The nice thing about this approach is that you at least get to feel the product, and see, if only very briefly, how it works. This is completely different from television where they either associate it with beautiful people and an awesome lifestyle, or perform sketchy experiments designed to "prove" that one product is better than another.
In my opinion that way is much nicer than ads on TV. The ads are why I stopped watching.
It is, however, completely different when people are paid to simply mention a product to someone they meet in a casual social setting. Because that's basically just like the ads from television or radio, or what have you. They're trying to associate the product with the lifestyle and/or the attractive people.
Oh, and a fun thing to do when you spot some people doing the camera trick. Wait a bit, to make sure they're actually doing it, and then walk by them again, acting as if you haven't seen them before. It's amazing how frequently they'll have no idea who you are, and ask you all the same questions again. And then you can accost them. They react like scared little rabbits. Which they really shouldn't. I can't think of anyone who's ever been killed for advertising.
I disagree. I don't think security and usability are on the same spectrum at all. There is no reason why one has to come at the expense of the other.
However, for a computer to be truly secure, you have to consciously establish that security, which is something beyond most Joe Average users. You could build in basic stuff into an OS, and have it be not any more or less usable than it was before. You could also tweak your Windows settings to give you the most amazingly unusable OS I've ever seen. This is because MS has not really, it seems, gone for usability when developing new iterations of Windows. Instead, it has gone for simplicity, which I would accept as being at the opposite end of the spectrum from security, and which is not the same as usability.
Unfortunately, administrations enjoy naming things after whoever foots the most of the bill, and in this case, it's Gates.
What I want to know is what are they getting rid of to put in the new building? And where's it going to be? I've scoped out the campus, and either it's going to be a fairly small building, or something is going to have to be (re)moved.
What you are saying makes some sense. Software should get better.
However, the problem with the assembly line idea is that an assembly line works fantastic for what it does. And what it does is recreate the same basic thing, slightly differently, many times. This is really effective if you're building a car, because each worker only needs to know a small amount, like which screw goes where. Yet true innovation always comes from one person with a brilliant idea, or a small group, which often just establishes a framework for one person and their great idea.
Security through obscurity is a term used to apply to crypto which relies on keeping it's algorithm unknown as it's method of preventing someone from decrypting the message.
What Mozilla is doing is not that. It is a viable strategy given the low number of people outside the organization who actually code for the browser. The people who are doing the programming are surely aware of the security issues, and keeping it quiet means that only the people who actually find the errors are able to exploit them (at least, until they get posted to some newsgroup or in some forum). It just gives the Mozilla people some time to fix them.
Actually, 300 seconds is 5 minutes, and one minute is 60 seconds, so 300 + 300 + 60 + 40 is 11 minutes 40 seconds.:(
Close though.
And still extremely lucky if you can get it that fast off the torrent.
I've never gotten anything anywhere near that fast.
Blast. Beat me to it.
Distrowatch is good stuff though. I've used it before, and it does come up as the first hit on google when you google "linux distribution reviews" (a sensible search, if you ask me).
However, the real problem with reviewing an OS is that it's tough to invision what everyone would be using it for, and so any review might only be useful to a small segment of the population. My advice would be to just find somebody who has it already on their computer, or plunk it onto one that you're not worried about if there are problems. Then you can make your own review, and decide for yourself. Sure, it takes a lot of work, but you're guaranteed that the review is accurate.
Unless you're a filthy liar.
Looking at that picture, I wonder if after being struck it goes soft again quickly. The pic seems like it's now stuck in that hard state. And, unfortunately for someone wearing the vest, the shape it got stuck in seems like it would seriously be moving some body parts around. Probably body parts you wouldn't want moved around.
Could be a good thing to figure out before we all get really happy about the possibilities.
I think they miscalculated the sheer amount of money Microsoft was willing to pour into relatively risky business strategies, and then the amount of money they were willing to spend buying anything and/or everything that started to make money. Oh, don't forget about how if they couldn't buy it, they'd copy it and buy lawyers to win lawsuits.
Apple could have owned the desktop market. Considering how many people own computers, but don't know the first thing about how to use any sort of advanced features, you'd think Apple would be on top. Mostly because Apple crashes less often, and it's absurdly easy to use.
Unfortunately, Microsoft wins there too because they made a bunch of deals with hardware providers to exclusively sell computers with Windows, and Apple didn't want to do the same. At this point, most people who aren't technically inclined don't even think about what OS they're using, they just go down to the local Dell (Yes, they actually have stores, as scary as that is.), and pick up a cheap Windows machine.
Guess this just goes to show you. Statistics are great, for telling you what everything was like yesterday.
Actually, the average American has LESS than one testicle (more women than men, and some eunuchs too), unless there are a great number of people floating around here somewhere that have three.
I can so imagine someone putting this in the census:
"Please list the names and ages of each person in your household, as well as the number of testicles per person".
I'm not sure if I really like the "rugged" statistics on this thing. Sure, it's better than my PDA right now, but I don't usually drop the thing...
1) It apparently can withstand being dropped from a height of 4 feet... 26 times? Is this a cumulative count? Or does it reset? And who on earth did they get to sit around and turn the thing on, check everything, and turn it off again, just so it could be dropped yet another time? And why 26? What is happening to cause irreversible damage to the system each time it's dropped from a height of 4 feet? Not a good sign.
2) It can also, apparently, withstand being immersed in up to a meter of water for up to a half an hour. I suppose this is great, if you realize you've dropped it in the water very fast, or if you're not around an ocean/lake/pond/large puddle/bucket/etc. . And why just a half hour? What happens if you leave it in longer than that? We should get one and see. $20 says it blows up at 45 minutes... (Don't hold me to that)
Slashdot Mirror
The nice thing about this approach is that you at least get to feel the product, and see, if only very briefly, how it works. This is completely different from television where they either associate it with beautiful people and an awesome lifestyle, or perform sketchy experiments designed to "prove" that one product is better than another.
