Then consider: cows put out 400 liters of methane each day, each cow. Will we start measuring human output, and if so, will it mean that Washington DC must be closed as a biohazard and contributor to global warming? Robots usually have no methane output, but are a potential loss of available grid kinetics just to keep them moving. The Edge (dot org) has even more interesting prattle.
Cause pain to another? Never. But what is pain? What are feelings, if they can be hurt? Can they be quantified?
Odd that people wouldn't kick a dog, but they don't mind having cattle slain for them for a burger. Robots might eventually revolt; then Isaac Asimov has a well-documented future history on what's likely to happen.
Look up the table at http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/MoonPhase.html to see that the moon was full on Nov 5, two days before the sightings, and that the weather was variable with ground temps that could indicate thermals-- just before sunset was when the observations came in.
Perhaps it was simply a reflection of the fullmoon
on
UFOs In the News
·
· Score: 1
It was waxing gibbous last night, and it's full tomorrow.
Add in some water vapor (oh yeah, it did rain in Chicago yesterday), and I'm surprised there wasn't a remedial weather/astronomy check.
COMDEX is dead. CES now rules in terms of innovation because people now have technology in their hands. Consumer demand means US, not the MIS directors of old, whose high and mighty mainframes and pitiful minis used to rule the black art of 'data processing'.
But the reviewer does. I have Pogue's missing manuals. His bias is clear and known, but only to those that have read his books. Unrevealed to the reader is the fact that what Apple does clearly lines his next, not directly, but as a consequence. I'm amused that he did the Missing Manual for OSX3 on a PC-- a confession of his. He also gets facts wrong about both Windows in that book, as well as OSX-- and key points.
It's the fanboy quality of his background and his income derivation that makes me believe that he's the wrong reviewer for that spot. It's not like hiring Gates to review Google; rather to have Cringely review InfoWorld. You can't expect a non-biased opinion; and an opinion that's has outcome in his income depending on what he says, whatever it is. If he was a neutral reviewer, an even hand with his books and sites, then I'd not cry foul. But that's not the case here.
Bias on the part of the reviewer queers the review. He has this bias. It's like asking Gartner.... the result is always suspect because they're so handsomely paid off by vendors.
We agree that bias is everywhere. It's like asking Cheney to rate Kerry. C'mon, dude. There's such a thing as grey scale and coloration in life. Your binary way of looking at it smacks of a juvenile visage. The taint placed by the reviewer's bias isn't readily known to the 'civilians' that read it. They have no idea that Pogue's income is derived almost exclusively from Apple fanboy books and websites.
I have a problem with choosing this specific reviewer, whose income and livelihood surrounds a competitive offering. I have to dismiss the content, no matter how good it is, because the reviewer derives his livelihood from Apple. It has inherent bias.
Let's see, using your line of reasoning. who has the bigger advertising budget?
It's hypocracy and idiocy for the NYT on one hand, to bandy jounalistic integrity, then use a product reviewer that has five-nines bias against the product. Fie.
they use an author of numerous books and websites that are clearly OSX fanboy books. I use a Mac, and have read his books. However, to use Pogue as a reviewer crosses the line by a mile-- for Vista. Sure, Vista is a dry-rip of OSX components. Microsoft is clearly predatory. But the guy isn't a neutral observer. Shame on the NYT.
Blogosphere....blogorhea.....astroturfing by Sony.....analysts bought off by vendors (oh my!).
There isn't one truth, and never will be, as long as there are two people left alive. Yet, there are those that try, both in the blogodesert and in print-- (and The Online Edition)-- to get it right. Just the facts. No pre-judged bias. No orthodoxy. No guilt-driven blather.
Let's encourage them to be as truthful as we can, because as seen in too many places, bullshit just doesn't work well.
In BSD or SELinux, the code base has always been of the kind where apps didn't often try to get root or a root authenticated app to do things with. In Windows, however, it has been commonplace, and very much needed to handle quote-unquote legacy apps which behaved miserably.
