1) Make it illegal for ISPs to allow customers to send SPAM.
2) Make it illegal for particulars to send SPAM (directly or thru a 3rd party) using either local or foreign ISPs. Consider SPAM (even from third party) in favor or particular's webpage as a solid proof of their approval.
3) Endorse this law across different countries.
This way, spammers will be forced to leave the nation, and will have nowhere to hide. After they install themselves on other countries, it's just a matter of blocking their IP's.
What govt people don't realize, is that all this money that spammers got, comes from the AVERAGE USERS. If they cut the spammers, they're not cutting the income. The users ARE STILL THERE. THE MONEY IS STILL THERE.
We already know that security thru obscurity is no security. Still, the paper was very insightful regarding security protocols. I think we should all download it and learn how (and how NOT) to implement a security mechanism.
When is the death of "Death of..." articles going to come? They are usually wrong, and are always annoying.
Well, one thing that is sure is that the 4MB floppy disc never hit the markets. The CD ROM arrived, and left us with obsolete good-for-nothing 1.44MB floppies.
If they had done the 4MB step, things would be much better now. With the modern advances on storage, I'm sure we would have 8MB floppies by now.
But noooooo, they wanted the huge, bulky CD-ROMS. They're good for permanent storage and backup, but for information transfer? PLEEEASE.
Now let me find the idiot who banned the 4MB floppies... grrr... (goes into Berzerk mode 4)
Getting everyone in the Windows world to that point is the stated goal of the MS security initiative. The Slashdot headline made it seem like a MS rep said point blank that to make Windows secure would take until 2011. And that is pretty clear.
They're ALREADY 10 years late, DOH! Oh. Correction. NINE years. When Microsoft launched Windows 95 with Internet Explorer included, they just did that as a marketing hype. They were NOT concerned with security, the option of having various user accounts was not very clear in 9x. Well, at least it wasn't obvious. (And guess what - you need WinXP _PRO_ ($$$) to set up advanced file "sharing" under the administrative tools)
Oh, what happened with ActiveX controls? Did they care about security? No, it was just another lame way of getting rid of Netscape plugins in favor of their own implementation.
But wait, let's go back further in history. Remvember the nasty MS Word viruses, even before the "web" was worldy available?
Wait, wait! It gets better! DOS. Ever seen those BIOS "virus" alerts? Well those should have been implemented by the Operating System, because the BIOS cannot REALLY know if something's a virus.
DOS should have implemented a decent secure File System. Unix already had those user thingies called "privileges" and the famous read-write-execute attributes.
Face it. When security wasn't even in Microsoft's radar screen, the *nix world was already eating, drinking and breathing security. It's been around 15 years and the Microsoft guys are _JUST_ realizing what this is about.
So, Yeah, I can really understand why Microsoft's goals are long term. To change THEIR WHOLE WAY OF DESIGNING SOFTWARE is a long term goal, DOH!
I'm sure there'll come the time when spinning disks (either floppy or HD) will come to an end and become just pieces of junk in a museum - like vacuum tubes in electronics.
OK enough trekkies speaking about Scotty and telling horribly stupid jokes.
The article is about Quantum Computing. Qubits behave differently than bits regarding that they're both in 1 and 0 at the same time, and with entanglement, we can know the state of a qubit by analizing the other one. Even when they're not in the same physical space. But they're ENTANGLED - that means they share some properties.
When this is applied to computing, and we get the first quantum computers to work, it will mean that we'll be able to perform computing faster than we've ever imagine, because of the implicit parallel processing in qubits.
This means we could break traditional cryptography in just a matter of seconds. (And this means we'll have to use quantum computers to devise a new kind of cryptography: Quantum cryptography).
Actually what I REALLY think is wrong with MS Word, is that it does not have a strictly-thought DOCUMENT OBJECT MODEL.
Like, something's bold? Italics? This textbox thingy is attached to this other thingy in here?
Well, when you export to HTML, what do you have? LOTS OF PARAGRAPHS with specific PRESENTATION TAGS, with apparent NO STRUCTURE.
