Re:I'm not asking you to migrate, I'm simply curio
on
Microsoft Lauds Scrum
·
· Score: 1
They don't know it, and if something goes wrong with Windows they can get relatives to come in and fix it. If something goes wrong with Linux, they've got me. My fixing record isn't that crash hot (I haven't lost anything on the computer yet, although I have come close a few times). It's also inertia. They know how to use Windows and the apps it has, while there are comparable apps for Linux, they don't want to have to work at learning them. Hell, my family doesn't use Firefox (and I've offered a few times now).
As for the apps, well the only one I can't find an alternative for is Flash. Everyone always says "Gimp" but ignoring it's difficult user interface (although I have heard this has improved) it isn't scalar. I love Flash's scalar environment. Know of any open source apps that are comparable to Flash (if I only use Flash for drawing pictures that is. I doubt anything but flash creates flash movies)?
Wow, thanks a lot for the offer. I've tried numerous times in the past (with and without help from nice people like you) and in the end there's always one necessary feature that doesn't work. So at the moment I'm not looking to migrate to Linux (especially with having a family who uses the same computer, having to reboot it whenever they wanted to hop on would become a pain. And they refuse to use Linux even if I -did- get it working). In a couple of years once I've got a place of my own I'll definitely be looking to move to Linux, and hopefully by then the few apps I've got that are Windows only will have been ported to Linux, or comparable alternatives would have been developed.
With Microsoft's virtual monopoly, they have a guranteed market for a program and would have to cock it up REALLY, REALLY bad for that market to shrink to a noteworthy degree. So they need to get programs out there to rake in the cash. Quality isn't really an issue for them.
However hopefully if they continue to use this flawed business plan, they'll continue to slowly lose customers. Well, I can dream, can't I?
Looks more like developers are being pressured to achieve ridiculous deadlines, with a fancy name tacked onto the pressure. I also wonder what sort of security is being done to programs developed via the scrum method. Is the scrum JUST for the programming (and/or the preceeding stages)? Or is it the whole thing, testing included, in this "quick, quick" method? If it's the latter, I can't see how testers are going to be able to truly secure the software, so we'll continue to get unsecure software from Microsoft. Thanks a lot, you just made my wish to migrate to Linux increase.
Where I work, an international call to anyone but a client would be noticed and questioned, and the person sacked for doing so. It would be pretty damn stupid to make a personal INTERNATIONAL call at work.
but nog can do so using the equipment they already own.
Unless that equipment is being used for something else. Places where it's a "1 computer per worker" environment would be able to use Skype no problem. But where my friend works its 3 computers for numerous people. And the computers are being used to display information so they can go around and do what it tells us to do. No-one should be using the computer, because that would place them in the way of the information, and would hinder people trying to do their job. Such environments (and I doubt my friend's work is unique in this regard) would need a computer that didn't display any important information, to have Skype.
I don't see how banning Skype makes the world a better place.
No-one's talking about banning Skype completely. Merely a recommendation was made for businesses to implement a policy banning the use of Skype on work computers, as it posed a security risk. And Skype can pose a security risk.
I know. It's a troll. But I just can't help myself.
millions upon millions more people are suffering and dying from not enough money
Aaah yes. And how many will die due to global warming? I somehow think it'll be a bit more then the amount of people dying due to not enough money. Global warming will not only cause the oceans to rise, but it will cause hurricanes and tornadoes to become even MORE common, droughts and floods will also become more common, which will hit hard for farming communities which will cause a reduction in the amount of food available. Oh, and once all the fossil fuel is gone, we'll still be in the same boat as we would be if we stopped using it tomorrow, unless we create viable alternatives.
Improving the economy will do far more good for the foreseeable future
If you define forseeable future "for the next 50 years."
than any of the hippy crap you're spewing.
Oh, pray tell, please tell me what crap (hippie or otherwise) spewed forth from me in my original post (I've got a fair bit more of it in this post)? All I said was that: 1> Even if we did stop emitting greenhouse gases, global warming would continue to occur. 2> Greenhouse gases will need to be scrubbed from the atmosphere to a lower level then it began with, at least for a while, in order to cool the planet down 3> Australian and American government aren't doing anything serious to combat global warming.