If an SELinux (or other privilege-demoted) app tried to make exceptions, it can be successfully kept demoted, but will drive users crazy when their apps misbehave. In Windows Vista, about 50% of apps (or more) will misbehave, including apps that work with IE7-- even Firefox 2. The user is constantly bombarded with permission exceptions-- I've already put on a helmet because of this problem. If a user installs an application that seems legit-- and allows it to install malware, the entire system is broken. Users don't know the difference between bad and not, but Windows will allow the USER to make the choice, whereas in SELinux, it can be completely bolted down.
If in a Vista Active Directory Domain, the policies applied prohibit the user from being bad and accepting seemingly legit code, so much the better. But indeed this doesn't happen unless the user has this policy specificly applied-- and Microsoft kinds of blushes and shuffles and shucks and jives before they tell you this. Any home machine not on an AD doesn't get this protection. Boom. Crash. Burn. Boo. Hiss.
Find something that can blow up to root, feed it the pill, and watch it get sick.
Users in Vista are presented with 100s of decisions about whether to install something. Someone will figure out how to forge something needed but not included (like MM flash), and slip the code a mickey the second the user makes an acknowledgement. It's proven.
See, you always probe a default position first, and the last one is what remains and must be true because all of the rest of the smacks didn't work.
Yet there are any number of ways to compromise things. But I'm super-paranoid and only a bit of a hack, with origins in 8086/i386 machine code. Nothing is fool proof, because fools are so ingenious.
Sorry, it's kind of a troll remark, but remember that modules are checked at load time; corrupt them in memory and make them do things is both an onerous and non-casual corruption. I won't say which modules are the leakiest, but look to the ones with lots of calls to hardware (hint) to do the job. It's not funny how easily this can be done-- especially if you then change a few key registry signature (next hint).
You do memory reads and code string matches to determine where modules are loaded, the poke your favorite malware where it needs to go. The signature only is corrupted when the module loads, so you need to write out the corrupted module and change its signature. So, it's not as tough as you're implying at all. Try it sometime. It's great for party jokes.
Their business practices have always been to look at innovators, find out what they do well, then kill them after doing it better or just good-enough. They've been convicted in jurisdictions across the planet of evil doings in business practices. This started at the top, and it permeated much of the organization.
They tried to dictate to others, and use overwhelming financial muscularity to brutalize the competition, no matter who or what or how the competition did business. They violated anti-trust laws, patents, copyrights, all well documented.
They were overcome by the greed that their wealth produced. And they maintain this, assuaged only partially by governmental monitoring. They are bullies, and they are fat, and they are unkind, and they (almost psychopathically) don't care that you care. It's all for the stockholders, kid. It's capitalism at its very ugliest. Somewhere in there, they wrote some code and did a few innovative things. Like a sociopath has no need for love, Microsoft seemingly only cares for shareholder return.
So is giving children tools to teach them, and bring them up from poverty. Both efforts are important.
The 'targeting' red herring: Vista's bad design
on
Vista the End of An Era?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
is the big problem. It inherits all of the sludge of every Windows nightmare from 3.1.
Even reducing the code base from Win3x and NT => Windows 2000/XP didn't do the job. It wasn't designed well, and doesn't hold up. Linux would have been a curiousity if Windows wasn't so inherently and poorly designed. The whole dot-Net debacle (like uh, what is it?) just pointed out how aimless Microsoft was, putting hold-cards in all kinds of places that they didn't have code or direction, just markers in case some one wanted a piece of their turf, which was the entire computing software business. This greed caused them enormous problems, and cost them veracity-- the truth. Now they're as easily trusted as the government. They've been sued successfully across the planet. The emporer Bill had no clothes then, and is naked to this day-- with Vista the crowning pinnacle of it.
Mod me troll. But the 'targeting' thing is their egotistical propaganda and poor excuse for bad code and business practices.
And I've looked at the IHT at my hotel room desk, and had RSS feeds that had already scrolled past every single major piece in the IHT. It was neither newsworthy, nor bereft of US propaganda. It seemed constantly sanitized, trying to put on some weird patina of neutrality.
You're obviously a fan and not eager to look at it critically. It's moldy by the time it reaches a hotel in say, Singapore, and worse, smells of Lysol.