Well, They MAY use some (unknown and mysterious) object model *internally*, but they have ABSOLUTELY NO STYLE MODEL. If they had dared to redesign their browser, erm... writer... to have a Document-tree-model (i.e. XML or some equivalent) and style model, they would easily detect similar structures and automatically convert them to a specific custom style, stored in some formatting part of the Document's "Elsewhere".
That would make multiple undo's rather easy. Save a copy of the old "doc-xml" node in your undo-stack, saving the bookmarks (id's) of each element. Ta-da!
But do we see this happening in Word, children? (Children answering): Nooooooo.
So, when you try to do things not widely used by people, export that document, and things doesn't work as they SHOULD (wait - who says what SHOULD do what thing?), I tend to ask myself, a-la "home alone":
Does this look like an organized/efficient document object model? "I don't think so".
All with the servlets, enterprise javabeans, setting up the whole mess, and the fact that the free available java environments are _NOT_ the ones you're using at your job. They're just used for "training" (well that was one or two years ago - but I got a php job and i love it).
To get a good handle in this J2EE not-quite-multitier mess, you need HEAVY training ($$$), and of course, the ones who really get money are Sun.
Where I live, there are thousands of vacancies asking for people with two years experience in J2EE. PHP? No, thanks. "Eew... hackable, for newbies".
Still, I can setup Apache, PHP and mySQL in a couple of hours (INCLUDING downloading), and start testing with source code right away. Try that with Java.
The real reason why J2EE is "cool" is because Sun gives FREE Java support to those who purchase their computers. It's just like Microsoft, but without the monopoly (yet).
If the time that one invests in java training would be used for PHP / MySQL (including multitier programming), things would be quite different.
The DOM is a _STANDARD_. When someone "forks" the DOM, it's _NOT_ the DOM anymore. It's proprietary extensions.
So if people have a reference of the DOM handy, things should be no problem. Just emulate (or elliminate) the features that aren't cross-browser, and you're done.
I've learned most of the javascript tricks by reading the DOM levels (NOT versions) 1,2,3 specifications, the DOM events, the DOM stylesheets specs, etc etc. As a web developer, I keep the DOM Specs in my harddrive as a fulltime reference. And of course there are some non-DOM extensions that are really useful, like the world-famous offsetWidth and such. But the rest is DOM.
My javascript automatic validation routines use DOM in a _HEAVY_ way (assigning events, altering nodes, reading nodes' attributes and so on). But I only call ONE function to enable validation on my forms, and voila! And yes, they work on both Moz and IE.
There are only TWO THINGS i haven't been able to do with Mozilla that work on IE.
a) overflow-x (or y), (and that's CSS, not DOM)
and b) Microsoft extensions to the XSLT spec. (Like the eval xslt function).
But I could redesign the page, and use Mozilla's Transformiix implementation of XSLT. There ya go. All thru the standards.
By the way, if the guys making the original Mosaic had listened to the standards before launching it, we would have CSS1 fully working, 10 years ago. The FONT tag wouldn't have even existed.
But bad web designers don't download the Official
DOM Specs. (Just press CTRL-F, search "DOM" 2 or 3 times, and you're done). Instead, they just buy (or download) cheap javascript tutorials or some Microsoft-only ASP for "real dummies" book.
So, whenever someone uses "document.all" instead of using the DOM Standard getElementById, he shouldn't complain that he's using ASP, or that the DOM implementations differ. He's just being lazy (and probably a n00b). Period.
Macho / Hembra = male/female applied to animals.
Masulino / Femenino = generic male/female
So, I think what Microsoft got wrong in here was that they translated "female" to "hembra". And saying a woman is an "hembra" is just about the same than saying she's an animal. i.e. bitch.
But honestly, we do need TRUE LOCALIZATION, not a stupid encarta-like dictionary. I've seen many mistranslations in american products. Like using "vosotros" (Iberic term for "you") instead of "ustedes" (latin american term for "you").
Hey what am I complaining about? It's Microsoft - they won't listen to suggestions anyway.
Hey let's not forget about MPEG4. The current implementations JUST take care of the "Advanced Simple profile". We have yet to see features such as B-frames (not available on AVIs), sprites (irregular shapes which move over background layers), texture mapping, and other things that haven't been implemented... YET.