I guess it's point 3 that is the hippy crap you mentioned. I fail to see how saying "global warming is a problem that needs to be solved" is hippy crap (I'm not offering a solution in my post, a solution to global warming COULD occur that would allow more lives to be saved).
Again, sorry for feeding the troll. But this post was fun.
The bottom line is that even a mediocre hacker could take advantage of a Skype vulnerability.
1> Has there BEEN any vulnerabilities reported? If not, let's not get carried away and say that the vulnerabilities in Skype (and there ARE vulnerabilities. It's a piece of software that uses the internet, OF COURSE there's vulnerabilities) are easy to use until they've been reported.
2> Will Info-Tech be recommending the banning of Windows anytime soon? After all, any mediocre hacker can take advantage of a Windows vulnerability.
- Skype's encryption is closed source and prone to man-in-the-middle
attacks. There are also some unanswered questions about how well the
keys are managed.
Ooh.. closed source is evil! By this logic, Info-Tech should recommend banning Windows (to the delight, I'm sure, of many/.ers)
You forgot the "and prone to man in the middle attacks" part. Closed source code by itself isn't dangerous, but man in the middle attacks are. I'm guessing it Skype was open source, anyone could implement a skype server, so the "man in the middle" would be the business itself, thus there being no man in the middle.
Please, let's ban something that allows tens of thousands of people to talk to their friends and relatives in other countries without bringing cash to the big companies.
To be honest, why should businesses care? Unless they REALLY want that customer happiness, and will do ANYTHING to get it, Skype is just another distraction. Anyone making phone calls to home (in all likelihood) will be making local phone calls. I think most businesses will accept having to pay for those.
Also, phones tend to be pretty cheap to plug in, whereas Skype requires a computer, and unless each employee has one computer all to themselves, then you need to buy a "phone computer" which does nothing but run skype, which is a fair bit more expensive. Sure perhaps EVENTUALLY you'll save money on local phone calls, but chances are you'll have to replace the computer by the time you do. Also, Skype is only free if people only ring up other Skype users. So money will have to be spent on non-Skype phone calls, which lessens the amount of money saved by using Skype.
It's actually a recursive loop. "Other businesses are banning Skype because other businesses are banning skype because other businesses are banning skype because other businesses are banning skype because other businesses are banning skype..." I wonder how it got started though? I bet it was those dastardly Packet8 fellows.
Approximately 17 million registered Skype users are using the service for business purposes," says Armstrong. "Unless an organization specifies instances where Skype use is acceptable, and outlines rules for client-side Skype settings, that's 17 million opportunities for a hacker to invade a corporate network.
Wait. So just by having a policy, Skype becomes unhackable? That's incredible. I never knew that a policy (no matter what the policy was) could work so well. Perhaps if all businesses developed a policy like "No computer shall have Windows installed on it" then the amount of hacking businesses suffer from would drop dramatically. All because someone created a document.
Thanks Info-Tech. You just saved my business!
P.S. I was being sarcastic. Although creating a policy banning Windows WOULD decrease the amount of hacking that occurs.
Companies that are already banning peer-to-peer applications, such as instant messaging, should add Skype to its list of unsanctioned software programs
Well no shit, sherlock. If a company feels that IM software (such as AIM or MSN) is a security risk, then of course they should consider Skype a security risk. It's called consistency. This is really a non-issue. New messaging program comes out (which in a way, is what Skype is), companies that ban other messaging programs add it to their ban list. Those that don't ban messaging programs, don't.
This is pretty much a non-article. And it won't slow the proliferation of Skype in the business world, because I doubt companies that banned other IM programs, really needed Info-Tech to tell them to add Skype to the list (I'm sure Info-Tech is just doing it to be consistent as well).
Except that it's much more difficult/serious to donate ovaries.
So women are too stupid to assess the risks and do with their body what they wish? If it wasn't such an important issue, then their little brains would be able to handle the situation better? Perhaps they believe strongly in the research, and won't to contribute however they can, which means both donating their own eggs and working in the lab. To assume that any woman who wishes to donate her eggs to her work has been coerced is ridiculous. And yet, that's exactly what Tlosk is claiming.