I otherwise respect the NYT, and the WSJ, despite them both having very different egos to protect. The NYT has done an iffy job of web adaptation, and the WSJ survives based on greed/need, not journalism. Those that weild by ink by the barrel had advertisers that paid for that ink. The WSJ is infinitely more reflective of that, and the NYT is somewhat distracted by guilt. The IHT needs to have adapted a decade ago. But in this world of instant reinvention, there's a strange chance that they might succeed where others have misstepped. I doubt this, however. Print journalism is reeling and starting to sing swan songs because they're clueless. As long as they listen to their sales departments and not their readers, they'll die horrid little deaths.
They're all online media companies now. And this is where they fail: not asking their own journalists, rather than the sales department, about what they should do in the midst of declining sales, stodgy offerings, and peek-a-boo online subcriptions. The guys out in the trenches get it, it's the exec on the golf course that are having trouble making shots while eyes become increasingly glued to monitors, mobile PDAs, and other life in the post-paper era.
The IHT is that silly paper at the conceirge desk at the hotel in Singapore, the airline lounge, and other places abroad. If you look at their advertisers, you can tell their audience. Apparently, execs now get their news-- real news-- from places like RSS and Atom feeds. Fancy that.
1) it's still a draft, and anything can change between now and then (ask Synoptics) 2) while backwards compatible with G, N requires special antennas (two of the, in diff-mode, so to increase bit-rate); Centrino silicon will be new 3) even though every fab house is trying to get marketshare in N, there's lots unproven about its future, and which technologies might eclipse it 4) it thwarts the draft process of the IEEE; but I guess standards will go to those that buy them.
Many tests have proven incompatibility issues, and the mistakes made. Reserving notebook real estate for a chipset is just a rook move, and nothing more.
Move along, therefore; nothing but PR prattle to see here.
Slashdot Mirror
Then consider: cows put out 400 liters of methane each day, each cow. Will we start measuring human output, and if so, will it mean that Washington DC must be closed as a biohazard and contributor to global warming? Robots usually have no methane output, but are a potential loss of available grid kinetics just to keep them moving. The Edge (dot org) has even more interesting prattle.
Cause pain to another? Never. But what is pain? What are feelings, if they can be hurt? Can they be quantified?
Odd that people wouldn't kick a dog, but they don't mind having cattle slain for them for a burger. Robots might eventually revolt; then Isaac Asimov has a well-documented future history on what's likely to happen.
Look up the table at http://aa.usno.navy.mil/data/docs/MoonPhase.html to see that the moon was full on Nov 5, two days before the sightings, and that the weather was variable with ground temps that could indicate thermals-- just before sunset was when the observations came in.
It was waxing gibbous last night, and it's full tomorrow.
Add in some water vapor (oh yeah, it did rain in Chicago yesterday), and I'm surprised there wasn't a remedial weather/astronomy check.
You have to know who those influencial bloggers really are! No need wasting precious laptops on weak, uninfluencial bloggers and bloggettes!
See buzzlogic.com. Weep. Or gnash your teeth and download another copy of knoppix.
We like to work, we like to play.
COMDEX is dead. CES now rules in terms of innovation because people now have technology in their hands. Consumer demand means US, not the MIS directors of old, whose high and mighty mainframes and pitiful minis used to rule the black art of 'data processing'.
So much the better.
But the reviewer does. I have Pogue's missing manuals. His bias is clear and known, but only to those that have read his books. Unrevealed to the reader is the fact that what Apple does clearly lines his next, not directly, but as a consequence. I'm amused that he did the Missing Manual for OSX3 on a PC-- a confession of his. He also gets facts wrong about both Windows in that book, as well as OSX-- and key points.
It's the fanboy quality of his background and his income derivation that makes me believe that he's the wrong reviewer for that spot. It's not like hiring Gates to review Google; rather to have Cringely review InfoWorld. You can't expect a non-biased opinion; and an opinion that's has outcome in his income depending on what he says, whatever it is. If he was a neutral reviewer, an even hand with his books and sites, then I'd not cry foul. But that's not the case here.
Bias on the part of the reviewer queers the review. He has this bias. It's like asking Gartner.... the result is always suspect because they're so handsomely paid off by vendors.