Maybe in 10 years we'll come up with audio compression algorithms which could separate an actors' voice from the background music, and then sample the instruments from it and be able to store the notes as discrete data. (Something like MIDI on Steroids). Or maybe just sample the actors' voice pitch, and store his dialogues in some kind of speech format.
I'd rather see a sequel to Mel Brook's Spaceballs.
Anyway, Yogurt promised! "Spaceballs II: The search for more money!"
After all, who can dismiss a wonderful parody like this:
Lord Helmet: I'm your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roomate.
Lone Starr: And what does that make us?
Lord Helmet: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Interviewer:So, what can you tell us about Mexico?
Common US citizen: Oh, New Mexico? Well it's too hot there, but...
Interviewer: No, I mean Mexico, THE COUNTRY.
Common US citizen: ???
Interviewer: Think about it, Mexico, las pinyatas, sombreros...
Common US citizen: Oh, like Speedy Gonzalez!
Interviewer: *rolls eyes*
Common US citizen: No, I haven't been there. Do they know Britney there?
Interviewer: (smacks forehead) Oh Lord... *ahem* Ok, here's a Map of the world. Can you pinpoint Mexico?
Common US citizen: Hey look, you're wasting my time, I don't have the time for little subcountry details...
Yeah, this interview was ficticious. But I've seen similar things! Frankly, what do they teach their children on schools?
What REALLY happened with Windows...
on
Latest SP2 News
·
· Score: 2, Funny
Actually, what REALLY happened was:
Evil Hackers: Hmmm take a look at this. MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!
All the world's hobbits, ignorant of their approaching doom (singing): *La la la la la!*
Whitehat guys: Hey, there's a security vulnerability here!
Microsoft: *whistling* what? I didn't hear you!
Whitehat guys: I TOLD YOU THERE'S A VULNERABILITY!
Microsoft: It's not a vulnerability. You're exaggerating.
White hat guys (screaming): HEY EVERYONE! THERE'S A VULNERABILITY IN WINDOWS!!!
The Media: We've heard some rumors of some vulnerability in Windows...
Microsoft: It's just rumours. Anyway, it's those linux cheapstakes, would you believe them?
Evil Hackers: MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
(couple of months later...)
All the world: My computer's been infected!
Evil Hackers: MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
Microsoft: OK, OK, so there WAS a vulnerability! But now's been fixed!!
All the world: Yay!! Hooray for Bill Gates! (they put him in a pedestal, and proclaim him savior of the universe)
(Two weeks later...)
Evil Hackers: Hmmm take a look at this. MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Whitehat guys: Hey, there's a security vulnerability here!
Microsoft: *whistling* what? I didn't hear you!
Billy Joel (singing): *We didn't start the fire...*
Aside from the personal tragedy, which everybody should regret, I don't see why "This is a big setback for solar power advocates".
On this article (link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3536156.stm ) we read about solar-powered hydrogen fabrication, not to mention that flexible,cheaper and better solar cells are already a reality. (link: http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/07/fai rley0704.asp ) due to nanotech research.
Heavy and inefficient silicon solar cells are becoming already obsolete.
And if you want my opinion, we need stricter quality standards for test race vehicles.
Is a way for amateurs to make Anime movies or episodes without spending trillion dollars on software, or trillions of hours on 3D modelling. ^_^
My 2 cents.
Slashdot Mirror
1) Make it illegal for ISPs to allow customers to send SPAM.
2) Make it illegal for particulars to send SPAM (directly or thru a 3rd party) using either local or foreign ISPs. Consider SPAM (even from third party) in favor or particular's webpage as a solid proof of their approval.
3) Endorse this law across different countries.
This way, spammers will be forced to leave the nation, and will have nowhere to hide. After they install themselves on other countries, it's just a matter of blocking their IP's.
What govt people don't realize, is that all this money that spammers got, comes from the AVERAGE USERS. If they cut the spammers, they're not cutting the income. The users ARE STILL THERE. THE MONEY IS STILL THERE.
They don't lose by banning SPAM. They win!
We already know that security thru obscurity is no security.