Problem is though, while it was C02 and greenhouse gases (is C02 a greenhouse gas?) that began the rise in temperature, other factors (such as water vapour) are going to continue to rise it. Lessening greenhouse gas emissions would help to lessen the acceleration of the temperature, but the temperature will continue to rise regardless. We'd have to scrub the C02 back to levels lower then what they started out to be, before we began emitting greenhouse gases at ridiculous levels.
But don't expect the Australian or American government to do anything. That would hurt the economy, besides everyone knows global warming isn't happening because of humans. It's unpossible for us to stop it.
statutory rape laws protect women who are too young to have the capacity to consent, whereas a researcher in a genetic lab would have all the information she would need to consent to an egg donation
Obviously women are weak-minded and are unable to grasp the situation in order to protect their rights and themselves.[/sarcasm]
Before sperm donations could be paid for, the men working at the clinics would often donate their own sperm in order for there to be enough supply of sperm, because demand was so great and there simply wasn't enough unafilliated men donating to meet the demand there was for sperm. No blanket laws or guidelines had to be made to stop these men from donating their sperm. They knew exactly what they were doing. The same thing should be applied to women.
The idea of men or women being coerced into donating sperm or ovaries in order to keep their jobs is despicable. But If you're going to make a blanket policy to protect one sex, then you should protect the other as well. Otherwise you say the "protected" sex is too weak to protect themselves and make decisions, while the "unprotected" gender isn't important enough to be protected.
A woman's job should not involve her sexual organs, apparatus, or cells in any way, damn it!
What if she is a prostitute?
That's why prostitution isn't a legitimate job.
No, the reason prostitution isn't a legitimate job (in the USA anyway) is because America has a very puritan view when it comes to sex (and see's the depiction of violence to be much more acceptable then the depcition of consensual sex) and the American government loves to invade people's bedrooms.
Don't think for one minute prostitution being illegal is because of protecting women's rights. If it was truly about that, then the government would set up standards of health, working hours, working conditions, pay, etc that people must follow if they are in the prostitution industry.
Well an earlier post talks about that issue. In that it will double frame rates, and a lot of the newer games tend to require the latest technology (or as new as the developers can get with their audience). And if you're talking about open source (or independant) games, they're not going to spearhead the adoption of a technology. You might believe otherwise, but name once that it has happened.
Also, NVIDIA has been able to turn 2D games into a semblence of 3D for some time now. It doesn't work the greatest, and is fairly buggy. But it does work to some degree. However no games have been shipped with this feature built in yet.
If games do helps quicken the adoption of 3D, great. But it's yet to happen, and I'm not seeing any indication it will happen anytime soon.
Doesn't the Sharp 3D have a very limited range in which you can see the 3D effect? I think that the Sharp method is more promising at this stage, however it's just a case of who can do away with their disability first. Will Sharp learn how to increase the range to a more acceptable level, or will IBM learn how to do away with the glasses first? CAN either of these obstacles be overcome? Are the current methods of creating 3D images, doomed because the obstacles are inherent in their designs?
I personally don't know. I'm not an engineer. But I'm not seeing anything that says either company (or any other one for that matter) is about to make a breakthrough in overcoming the problems. But then again, perhaps the solution will come from an unexpected quarter, and will blow the television world away.
On the downside, you still need 3D glasses to correctly view the image and practically no video is shot in 3D as it requires more expensive cameras, but as price drops and general interest rises, this is sure to change.
Uh-huh. And we're sure to get virtual reality sometime soon as well.
It's great that IBM (of all people) have developed a system to allow 3D movies at home. But the problem is, there's no content. And I doubt just because there's a $1,000 US piece of equipment on the market that content will suddenly come spewing forth. ESPECIALLY when glasses are still needed for this to work.
This is a chicken and egg problem, but unlike DVDs and High Definition televisions, 3D has been promised for quite a while but has yet to come. The article makes it sound like IBM has made a giant break through and 3D movies are about to become common place. I doubt very much this is so (especially while we need glasses for these things). This is a positive step, but it's a small one. The adoption of 3D movies will come one day, but the road towards it will be paved with lots of small steps, and we aren't anywhere near the end.
