shouldn't that be that the spam goes up exponentially?
if it was the usefullness, then society would
work hard to break down barries of access,
instead of putting up so many barriers.
for example, when was the last time president
bush returned your email?
nice rant! some very good points!
personally, I hate flash...and all the other
plugins, VMs, etc
I actually moved to mozilla from IE, just to
get rid of flash (IE kept asking me, constantly,
if I wanted to install flash. It was easier to
move to mozilla, then search and find out how
to stop IE!!!)
and, once a flash window asked me if I wanted
my video cam and microphone turned on. WTF????
However, mozilla doesn't support some basic
IE scripting functionality.
No createPopup, no IE drag and drop...
since I'm writing an IE web page, those are
some big issues
yes, I can figure out a workaround, BUT,
why should it be hard to do that????
so, for personal use I'm using mozilla, for
product development IE (with mozilla to follow
later, resources/time allowing. right!)
if mozilla is going out of their way to
disallow critical IE functionality, why
not post the work-arounds so they are
easy to find and use???
the IE drag and drop works pretty good. its
a clean API, and easy to use.
the mozilla documentation looks like something
from java....strangely worded cryptic
components...
here's the XUL tutorial...note that its all
OOP (object orientated Programming)...and
goes on and on and on and on several pages
worth
http://www.xulplanet.com/tutorials/xultu/dragdrop. html
here's a tutorial on how to do it in IE...note
how short and simple it is....
http://webreference.com/programming/javascript/dra gdropie/
I think adding IE drag&drop took me only a
couple of hours to add, and it works really
well
no doubt the mozilla model will allow the code
to have some additional functionality, but who
will care???
thanks for the suggestion to look up
NdFeB...pretty amazing that something as
simple as magnets (heck, we all played with
them as kids, and probably tried everywhich
configuration!) still hold surprises...here's
some information on "the halbach array"
which was discovered in 1985...not so long ago!
http://www.wondermagnet.com/halbach.html
and this is an interesting FAQ about NdFeB...
amazingly, they are hard, brittle, and flammable!
maybe that's why I see them often sold encased
in something...
http://www.wondermagnet.com/magfaq.html#q73
and check out the "ferrofluid"...they didn't
have cool toys like that when I was a kid...lol
http://www.wondermagnet.com/ferro.html
question: wouldn't the magnets de-magnitize
after a while? isn't that what physics would
predict?
good business opportunity tho. exchange the cost
of electricity for the cost of buying a new
motor, when the magnets stop working
any physicists out there who can comment?
"purpose is in the eye of the beholder"
if I say its a unique and valuable composition,
why should the law argue that point?
obviously, the spyware vendors see value in my
composition, and are selling it at a profit,
which is a theft of IP.
now consider the case of chatbots...these are
AI that lurk in chat rooms, possing as people,
for some purpose. sometimes that purpose is
to promote products, ie advertising by stealth.
but where do the chatbots get their scripts from?
they get it from data mining real people's online
dialog. Thus, they are derivative works, and
violate copyright. These chatbots also dilute
the culture of the chat rooms, making them less
marketable.
how about goggles gMail? that been reported as
scaning email, to data mine and insert ads.
thus, the senders copyright is violated. the
ad also dilutes the message of the sender
the concept of copyright is obviously fluid,
changing with the needs of the day. Why not
use it in a positive manner, to protect our
IP (so it isn't diluted by stealth advertising,
obvert advertising, etc)
couldn't this be a positive use of DMCA? all our specific keystrokes, mouse clicks, mouse movements, web clicks, etc comprise a copyrightable, and therefor copyrighted, body of work...so any sw that captures these, and sends them to a third party, (which is what spyware does), is clearly breaking the DMCA. any lawyers out there that can comment on this?
good points.
One of the rate-limiting factors in computer science, IMHO, is that it's hard to make money on software checking tools.
It's hard enough to get business to buy a
$300 tool. Let alone something that costs
millions (or $25,000, as the hw checking
tool you mentioned costs).
to spend real money, the bean counters need
a spreadsheet model that basically says:
"we spend $$$ and it saves us $$$$$$$"
"so ok, that's a good business decision."
in hardware, if the tool saves a single tape-out,
that justifies a lot.
in hardware, if the tool saves a single recall,
that saves a lot.
in hardware, if the tool saves a lawsuit, that
saves a lot.
in software, there's nothing like a tape-out,
where some senior level person has to sign off
on a big-ticket milestone.
there's no recalls, to factor in as a cost.
(this is getting worse, since business discovered
that products could be updated over the net)
there's no real legal liability to factor in
as a cost.
basicaly the software has to be checked manually
for bugs. so the cost of finding the nth bug
goes up rapidly, perhaps exponentially. however
the COST of the nth bug goes down exponentially.
actually, hardare isn't always free of lockups.
anybody remember the 6502 HCF ("halt and catch )
fire" instruction? (one opcode was x02)
look up on google "6502 HCF" one of the opcodes
was 0x02, which locked up the processor so even
NMI interrupts didn't work. some of the other
HCF-type opcodes were more dramatic
in the "real world", when there is a security threat, such as a gas leak, you call the repair person, who fixes it.
This is the equivalent of "install patches"
Note that there is a level of confidence in calling the repair person, that they won't paste adds all over your living room, or install a wire-tap on your phone line, or a spycam in your bedroom.
unfortunately, in the computer world, all too often the "patches" are used as trojans.
they change user settings, put in spyware, brake working code, etc
so, ppl are hesitant to apply patches, with good reason.