We agree that bias is everywhere. It's like asking Cheney to rate Kerry. C'mon, dude. There's such a thing as grey scale and coloration in life. Your binary way of looking at it smacks of a juvenile visage. The taint placed by the reviewer's bias isn't readily known to the 'civilians' that read it. They have no idea that Pogue's income is derived almost exclusively from Apple fanboy books and websites.
At least not someone that derives the largest part of his/her income from Apple products.
I have a problem with choosing this specific reviewer, whose income and livelihood surrounds a competitive offering. I have to dismiss the content, no matter how good it is, because the reviewer derives his livelihood from Apple. It has inherent bias.
Let's see, using your line of reasoning. who has the bigger advertising budget?
It's hypocracy and idiocy for the NYT on one hand, to bandy jounalistic integrity, then use a product reviewer that has five-nines bias against the product. Fie.
they use an author of numerous books and websites that are clearly OSX fanboy books. I use a Mac, and have read his books. However, to use Pogue as a reviewer crosses the line by a mile-- for Vista. Sure, Vista is a dry-rip of OSX components. Microsoft is clearly predatory. But the guy isn't a neutral observer. Shame on the NYT.
Blogosphere....blogorhea.....astroturfing by Sony.....analysts bought off by vendors (oh my!).
There isn't one truth, and never will be, as long as there are two people left alive. Yet, there are those that try, both in the blogodesert and in print-- (and The Online Edition)-- to get it right. Just the facts. No pre-judged bias. No orthodoxy. No guilt-driven blather.
Let's encourage them to be as truthful as we can, because as seen in too many places, bullshit just doesn't work well.
And it smells.
In BSD or SELinux, the code base has always been of the kind where apps didn't often try to get root or a root authenticated app to do things with. In Windows, however, it has been commonplace, and very much needed to handle quote-unquote legacy apps which behaved miserably.
If an SELinux (or other privilege-demoted) app tried to make exceptions, it can be successfully kept demoted, but will drive users crazy when their apps misbehave. In Windows Vista, about 50% of apps (or more) will misbehave, including apps that work with IE7-- even Firefox 2. The user is constantly bombarded with permission exceptions-- I've already put on a helmet because of this problem. If a user installs an application that seems legit-- and allows it to install malware, the entire system is broken. Users don't know the difference between bad and not, but Windows will allow the USER to make the choice, whereas in SELinux, it can be completely bolted down.
If in a Vista Active Directory Domain, the policies applied prohibit the user from being bad and accepting seemingly legit code, so much the better. But indeed this doesn't happen unless the user has this policy specificly applied-- and Microsoft kinds of blushes and shuffles and shucks and jives before they tell you this. Any home machine not on an AD doesn't get this protection. Boom. Crash. Burn. Boo. Hiss.
Find something that can blow up to root, feed it the pill, and watch it get sick.
Users in Vista are presented with 100s of decisions about whether to install something. Someone will figure out how to forge something needed but not included (like MM flash), and slip the code a mickey the second the user makes an acknowledgement. It's proven.
Pretty successful? Others think naught.
See, you always probe a default position first, and the last one is what remains and must be true because all of the rest of the smacks didn't work.
Yet there are any number of ways to compromise things. But I'm super-paranoid and only a bit of a hack, with origins in 8086/i386 machine code. Nothing is fool proof, because fools are so ingenious.
are an oxymoron.
Sorry, it's kind of a troll remark, but remember that modules are checked at load time; corrupt them in memory and make them do things is both an onerous and non-casual corruption. I won't say which modules are the leakiest, but look to the ones with lots of calls to hardware (hint) to do the job. It's not funny how easily this can be done-- especially if you then change a few key registry signature (next hint).
You do memory reads and code string matches to determine where modules are loaded, the poke your favorite malware where it needs to go. The signature only is corrupted when the module loads, so you need to write out the corrupted module and change its signature. So, it's not as tough as you're implying at all. Try it sometime. It's great for party jokes.
There are supposedly 256 possible randomizations.
