I tried out the beta of windows media player 11...
It's pretty nice looking, and the new organization for the music library is a lot better, but all in all it feels like a skin for windows media player 10 sometimes (not that there's anything wrong with that...)
It does look much sleeker than version 10, but I'm hoping they'll make changes to skin mode as well, which currently looks the same as it did in version 10.
If I'm looking for a good anti-spyware program, and it comes bundled with something that I'm _not_ looking for, then I might instead use something that's not necessarily quite as good but isn't loaded down with other software.
If their software is that much better than Microsoft's, then I'm sure they'll have no problem competing. Honestly most people install spyware without looking at what they're agreeing to, and the people who care about this will be willing to spend the time it takes to install a third party app.
Not to be a troll or anything, but saying that something 'executes remote code' sounds alot worse than it actually is. You could say the same thing of javascript.
That said, ActiveX can do some dangerous things...
The one-time password is to protect against people knowing your credit card number etc. and using it without having the physical card (i.e. online). It wouldn't help you if someone finds the card.
I see how this is an interesting concept, and maybe leaves you with a warm fuzzy feeling inside, but unless an ipod is the type of thing you buy every couple of days on a whim, it doesn't seem that useful...
the most you're probably going to get is one a year; you really don't need everything to be completely streamlined.
Seriously though, they don't seem to go into much detail about the programming aspects of the robot. Of course they give some small details on what it ends up doing, but nothing about what language they used, etc., i.e. the interesting part.
Security through obscurity isn't always a bad thing.
If you have a server that you only want to be accessed by certain people, then not making the IP/port public _is_ security through obscurity, but would certainly prevent some froms of attack. If someone does find it, it'll be easier to seperate that traffic from the legitimate traffic, presuming that they used e.g. a port-scanner.
Opening OSCAR wouldn't help anyone that much. It's been reverse-engineered enough that we can use it anyway.
But anyway, this seems to me like a bad thing for google unless they have a really good reason that's no apparent to me. Google has a very different public view from AOL's, but that could change if they continue with this. It's been a bad day in google news...
I read here that the graphical ads are just for people who use adsense, and not for the main page. (from the site, "I sent an email to the Google Adsense support team and 'Jim' tells me that the beta is for the content network only.")
In any case, if it _is_ for google too, this could easily make me use another search engine if it's at all obtrusive. One of the few reasons I use google is because it's simple, so it's quick to load and easier to find what you're actually looking for.
First, it's considered interesting.
It gradually reduces in attention given to it, until...
They release the source code! Revel ye cupids, for the code hath been releas-ed!
Next day, no one's heard of it again...
Looks to me like an overreaction. Not everything that increases in value like this is necessarily a bubble. (though it does sound more exciting this way)
Some of these 'similarities' are just ridiculous.
Crazy rich bald guy showing up everywhere?!
The slight, mostly irrelavent similarities are far outweighed by the differences, which mostly would have an effect on sales.
This sounds just like what google is supposed to be trying to do...
Free web-based versions of applications, including the supposed office suite, and the mail...
But they've beaten google to parts of it; the question is whether this will discourage google from continuing, and if they will be as successful as google has been with this type of venture.
>I've met a boy from the internet in person before. The only problem was I don't think he was able to actually >verify that I was a girl. Reason being, he never looked at me. It really bothers me when people don't give me eye >contact while talking to them, and he spent the entire adventure staring at the ground. I like to talk; I could >talk for hours. But I can't talk to the top of someone's head. Am I really that scary? Or was the boy just afraid >to face the truth that I am a girl? Maybe he was just trying to perpetuate the notion that girls don't exist on the >internet, and as long as he stared at his shoes, his zealous beliefs were justified. Well, the proof that I am a >girl on the internet is long gone now. His inability to scientifically evaluate the situation invariably means >he'll return to his friends with the all-so-popular conclusion: Girls do not exist on the internet.
wonder where he _was_ looking...
Slashdot Mirror
The article summary is taken directly from the front page of the website, with no citation...
Not to be too picky, but if he's going to post something like this he could at least think of his own summary for the site.
I tried out the beta of windows media player 11... It's pretty nice looking, and the new organization for the music library is a lot better, but all in all it feels like a skin for windows media player 10 sometimes (not that there's anything wrong with that...) It does look much sleeker than version 10, but I'm hoping they'll make changes to skin mode as well, which currently looks the same as it did in version 10.
I often see it the other way around...
If I'm looking for a good anti-spyware program, and it comes bundled with something that I'm _not_ looking for, then I might instead use something that's not necessarily quite as good but isn't loaded down with other software.