Slashdot Mirror
i like PHP. there's something zen about doing a simple thing, simply.
shouldn't that be that the spam goes up exponentially? if it was the usefullness, then society would work hard to break down barries of access, instead of putting up so many barriers. for example, when was the last time president bush returned your email?
nice rant! some very good points! personally, I hate flash...and all the other plugins, VMs, etc I actually moved to mozilla from IE, just to get rid of flash (IE kept asking me, constantly, if I wanted to install flash. It was easier to move to mozilla, then search and find out how to stop IE!!!) and, once a flash window asked me if I wanted my video cam and microphone turned on. WTF???? However, mozilla doesn't support some basic IE scripting functionality. No createPopup, no IE drag and drop... since I'm writing an IE web page, those are some big issues yes, I can figure out a workaround, BUT, why should it be hard to do that???? so, for personal use I'm using mozilla, for product development IE (with mozilla to follow later, resources/time allowing. right!) if mozilla is going out of their way to disallow critical IE functionality, why not post the work-arounds so they are easy to find and use??? the IE drag and drop works pretty good. its a clean API, and easy to use. the mozilla documentation looks like something from java....strangely worded cryptic components... here's the XUL tutorial...note that its all OOP (object orientated Programming)...and goes on and on and on and on several pages worth http://www.xulplanet.com/tutorials/xultu/dragdrop. html
here's a tutorial on how to do it in IE...note
how short and simple it is....
http://webreference.com/programming/javascript/dra gdropie/
I think adding IE drag&drop took me only a
couple of hours to add, and it works really
well
no doubt the mozilla model will allow the code
to have some additional functionality, but who
will care???
thanks for the suggestion to look up NdFeB...pretty amazing that something as simple as magnets (heck, we all played with them as kids, and probably tried everywhich configuration!) still hold surprises...here's some information on "the halbach array" which was discovered in 1985...not so long ago! http://www.wondermagnet.com/halbach.html and this is an interesting FAQ about NdFeB... amazingly, they are hard, brittle, and flammable! maybe that's why I see them often sold encased in something... http://www.wondermagnet.com/magfaq.html#q73 and check out the "ferrofluid"...they didn't have cool toys like that when I was a kid...lol http://www.wondermagnet.com/ferro.html
question: wouldn't the magnets de-magnitize after a while? isn't that what physics would predict? good business opportunity tho. exchange the cost of electricity for the cost of buying a new motor, when the magnets stop working any physicists out there who can comment?
"purpose is in the eye of the beholder" if I say its a unique and valuable composition, why should the law argue that point? obviously, the spyware vendors see value in my composition, and are selling it at a profit, which is a theft of IP. now consider the case of chatbots...these are AI that lurk in chat rooms, possing as people, for some purpose. sometimes that purpose is to promote products, ie advertising by stealth. but where do the chatbots get their scripts from? they get it from data mining real people's online dialog. Thus, they are derivative works, and violate copyright. These chatbots also dilute the culture of the chat rooms, making them less marketable. how about goggles gMail? that been reported as scaning email, to data mine and insert ads. thus, the senders copyright is violated. the ad also dilutes the message of the sender the concept of copyright is obviously fluid, changing with the needs of the day. Why not use it in a positive manner, to protect our IP (so it isn't diluted by stealth advertising, obvert advertising, etc)
couldn't this be a positive use of DMCA?
all our specific keystrokes, mouse clicks,
mouse movements, web clicks, etc comprise
a copyrightable, and therefor copyrighted,
body of work...so any sw that captures these,
and sends them to a third party, (which is what
spyware does), is clearly breaking the DMCA.
any lawyers out there that can comment on this?
good points. One of the rate-limiting factors in computer science, IMHO, is that it's hard to make money on software checking tools. It's hard enough to get business to buy a $300 tool. Let alone something that costs millions (or $25,000, as the hw checking tool you mentioned costs). to spend real money, the bean counters need a spreadsheet model that basically says: "we spend $$$ and it saves us $$$$$$$" "so ok, that's a good business decision." in hardware, if the tool saves a single tape-out, that justifies a lot. in hardware, if the tool saves a single recall, that saves a lot. in hardware, if the tool saves a lawsuit, that saves a lot. in software, there's nothing like a tape-out, where some senior level person has to sign off on a big-ticket milestone. there's no recalls, to factor in as a cost. (this is getting worse, since business discovered that products could be updated over the net) there's no real legal liability to factor in as a cost. basicaly the software has to be checked manually for bugs. so the cost of finding the nth bug goes up rapidly, perhaps exponentially. however the COST of the nth bug goes down exponentially.
actually, hardare isn't always free of lockups. anybody remember the 6502 HCF ("halt and catch ) fire" instruction? (one opcode was x02) look up on google "6502 HCF" one of the opcodes was 0x02, which locked up the processor so even NMI interrupts didn't work. some of the other HCF-type opcodes were more dramatic
>> You must install patches.
in the "real world", when there is a security
threat, such as a gas leak, you call the repair
person, who fixes it.
This is the equivalent of "install patches"
Note that there is a level of confidence in
calling the repair person, that they won't
paste adds all over your living room, or install
a wire-tap on your phone line, or a spycam
in your bedroom.
unfortunately, in the computer world, all too
often the "patches" are used as trojans.
they change user settings, put in spyware,
brake working code, etc
so, ppl are hesitant to apply patches, with
good reason.