Slashdot Mirror
They don't know it, and if something goes wrong with Windows they can get relatives to come in and fix it. If something goes wrong with Linux, they've got me. My fixing record isn't that crash hot (I haven't lost anything on the computer yet, although I have come close a few times). It's also inertia. They know how to use Windows and the apps it has, while there are comparable apps for Linux, they don't want to have to work at learning them. Hell, my family doesn't use Firefox (and I've offered a few times now).
As for the apps, well the only one I can't find an alternative for is Flash. Everyone always says "Gimp" but ignoring it's difficult user interface (although I have heard this has improved) it isn't scalar. I love Flash's scalar environment. Know of any open source apps that are comparable to Flash (if I only use Flash for drawing pictures that is. I doubt anything but flash creates flash movies)?
Wow, thanks a lot for the offer. I've tried numerous times in the past (with and without help from nice people like you) and in the end there's always one necessary feature that doesn't work. So at the moment I'm not looking to migrate to Linux (especially with having a family who uses the same computer, having to reboot it whenever they wanted to hop on would become a pain. And they refuse to use Linux even if I -did- get it working). In a couple of years once I've got a place of my own I'll definitely be looking to move to Linux, and hopefully by then the few apps I've got that are Windows only will have been ported to Linux, or comparable alternatives would have been developed.
With Microsoft's virtual monopoly, they have a guranteed market for a program and would have to cock it up REALLY, REALLY bad for that market to shrink to a noteworthy degree. So they need to get programs out there to rake in the cash. Quality isn't really an issue for them.
However hopefully if they continue to use this flawed business plan, they'll continue to slowly lose customers. Well, I can dream, can't I?
Looks more like developers are being pressured to achieve ridiculous deadlines, with a fancy name tacked onto the pressure. I also wonder what sort of security is being done to programs developed via the scrum method. Is the scrum JUST for the programming (and/or the preceeding stages)? Or is it the whole thing, testing included, in this "quick, quick" method? If it's the latter, I can't see how testers are going to be able to truly secure the software, so we'll continue to get unsecure software from Microsoft. Thanks a lot, you just made my wish to migrate to Linux increase.
This is why I filter out ACs and hide moderations. I've seen less trolls (and no GNAA crap) and I no longer worry about the pot smoking mods.
Unless you've got an independant power source, then you still run the risk of frying your computer via the powerlines.
Funny how a fiber optic cable making company forgot to include that in their analysis.
what makes you think yours is any different ?
Nothing. But speeding up the process isn't something I'd like to, thankyou anyway though.
They would have used the phone anyway
Where I work, an international call to anyone but a client would be noticed and questioned, and the person sacked for doing so. It would be pretty damn stupid to make a personal INTERNATIONAL call at work.
but nog can do so using the equipment they already own.
Unless that equipment is being used for something else. Places where it's a "1 computer per worker" environment would be able to use Skype no problem. But where my friend works its 3 computers for numerous people. And the computers are being used to display information so they can go around and do what it tells us to do. No-one should be using the computer, because that would place them in the way of the information, and would hinder people trying to do their job. Such environments (and I doubt my friend's work is unique in this regard) would need a computer that didn't display any important information, to have Skype.
I don't see how banning Skype makes the world a better place.
No-one's talking about banning Skype completely. Merely a recommendation was made for businesses to implement a policy banning the use of Skype on work computers, as it posed a security risk. And Skype can pose a security risk.
I know. It's a troll. But I just can't help myself.
millions upon millions more people are suffering and dying from not enough money
Aaah yes. And how many will die due to global warming? I somehow think it'll be a bit more then the amount of people dying due to not enough money. Global warming will not only cause the oceans to rise, but it will cause hurricanes and tornadoes to become even MORE common, droughts and floods will also become more common, which will hit hard for farming communities which will cause a reduction in the amount of food available. Oh, and once all the fossil fuel is gone, we'll still be in the same boat as we would be if we stopped using it tomorrow, unless we create viable alternatives.
Improving the economy will do far more good for the foreseeable future
If you define forseeable future "for the next 50 years."
than any of the hippy crap you're spewing.
Oh, pray tell, please tell me what crap (hippie or otherwise) spewed forth from me in my original post (I've got a fair bit more of it in this post)? All I said was that:
1> Even if we did stop emitting greenhouse gases, global warming would continue to occur.