If their software is that much better than Microsoft's, then I'm sure they'll have no problem competing. Honestly most people install spyware without looking at what they're agreeing to, and the people who care about this will be willing to spend the time it takes to install a third party app.
Not to be a troll or anything, but saying that something 'executes remote code' sounds alot worse than it actually is. You could say the same thing of javascript.
That said, ActiveX can do some dangerous things...
And if you can't plug in an external storage device, what stops you from making a program that ftps or sendmails the files to you?
This articles is sort of ridiculous if you ask me...
Actually, the site linked would tell you that...
The one-time password is to protect against people knowing your credit card number etc. and using it without having the physical card (i.e. online). It wouldn't help you if someone finds the card.
That'd be double plus ungood.
I see how this is an interesting concept, and maybe leaves you with a warm fuzzy feeling inside, but unless an ipod is the type of thing you buy every couple of days on a whim, it doesn't seem that useful...
the most you're probably going to get is one a year; you really don't need everything to be completely streamlined.
But does it run linux?
Seriously though, they don't seem to go into much detail about the programming aspects of the robot. Of course they give some small details on what it ends up doing, but nothing about what language they used, etc., i.e. the interesting part.
Security through obscurity isn't always a bad thing.
If you have a server that you only want to be accessed by certain people, then not making the IP/port public _is_ security through obscurity, but would certainly prevent some froms of attack.
If someone does find it, it'll be easier to seperate that traffic from the legitimate traffic, presuming that they used e.g. a port-scanner.
The cow that wants to be eaten from HHGTTG comes to mind...
People can see my metadata?
I always knew that the meta-moderation system was flawed, but this is ridiculous!
Opening OSCAR wouldn't help anyone that much. It's been reverse-engineered enough that we can use it anyway.
But anyway, this seems to me like a bad thing for google unless they have a really good reason that's no apparent to me. Google has a very different public view from AOL's, but that could change if they continue with this. It's been a bad day in google news...
I read here that the graphical ads are just for people who use adsense, and not for the main page. (from the site, "I sent an email to the Google Adsense support team and 'Jim' tells me that the beta is for the content network only.")
In any case, if it _is_ for google too, this could easily make me use another search engine if it's at all obtrusive. One of the few reasons I use google is because it's simple, so it's quick to load and easier to find what you're actually looking for.
It doesn't really have to do with preference... Maybe they already pre-ordered one; otherwise they could just get a new one soon afterwords.
I'm surprised...
MS isn't mentioned ONCE.
Matsuow says: "you need to understand why you want to open certain software"
Now, presuming that he is disregarding any ideas of software being closed to *hem* increase profit, he doesn't really seem to get the idea...
I'd say that if anything, you should need to understand why you want to _close_ certain software.
First, it's considered interesting. It gradually reduces in attention given to it, until... They release the source code! Revel ye cupids, for the code hath been releas-ed! Next day, no one's heard of it again...
The title really had me looking forward to reading the article...
Looks to me like an overreaction. Not everything that increases in value like this is necessarily a bubble. (though it does sound more exciting this way)
and, more importantly, can it run on linux?
yarr, here be a mirror of the swf soon: http://badgerville.org/Fagelvirus.swf
You can change any gaming console's shell, sure, with liberal amounts of duct tape.
Some of these 'similarities' are just ridiculous. Crazy rich bald guy showing up everywhere?! The slight, mostly irrelavent similarities are far outweighed by the differences, which mostly would have an effect on sales.
This sounds just like what google is supposed to be trying to do... Free web-based versions of applications, including the supposed office suite, and the mail... But they've beaten google to parts of it; the question is whether this will discourage google from continuing, and if they will be as successful as google has been with this type of venture.
>I've met a boy from the internet in person before. The only problem was I don't think he was able to actually >verify that I was a girl. Reason being, he never looked at me. It really bothers me when people don't give me eye >contact while talking to them, and he spent the entire adventure staring at the ground. I like to talk; I could >talk for hours. But I can't talk to the top of someone's head. Am I really that scary? Or was the boy just afraid >to face the truth that I am a girl? Maybe he was just trying to perpetuate the notion that girls don't exist on the >internet, and as long as he stared at his shoes, his zealous beliefs were justified. Well, the proof that I am a >girl on the internet is long gone now. His inability to scientifically evaluate the situation invariably means >he'll return to his friends with the all-so-popular conclusion: Girls do not exist on the internet. wonder where he _was_ looking...