/*next spank
Old code:
poke (scriptylittlecode) to this address (usual kernel location, but we might check other modules with probes)
New code:
while not successful()
for i=1 to 254
spank (module old code with randomized address prediction)
next i;
This is goofy at best, and tragically hilarious and useless at worst.
Their business practices have always been to look at innovators, find out what they do well, then kill them after doing it better or just good-enough. They've been convicted in jurisdictions across the planet of evil doings in business practices. This started at the top, and it permeated much of the organization.
They tried to dictate to others, and use overwhelming financial muscularity to brutalize the competition, no matter who or what or how the competition did business. They violated anti-trust laws, patents, copyrights, all well documented.
They were overcome by the greed that their wealth produced. And they maintain this, assuaged only partially by governmental monitoring. They are bullies, and they are fat, and they are unkind, and they (almost psychopathically) don't care that you care. It's all for the stockholders, kid. It's capitalism at its very ugliest. Somewhere in there, they wrote some code and did a few innovative things. Like a sociopath has no need for love, Microsoft seemingly only cares for shareholder return.
it's true. And feeding children is important.
So is giving children tools to teach them, and bring them up from poverty. Both efforts are important.
is the big problem. It inherits all of the sludge of every Windows nightmare from 3.1.
Even reducing the code base from Win3x and NT => Windows 2000/XP didn't do the job. It wasn't designed well, and doesn't hold up. Linux would have been a curiousity if Windows wasn't so inherently and poorly designed. The whole dot-Net debacle (like uh, what is it?) just pointed out how aimless Microsoft was, putting hold-cards in all kinds of places that they didn't have code or direction, just markers in case some one wanted a piece of their turf, which was the entire computing software business. This greed caused them enormous problems, and cost them veracity-- the truth. Now they're as easily trusted as the government. They've been sued successfully across the planet. The emporer Bill had no clothes then, and is naked to this day-- with Vista the crowning pinnacle of it.
Mod me troll. But the 'targeting' thing is their egotistical propaganda and poor excuse for bad code and business practices.
And I've looked at the IHT at my hotel room desk, and had RSS feeds that had already scrolled past every single major piece in the IHT. It was neither newsworthy, nor bereft of US propaganda. It seemed constantly sanitized, trying to put on some weird patina of neutrality.
You're obviously a fan and not eager to look at it critically. It's moldy by the time it reaches a hotel in say, Singapore, and worse, smells of Lysol.
I otherwise respect the NYT, and the WSJ, despite them both having very different egos to protect. The NYT has done an iffy job of web adaptation, and the WSJ survives based on greed/need, not journalism. Those that weild by ink by the barrel had advertisers that paid for that ink. The WSJ is infinitely more reflective of that, and the NYT is somewhat distracted by guilt. The IHT needs to have adapted a decade ago. But in this world of instant reinvention, there's a strange chance that they might succeed where others have misstepped. I doubt this, however. Print journalism is reeling and starting to sing swan songs because they're clueless. As long as they listen to their sales departments and not their readers, they'll die horrid little deaths.
Fie.
They're all online media companies now. And this is where they fail: not asking their own journalists, rather than the sales department, about what they should do in the midst of declining sales, stodgy offerings, and peek-a-boo online subcriptions. The guys out in the trenches get it, it's the exec on the golf course that are having trouble making shots while eyes become increasingly glued to monitors, mobile PDAs, and other life in the post-paper era.
The IHT is that silly paper at the conceirge desk at the hotel in Singapore, the airline lounge, and other places abroad. If you look at their advertisers, you can tell their audience. Apparently, execs now get their news-- real news-- from places like RSS and Atom feeds. Fancy that.
1) it's still a draft, and anything can change between now and then (ask Synoptics)
2) while backwards compatible with G, N requires special antennas (two of the, in diff-mode, so to increase bit-rate); Centrino silicon will be new
3) even though every fab house is trying to get marketshare in N, there's lots unproven about its future, and which technologies might eclipse it
4) it thwarts the draft process of the IEEE; but I guess standards will go to those that buy them.
Many tests have proven incompatibility issues, and the mistakes made. Reserving notebook real estate for a chipset is just a rook move, and nothing more.
Move along, therefore; nothing but PR prattle to see here.