2> Greenhouse gases will need to be scrubbed from the atmosphere to a lower level then it began with, at least for a while, in order to cool the planet down
3> Australian and American government aren't doing anything serious to combat global warming.
I guess it's point 3 that is the hippy crap you mentioned. I fail to see how saying "global warming is a problem that needs to be solved" is hippy crap (I'm not offering a solution in my post, a solution to global warming COULD occur that would allow more lives to be saved).
Again, sorry for feeding the troll. But this post was fun.
The bottom line is that even a mediocre hacker could take advantage of a Skype vulnerability.
1> Has there BEEN any vulnerabilities reported? If not, let's not get carried away and say that the vulnerabilities in Skype (and there ARE vulnerabilities. It's a piece of software that uses the internet, OF COURSE there's vulnerabilities) are easy to use until they've been reported.
2> Will Info-Tech be recommending the banning of Windows anytime soon? After all, any mediocre hacker can take advantage of a Windows vulnerability.
Ooh.. closed source is evil! By this logic, Info-Tech should recommend banning Windows (to the delight, I'm sure, of many
You forgot the "and prone to man in the middle attacks" part. Closed source code by itself isn't dangerous, but man in the middle attacks are. I'm guessing it Skype was open source, anyone could implement a skype server, so the "man in the middle" would be the business itself, thus there being no man in the middle.
Nice try though.
Please, let's ban something that allows tens of thousands of people to talk to their friends and relatives in other countries without bringing cash to the big companies.
To be honest, why should businesses care? Unless they REALLY want that customer happiness, and will do ANYTHING to get it, Skype is just another distraction. Anyone making phone calls to home (in all likelihood) will be making local phone calls. I think most businesses will accept having to pay for those.
Also, phones tend to be pretty cheap to plug in, whereas Skype requires a computer, and unless each employee has one computer all to themselves, then you need to buy a "phone computer" which does nothing but run skype, which is a fair bit more expensive. Sure perhaps EVENTUALLY you'll save money on local phone calls, but chances are you'll have to replace the computer by the time you do. Also, Skype is only free if people only ring up other Skype users. So money will have to be spent on non-Skype phone calls, which lessens the amount of money saved by using Skype.
It's actually a recursive loop. "Other businesses are banning Skype because other businesses are banning skype because other businesses are banning skype because other businesses are banning skype because other businesses are banning skype..." I wonder how it got started though? I bet it was those dastardly Packet8 fellows.
Approximately 17 million registered Skype users are using the service for business purposes," says Armstrong. "Unless an organization specifies instances where Skype use is acceptable, and outlines rules for client-side Skype settings, that's 17 million opportunities for a hacker to invade a corporate network.
Wait. So just by having a policy, Skype becomes unhackable? That's incredible. I never knew that a policy (no matter what the policy was) could work so well. Perhaps if all businesses developed a policy like "No computer shall have Windows installed on it" then the amount of hacking businesses suffer from would drop dramatically. All because someone created a document.
Thanks Info-Tech. You just saved my business!
P.S. I was being sarcastic. Although creating a policy banning Windows WOULD decrease the amount of hacking that occurs.
Companies that are already banning peer-to-peer applications, such as instant messaging, should add Skype to its list of unsanctioned software programs
Well no shit, sherlock. If a company feels that IM software (such as AIM or MSN) is a security risk, then of course they should consider Skype a security risk. It's called consistency. This is really a non-issue. New messaging program comes out (which in a way, is what Skype is), companies that ban other messaging programs add it to their ban list. Those that don't ban messaging programs, don't.
This is pretty much a non-article. And it won't slow the proliferation of Skype in the business world, because I doubt companies that banned other IM programs, really needed Info-Tech to tell them to add Skype to the list (I'm sure Info-Tech is just doing it to be consistent as well).
Except that it's much more difficult/serious to donate ovaries.
So women are too stupid to assess the risks and do with their body what they wish? If it wasn't such an important issue, then their little brains would be able to handle the situation better? Perhaps they believe strongly in the research, and won't to contribute however they can, which means both donating their own eggs and working in the lab. To assume that any woman who wishes to donate her eggs to her work has been coerced is ridiculous. And yet, that's exactly what Tlosk is claiming.