In my opinion that way is much nicer than ads on TV. The ads are why I stopped watching.
It is, however, completely different when people are paid to simply mention a product to someone they meet in a casual social setting. Because that's basically just like the ads from television or radio, or what have you. They're trying to associate the product with the lifestyle and/or the attractive people.
Oh, and a fun thing to do when you spot some people doing the camera trick. Wait a bit, to make sure they're actually doing it, and then walk by them again, acting as if you haven't seen them before. It's amazing how frequently they'll have no idea who you are, and ask you all the same questions again. And then you can accost them. They react like scared little rabbits. Which they really shouldn't. I can't think of anyone who's ever been killed for advertising.
I disagree. I don't think security and usability are on the same spectrum at all. There is no reason why one has to come at the expense of the other.
However, for a computer to be truly secure, you have to consciously establish that security, which is something beyond most Joe Average users. You could build in basic stuff into an OS, and have it be not any more or less usable than it was before. You could also tweak your Windows settings to give you the most amazingly unusable OS I've ever seen. This is because MS has not really, it seems, gone for usability when developing new iterations of Windows. Instead, it has gone for simplicity, which I would accept as being at the opposite end of the spectrum from security, and which is not the same as usability.
Unfortunately, administrations enjoy naming things after whoever foots the most of the bill, and in this case, it's Gates.
What I want to know is what are they getting rid of to put in the new building? And where's it going to be?
I've scoped out the campus, and either it's going to be a fairly small building, or something is going to have to be (re)moved.
What you are saying makes some sense.
Software should get better.
However, the problem with the assembly line idea is that an assembly line works fantastic for what it does. And what it does is recreate the same basic thing, slightly differently, many times. This is really effective if you're building a car, because each worker only needs to know a small amount, like which screw goes where. Yet true innovation always comes from one person with a brilliant idea, or a small group, which often just establishes a framework for one person and their great idea.
Security through obscurity is a term used to apply to crypto which relies on keeping it's algorithm unknown as it's method of preventing someone from decrypting the message.
What Mozilla is doing is not that. It is a viable strategy given the low number of people outside the organization who actually code for the browser. The people who are doing the programming are surely aware of the security issues, and keeping it quiet means that only the people who actually find the errors are able to exploit them (at least, until they get posted to some newsgroup or in some forum). It just gives the Mozilla people some time to fix them.
Funny. I always get the "trust content from..." dialog whenever Windows wants to download a patch.
Maybe clicking "No" would help...
Actually, 300 seconds is 5 minutes, and one minute is 60 seconds, so 300 + 300 + 60 + 40 is 11 minutes 40 seconds. :(
Close though.
And still extremely lucky if you can get it that fast off the torrent.
I've never gotten anything anywhere near that fast.
Blast. Beat me to it. Distrowatch is good stuff though. I've used it before, and it does come up as the first hit on google when you google "linux distribution reviews" (a sensible search, if you ask me). However, the real problem with reviewing an OS is that it's tough to invision what everyone would be using it for, and so any review might only be useful to a small segment of the population. My advice would be to just find somebody who has it already on their computer, or plunk it onto one that you're not worried about if there are problems. Then you can make your own review, and decide for yourself. Sure, it takes a lot of work, but you're guaranteed that the review is accurate. Unless you're a filthy liar.
Looking at that picture, I wonder if after being struck it goes soft again quickly.
The pic seems like it's now stuck in that hard state.
And, unfortunately for someone wearing the vest, the shape it got stuck in seems like it would seriously be moving some body parts around. Probably body parts you wouldn't want moved around.
Could be a good thing to figure out before we all get really happy about the possibilities.
I think they miscalculated the sheer amount of money Microsoft was willing to pour into relatively risky business strategies, and then the amount of money they were willing to spend buying anything and/or everything that started to make money. Oh, don't forget about how if they couldn't buy it, they'd copy it and buy lawyers to win lawsuits.
Apple could have owned the desktop market. Considering how many people own computers, but don't know the first thing about how to use any sort of advanced features, you'd think Apple would be on top. Mostly because Apple crashes less often, and it's absurdly easy to use.
Unfortunately, Microsoft wins there too because they made a bunch of deals with hardware providers to exclusively sell computers with Windows, and Apple didn't want to do the same. At this point, most people who aren't technically inclined don't even think about what OS they're using, they just go down to the local Dell (Yes, they actually have stores, as scary as that is.), and pick up a cheap Windows machine.
Guess this just goes to show you. Statistics are great, for telling you what everything was like yesterday.
Actually, the average American has LESS than one testicle (more women than men, and some eunuchs too), unless there are a great number of people floating around here somewhere that have three. I can so imagine someone putting this in the census: "Please list the names and ages of each person in your household, as well as the number of testicles per person".
I'm not sure if I really like the "rugged" statistics on this thing. Sure, it's better than my PDA right now, but I don't usually drop the thing...
1) It apparently can withstand being dropped from a height of 4 feet... 26 times? Is this a cumulative count? Or does it reset? And who on earth did they get to sit around and turn the thing on, check everything, and turn it off again, just so it could be dropped yet another time? And why 26? What is happening to cause irreversible damage to the system each time it's dropped from a height of 4 feet? Not a good sign.
2) It can also, apparently, withstand being immersed in up to a meter of water for up to a half an hour. I suppose this is great, if you realize you've dropped it in the water very fast, or if you're not around an ocean/lake/pond/large puddle/bucket/etc. . And why just a half hour? What happens if you leave it in longer than that? We should get one and see. $20 says it blows up at 45 minutes... (Don't hold me to that)