Still, the paper was very insightful regarding security protocols. I think we should all download it and learn how (and how NOT) to implement a security mechanism.
Well, one thing that is sure is that the 4MB floppy disc never hit the markets. The CD ROM arrived, and left us with obsolete good-for-nothing 1.44MB floppies.
If they had done the 4MB step, things would be much better now. With the modern advances on storage, I'm sure we would have 8MB floppies by now.
But noooooo, they wanted the huge, bulky CD-ROMS.
They're good for permanent storage and backup, but for information transfer? PLEEEASE.
Now let me find the idiot who banned the 4MB floppies... grrr... (goes into Berzerk mode 4)
I had known this for months.
If you really want to be up to date in nano, check out news.nanoapex.com.
Every day there's a new discovery.
This is why I followed the instructions in
:-P )
Black Viper's winxp service configuration guide.
Turns off major security holes (*presses lots of backspaces*) ahem, "services" in SP1.
(I just wonder - for WHOM are those services made? The user or the hacker?
Getting everyone in the Windows world to that point is the stated goal of the MS security initiative. The Slashdot headline made it seem like a MS rep said point blank that to make Windows secure would take until 2011. And that is pretty clear.
They're ALREADY 10 years late, DOH!
Oh. Correction. NINE years. When Microsoft launched Windows 95 with Internet Explorer included, they just did that as a marketing hype. They were NOT concerned with security, the option of having various user accounts was not very clear in 9x. Well, at least it wasn't obvious. (And guess what - you need WinXP _PRO_ ($$$) to set up advanced file "sharing" under the administrative tools)
Oh, what happened with ActiveX controls? Did they care about security? No, it was just another lame way of getting rid of Netscape plugins in favor of their own implementation.
But wait, let's go back further in history. Remvember the nasty MS Word viruses, even before the "web" was worldy available?
Wait, wait! It gets better! DOS. Ever seen those BIOS "virus" alerts? Well those should have been implemented by the Operating System, because the BIOS cannot REALLY know if something's a virus.
DOS should have implemented a decent secure File System. Unix already had those user thingies called "privileges" and the famous read-write-execute attributes.
Face it. When security wasn't even in Microsoft's radar screen, the *nix world was already eating, drinking and breathing security. It's been around 15 years and the Microsoft guys are _JUST_ realizing what this is about.
So, Yeah, I can really understand why Microsoft's goals are long term. To change THEIR WHOLE WAY OF DESIGNING SOFTWARE is a long term goal, DOH!
Check out these solid state HD's.
I'm sure there'll come the time when spinning disks (either floppy or HD) will come to an end and become just pieces of junk in a museum - like vacuum tubes in electronics.
OK enough trekkies speaking about Scotty and telling horribly stupid jokes.
The article is about Quantum Computing. Qubits behave differently than bits regarding that they're both in 1 and 0 at the same time, and with entanglement, we can know the state of a qubit by analizing the other one. Even when they're not in the same physical space. But they're ENTANGLED - that means they share some properties.
When this is applied to computing, and we get the first quantum computers to work, it will mean that we'll be able to perform computing faster than we've ever imagine, because of the implicit parallel processing in qubits.
This means we could break traditional cryptography in just a matter of seconds. (And this means we'll have to use quantum computers to devise a new kind of cryptography: Quantum cryptography).
Here's an introductory article to quantum computing for those who really want to know.
*thinks*
Street Fighter
Mario Bros
Final Fantasy
Mortal Kombat
Yeah. GREAT idea... indeed.
Actually what I REALLY think is wrong with MS Word, is that it does not have a strictly-thought DOCUMENT OBJECT MODEL.
Like, something's bold? Italics? This textbox thingy is attached to this other thingy in here?
Well, when you export to HTML, what do you have? LOTS OF PARAGRAPHS with specific PRESENTATION TAGS, with apparent NO STRUCTURE.
Well, They MAY use some (unknown and mysterious) object model *internally*, but they have ABSOLUTELY NO STYLE MODEL. If they had dared to redesign their browser, erm... writer... to have a Document-tree-model (i.e. XML or some equivalent) and style model, they would easily detect similar structures and automatically convert them to a specific custom style, stored in some formatting part of the Document's "Elsewhere".