Great and once the technological societies die out, all we'll be left with is an argrarian society. That sounds MUCH better.
Problem is though, while it was C02 and greenhouse gases (is C02 a greenhouse gas?) that began the rise in temperature, other factors (such as water vapour) are going to continue to rise it. Lessening greenhouse gas emissions would help to lessen the acceleration of the temperature, but the temperature will continue to rise regardless. We'd have to scrub the C02 back to levels lower then what they started out to be, before we began emitting greenhouse gases at ridiculous levels.
But don't expect the Australian or American government to do anything. That would hurt the economy, besides everyone knows global warming isn't happening because of humans. It's unpossible for us to stop it.
Aah, I didn't realise it was legal in same states. Well I ammend my statement for most states in America then ;)
statutory rape laws protect women who are too young to have the capacity to consent, whereas a researcher in a genetic lab would have all the information she would need to consent to an egg donation
Obviously women are weak-minded and are unable to grasp the situation in order to protect their rights and themselves.[/sarcasm]
Before sperm donations could be paid for, the men working at the clinics would often donate their own sperm in order for there to be enough supply of sperm, because demand was so great and there simply wasn't enough unafilliated men donating to meet the demand there was for sperm. No blanket laws or guidelines had to be made to stop these men from donating their sperm. They knew exactly what they were doing. The same thing should be applied to women.
The idea of men or women being coerced into donating sperm or ovaries in order to keep their jobs is despicable. But If you're going to make a blanket policy to protect one sex, then you should protect the other as well. Otherwise you say the "protected" sex is too weak to protect themselves and make decisions, while the "unprotected" gender isn't important enough to be protected.
That's why prostitution isn't a legitimate job.
No, the reason prostitution isn't a legitimate job (in the USA anyway) is because America has a very puritan view when it comes to sex (and see's the depiction of violence to be much more acceptable then the depcition of consensual sex) and the American government loves to invade people's bedrooms.
Don't think for one minute prostitution being illegal is because of protecting women's rights. If it was truly about that, then the government would set up standards of health, working hours, working conditions, pay, etc that people must follow if they are in the prostitution industry.
Well an earlier post talks about that issue. In that it will double frame rates, and a lot of the newer games tend to require the latest technology (or as new as the developers can get with their audience). And if you're talking about open source (or independant) games, they're not going to spearhead the adoption of a technology. You might believe otherwise, but name once that it has happened.
Also, NVIDIA has been able to turn 2D games into a semblence of 3D for some time now. It doesn't work the greatest, and is fairly buggy. But it does work to some degree. However no games have been shipped with this feature built in yet.
If games do helps quicken the adoption of 3D, great. But it's yet to happen, and I'm not seeing any indication it will happen anytime soon.
Doesn't the Sharp 3D have a very limited range in which you can see the 3D effect? I think that the Sharp method is more promising at this stage, however it's just a case of who can do away with their disability first. Will Sharp learn how to increase the range to a more acceptable level, or will IBM learn how to do away with the glasses first? CAN either of these obstacles be overcome? Are the current methods of creating 3D images, doomed because the obstacles are inherent in their designs?
I personally don't know. I'm not an engineer. But I'm not seeing anything that says either company (or any other one for that matter) is about to make a breakthrough in overcoming the problems. But then again, perhaps the solution will come from an unexpected quarter, and will blow the television world away.
On the downside, you still need 3D glasses to correctly view the image and practically no video is shot in 3D as it requires more expensive cameras, but as price drops and general interest rises, this is sure to change.
Uh-huh. And we're sure to get virtual reality sometime soon as well.
It's great that IBM (of all people) have developed a system to allow 3D movies at home. But the problem is, there's no content. And I doubt just because there's a $1,000 US piece of equipment on the market that content will suddenly come spewing forth. ESPECIALLY when glasses are still needed for this to work.
This is a chicken and egg problem, but unlike DVDs and High Definition televisions, 3D has been promised for quite a while but has yet to come. The article makes it sound like IBM has made a giant break through and 3D movies are about to become common place. I doubt very much this is so (especially while we need glasses for these things). This is a positive step, but it's a small one. The adoption of 3D movies will come one day, but the road towards it will be paved with lots of small steps, and we aren't anywhere near the end.