons. The graphics combined with the story, and the gameplay made it my favorite Zelda game of all time (maybe tied with Link to the Past).
No one would call the new zelda look a downgrade
I did, and I meant it. I saw the trailer, and I wasn't impressed at all. The graphics are any better than any other game out there that tries to be "realistic." I don't see why real == better. Especially on the GameCube, where the hardware just isn't up to the task of making it actually look real. I loved the fact that wind waker embraced the technology they had and gave it character. Zelda is a fantasy game, and giving it a cartoon feel seemed to fit in well in my opinion.
Like I said before, none of this will keep me from playing the new game, I just hope they go back to cel shading in future versions. Zelda isn't real, why should it look it?
I don't understand why a "realistic" Zelda game is a good idea. Wind Waker was awesome because it looked and felt like a cartoon. I'm still going to buy it when it comes out, because Nintendo doesn't make bad Zelda games. Despite the down grade in graphics, I'm sure the game play will be top notch as always.
On the plus side, fighting from the horse seems like an awesome idea.
How much more time do we have to spend convincing the public that we mere humans actually have the power to affect our environment?
Here's the thing:
- We have research that suggests a trend towards global warming
- Global warming is bad for us (rising sea levels, eratic weather patterns, etc.).
- We have research that suggests that we contribute to global warming.
Conclusion: Even if we are not the direct cause of the trend, perhaps we should be finding ways to slow/stop it rather than encourage it?I definitely agree that lower emissions is not a bad idea.
Which is all I am trying to say.
Are we causing our demise by driving around? No. Factories killing us? No. Do those things contribute? Sure!
So you admit that they contribute, but you don't think they are a problem? If you have enough "contributions" they eventually add up to some nasty effects.
Now stop the panic and go do more research.
Hey great idea! Maybe we can finish the research just in time to show conclusive evidence that we did indeed mess up our planet beyond repair. Or maybe we could just try to cut down on those "contributions" now, until we can convince you crack pots that we are a danger to our environment.
Oh, I hear you now... I was just coming at this assuming that they actually knew how to do this effectively at the application layer (since they claim to). I personally would think that this would be very difficult to pull off at that layer for reasons similar to what you mentioned (Not to mention the complete lack of control of when a packet is sent out over something like TCP).
I suppose that perhaps their "applications" are just built right on top of IP (or some other network protocol), which is kind of bogus if you ask me.
Do you realize that Wi-Fi goes over the unlicesed 2.4GHz band? Wi-Fi isn't the only thing that uses it either (there are protable phones, bluetooth, etc.). Even if they didn't, how can you predict statically how often you are going to have collisions with other Wi-Fi devices? The interference is very random, and depends completely on what else is using the frequency band.
bad example.
Well actually I wasn't being clear about what I meant by routing. Technically routing is done in overlay networks, but the routing is through a virtual network, not the real network it is built over. What I meant was that at the application layer you really can't affect some of the decisions made by the lower layers (i.e. network routing).
But, what happens when product X that you totally depend on applies this at the application layer, and then product Y, which your business is "betting the farm" on, requires that it be applied at the protocol layer?
You can't do it. They aren't supposed to be able to talk to each other. Either you will have to implement it at the protocol layer on both, or you will have to implement it at the application layer on both.
This is analogous to secure sockets vs. ipsec. Both offer security, but one does it at the transport layer, and one does it at the network layer. They aren't interoperable, because by design they aren't meant to be. This doesn't mean that they both aren't valuable just because they can't talk to each other.
The same applies here.
This is a big deal to me, because I live in an appartment complex that offers Internet access over Wi-Fi. Because there are so many people using it the connection is pretty flaky (due to collisions). I get high download rates, but poor response times. If this provides better collision avoidance I will get a significantly better connection (lower ping times and such).
Umm... it isn't so simple. You are missing the basic idea of a layered architecture. This is actually really cool that it can be implemented at any layer. Sometimes there are things that can't be done at the application layer because of the constraints created by the layers below it. For instance, it is pretty worthless to do routing at the application layer if you are using IP, because it is already taken care of at the network layer.
So to say that it is all just "software" misses the fact that there is a significant difference between how these peices of software work. It is really cool that this can be done at the application layer, because it will allow applications to be developed to take advantage of it with out even changing the drivers for your wi-fi card.
I noticed that all of the alternatives you mentioned are all proprietary software products. I like that the GIMP is being developed, because Photoshop is the most amazing peice of software out there graphic-design-wise, and it warrants an OSS rival.
But my question is where are the Illustrator and InDesign rivals in the OSS world (not to mention the Video editing sw like AfterEffects, and Premiere)? As far as I know there aren't any (I would be very pleased to hear differently, and there is no way that xfig counts).
I would use Linux for everything but graphic design at this point. I would really like Adobe to port their products to Linux, but it doesn't seem likely at the current time.
Unless, of course, she's actually a D & D half-dragon and thus receives mental pleasure from counting the value of her hoard.
That isn't the appeal at all. For her the appeal is being able to look down any time of the day and see a piece of glittering jewlery that reminds her of me. No matter what is happening in her day, it is like I am there with her because she has a symbol of my affection for her. It is a constant reminder that I care.
If you want to give a gift that actually means something, make it yourself or pick something that has some other significance than just having an artificially inflated price. For example, if she likes horses, a little horse statue would work nicely...
A very good point. I know that my girlfriend likes jewlery, so I buy her some from time to time. It isn't like that is the only kind of gift I have ever given her. I make her stuff from time to time too.
Sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice is idiotic.
Very true, but what I am talking about is sacrifice for her. It isn't for the sake of sacrifice. Besides a gift every now and again is hardly a very severe sacrifice (it certianly doesn't compare with "whipping yourself"). It just shows you care, and you are thinking of her.
By the way, the gifts I have recieved from my girlfriend are amazing. I always enjoy seeing what she has picked out for me.
Why does it have to cost a fortune to be a desirable possession ?
It doesn't. But jewlery is romantic partially because of the way the precious stones form over millions of years. Even if it is technically the same as a stone made in a lab it just isn't as neat in my eyes (my girlfriend agrees).
if you can actually afford to spend $10K on a ultimately useless thing spontaneously
I can't afford $10K, and I never have payed anywhere near that for a piece of jewlery. I just still don't think it is ultimately useless. I mean if you are so concerned with it having to have utility you could consider the fact that many peices of jewlery actually gain value over time. You don't hear about alot of people selling them later when they are worth more though. There is a reason for this, and that is that they have sentimental value. Perhaps you think this notion is silly, but I don't.
I guess to me the idea that the stone formed naturally over many years is kind of romantic to begin with.
Unlike diamonds which are apparently hard to tell the man made from the natural, I can clearly see the difference between natural and man made gem stones. All of the man made gem stones I have seen look very very fake because they are so "perfect". Real stones on the other hand are full of imperfections that add depth and character. In this case I would pick the naturals simply because they look cooler.
Actually in this post I wasn't even talking about diamonds. I was talking about other gem stones. And as I posted else where the only big diamond I ever bought my girlfriend was from Canada (bought in Canada while we were on vacation).
No it actually was a file system checking gun. It totally ruled!