That would make multiple undo's rather easy. Save a copy of the old "doc-xml" node in your undo-stack, saving the bookmarks (id's) of each element. Ta-da!
But do we see this happening in Word, children?
(Children answering): Nooooooo.
So, when you try to do things not widely used by people, export that document, and things doesn't work as they SHOULD (wait - who says what SHOULD do what thing?), I tend to ask myself, a-la "home alone":
Does this look like an organized/efficient document object model?
"I don't think so".
to the term "car crash". Airplane, anyone?
Well I don't know about you guys, but should I really trust a medium with news like this?
All with the servlets, enterprise javabeans, setting up the whole mess, and the fact that the free available java environments are _NOT_ the ones you're using at your job. They're just used for "training" (well that was one or two years ago - but I got a php job and i love it).
To get a good handle in this J2EE not-quite-multitier mess, you need HEAVY training ($$$), and of course, the ones who really get money are Sun.
Where I live, there are thousands of vacancies asking for people with two years experience in J2EE. PHP? No, thanks. "Eew... hackable, for newbies".
Still, I can setup Apache, PHP and mySQL in a couple of hours (INCLUDING downloading), and start testing with source code right away. Try that with Java.
The real reason why J2EE is "cool" is because Sun gives FREE Java support to those who purchase their computers. It's just like Microsoft, but without the monopoly (yet).
If the time that one invests in java training would be used for PHP / MySQL (including multitier programming), things would be quite different.
The DOM is a _STANDARD_. When someone "forks" the DOM, it's _NOT_ the DOM anymore. It's proprietary extensions.
So if people have a reference of the DOM handy, things should be no problem. Just emulate (or elliminate) the features that aren't cross-browser, and you're done.
I've learned most of the javascript tricks by reading the DOM levels (NOT versions) 1,2,3 specifications, the DOM events, the DOM stylesheets specs, etc etc. As a web developer, I keep the DOM Specs in my harddrive as a fulltime reference. And of course there are some non-DOM extensions that are really useful, like the world-famous offsetWidth and such. But the rest is DOM.
My javascript automatic validation routines use DOM in a _HEAVY_ way (assigning events, altering nodes, reading nodes' attributes and so on). But I only call ONE function to enable validation on my forms, and voila! And yes, they work on both Moz and IE.
There are only TWO THINGS i haven't been able to do with Mozilla that work on IE.
a) overflow-x (or y), (and that's CSS, not DOM)
and b) Microsoft extensions to the XSLT spec. (Like the eval xslt function).
But I could redesign the page, and use Mozilla's Transformiix implementation of XSLT.
There ya go. All thru the standards.
By the way, if the guys making the original Mosaic had listened to the standards before launching it, we would have CSS1 fully working, 10 years ago. The FONT tag wouldn't have even existed.
But bad web designers don't download the Official DOM Specs. (Just press CTRL-F, search "DOM" 2 or 3 times, and you're done). Instead, they just buy (or download) cheap javascript tutorials or some Microsoft-only ASP for "real dummies" book.
So, whenever someone uses "document.all" instead of using the DOM Standard getElementById, he shouldn't complain that he's using ASP, or that the DOM implementations differ. He's just being lazy (and probably a n00b). Period.
Macho / Hembra = male/female applied to animals. Masulino / Femenino = generic male/female So, I think what Microsoft got wrong in here was that they translated "female" to "hembra". And saying a woman is an "hembra" is just about the same than saying she's an animal. i.e. bitch. But honestly, we do need TRUE LOCALIZATION, not a stupid encarta-like dictionary. I've seen many mistranslations in american products. Like using "vosotros" (Iberic term for "you") instead of "ustedes" (latin american term for "you"). Hey what am I complaining about? It's Microsoft - they won't listen to suggestions anyway.
I just wonder what's the point of making bulk quantities of something that depends on RARE (read: Very, VERY hard to find) materials.
Beam us up, Scotty, we have to find more rare materials for the production.
Hey let's not forget about MPEG4. The current implementations JUST take care of the "Advanced Simple profile". We have yet to see features such as B-frames (not available on AVIs), sprites (irregular shapes which move over background layers), texture mapping, and other things that haven't been implemented... YET.
Maybe in 10 years we'll come up with audio compression algorithms which could separate an actors' voice from the background music, and then sample the instruments from it and be able to store the notes as discrete data. (Something like MIDI on Steroids). Or maybe just sample the actors' voice pitch, and store his dialogues in some kind of speech format.
Oh. And regarding physical media, don't forget about nanotechnology and atomic-sized storage.I'd rather see a sequel to Mel Brook's Spaceballs.
Anyway, Yogurt promised! "Spaceballs II: The search for more money!"
After all, who can dismiss a wonderful parody like this:
Lord Helmet: I'm your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roomate.
Lone Starr: And what does that make us?
Lord Helmet: ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
Interviewer:So, what can you tell us about Mexico?
Common US citizen: Oh, New Mexico? Well it's too hot there, but...
Interviewer: No, I mean Mexico, THE COUNTRY.
Common US citizen: ???
Interviewer: Think about it, Mexico, las pinyatas, sombreros...
Common US citizen: Oh, like Speedy Gonzalez!
Interviewer: *rolls eyes*
Common US citizen: No, I haven't been there. Do they know Britney there?
Interviewer: (smacks forehead) Oh Lord... *ahem* Ok, here's a Map of the world. Can you pinpoint Mexico?
Common US citizen: Hey look, you're wasting my time, I don't have the time for little subcountry details...
Yeah, this interview was ficticious. But I've seen similar things! Frankly, what do they teach their children on schools?
Actually, what REALLY happened was:
Evil Hackers: Hmmm take a look at this. MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!
All the world's hobbits, ignorant of their approaching doom (singing): *La la la la la!*
Whitehat guys: Hey, there's a security vulnerability here!
Microsoft: *whistling* what? I didn't hear you!
Whitehat guys: I TOLD YOU THERE'S A VULNERABILITY!
Microsoft: It's not a vulnerability. You're exaggerating.
White hat guys (screaming): HEY EVERYONE! THERE'S A VULNERABILITY IN WINDOWS!!!
The Media: We've heard some rumors of some vulnerability in Windows...
Microsoft: It's just rumours. Anyway, it's those linux cheapstakes, would you believe them?
Evil Hackers: MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!
(couple of months later...)
All the world: My computer's been infected!
Evil Hackers: MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!
Microsoft: OK, OK, so there WAS a vulnerability! But now's been fixed!!
All the world: Yay!! Hooray for Bill Gates! (they put him in a pedestal, and proclaim him savior of the universe)
(Two weeks later...)
Evil Hackers: Hmmm take a look at this. MUAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Whitehat guys: Hey, there's a security vulnerability here!
Microsoft: *whistling* what? I didn't hear you!
Billy Joel (singing): *We didn't start the fire...*
That's why we'd need LOCAL hashes and not just one big global hash.
So let's say that for a 160megs file you store an md5 hash for every chunk (1, 2, 10 megs maybe?),
AND THEN you check the global MD5...
or who knows. Just do some math with the hashes themselves. It's not that hard to make an encryption algorithm more secure.
Like they did with DES -> 3DES.
IMHO the paper was very badly written. It should have a better Abstract, and a Conclusion. If it wanted to be a good joke, it did it wrong.
Aside from the personal tragedy, which everybody should regret, I don't see why "This is a big setback for solar power advocates".
i rley0704.asp ) due to nanotech research.
On this article (link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3536156.stm ) we read about solar-powered hydrogen fabrication, not to mention that flexible,cheaper and better solar cells are already a reality. (link: http://www.technologyreview.com/articles/04/07/fa
Heavy and inefficient silicon solar cells are becoming already obsolete.
And if you want my opinion, we need stricter quality standards for test race vehicles.
Is a way for amateurs to make Anime movies or episodes without spending trillion dollars on software, or trillions of hours on 3D modelling. ^_^ My 2 cents.
Get some hamsters and put them inside wheels. Woo hoo! Hamster-powered chopters!