Funny, but I noticed a near 100% speed increase in most tasks. Somehow, the fact that I have to move the mouse a few millimeters more doesn't put much weight in the scales when balanced with the fact that almost everything I need is now right in front of me, and not hidden under subsubsubmenus.
I'm pretty sure there are some tasks that are now slower. Yet, for most of the daily tasks at hand that take up 99% of my day, it's noticeably faster.
Also, in Office 2000, my wife (computer-illiterate) needed a lot of coaching. With Office 2007 everything she has ever used is right in front of her on the ribbon. Since the upgrade she hasn't asked me for help with Office again (and that's a year ago, now).
Summary: your objections to the ribbon are mostly theoretical. In practice it's a huge win.
When they (should reasonably be expected to) know about infringement, but don't respond, they will lose most of the claims they have. This bit unisys in the face when they tried to go for licensing fees after 20 years of letting everyone use their stuff, AFAIK. But IANAL, so don't make this the center of your defense in a multimillion dollar lawsuit...
They look like a great acquisition target for GE, Shell, BP, or any of the other energy giants. Who could then lock these guys up in a lab forever doing "feasibility tests" and further research.
- Jasen.
Just like Activision tried to do with infinity ward? Yeah, that'll work out really well. Don't wait to see if they ever get funding: make SURE they get funded. Good move. And then drive them out to form your nightmare competitor. Good move again. Not to speak of the publicity, which would by itself account for a huge amount of damage. That's not even taking into account the fact they patented the stuff so it's out in the open and no longer a secret.
... I don't remember the flower stage. I had to kill it with fire. Not joking.
The flower stage is when the sprouts spread to unsuspecting humans and enter their brains through the nose, making them forget it happened in the process.
Well, according to some of the best doctors in the U.S., prostate cancer is easily detectable at early onset and existing techniques prolong life closer to ten years.
This sounds like yet another modern-age snake-oil campaign. i.e. murder for profit by big pharma. It's just gonna get worse now that Obama has FORCED us to support them.
While prostate cancer may be easily detectable, this is not so for every prostate cancer case. Provenge is used for patients where the nice "live 10 years longer" treatments don't work, for some reason, and it's more like a few months until you're dead. But please, feel free to refuse the treatment and help with the budget.
And mind that it is only in recent years that life expectancy has gone to 10 years for 60% of patients. That means for about 40% they don't make it to the deadline, even with modern treatments.
" Imagine a doctor in London performing surgery on your heart in New York!"
Yeah, that might happen. Or it might just go the way things already are moving and see some outsourcing to China and India. Which wouldn't have to be all that bad, since (a) you get Western hygiene and staff during the operation and while recovering, and you (may/might) get the benefit of a doctor who treats 10 patients a day and is really, really experienced. This is actually a good reason for Chinese people in The Netherlands to go to China for certain procedures, like operations on joints and other non-life threatening stuff. Whereas a Dutch doctor might treat a few patients a week with and never see arare complication, his Chinese colleague will treat a dozen a day and is likely to have handled that complication several times in the last month. And in this type of surgery, experience matters.
Where I see most use for this though, is to get an expert online for a very difficult surgery, who does the really tricky stuff then leaves the opening and closing procedures to the staff at hand. I think the military might be the biggest users for this type of machinery.
Terry had removed that possibility too - check the posts from the guy on this page who was a juror. Terry basically had the whole thing locked down with: - password protection on everything (ofcourse) - unrecoverable passwords where possible on routers that supported it - routers that did not support that option, he had the configurations stored in RAM only, flashed the NVRAM to disable the ability to reboot the router (would have turned it into expensive scrap metal until they could have re-installed it from scratch) and provided a modem line into the router to reload a copy of the configuration if needed. - those configuration copies were stored on an encrypted DVD only decryptable on Terry Childs laptop - physical access to servers prevented if possible (and by no small means either, the guy had secured the logging server in a closed metal case with 2 padlocks, only a few holes for cables present)
Do you think this guy would leave his console open for access?
The law that he broke was a section CA Penal Code 502, specifically that he disrupted or denied computer service to an authorized user and he did so without permission.
Refusing to provide a password is absolutely not a denial of service. That's like claiming losing keys to a rack in a data center is a denial of service.
However, he made one of the biggest mistakes then that he could have. While under police surveillance, he decided then to leave the state and make cash withdrawals of over $10,000. He was arrested, and that's where it became a criminal matter instead of simply an employment matter.
How this is a criminal act? Was he under court order to stay within the state of California and not touch his money?
This whole case was never a criminal matter.
Please re-read all the replies before that post. The problem wasn't the refusal of providing a password, but the refusal of providing ANY access at all. Combine that with the attempt to leave the state and it looks likely that he was going for a Denial Of Service in the most literal sense of the word. That's what got him convicted, not a refusal to hand over a password.
To rephase the issue, the city accused him of Denial of Service. His actions support that accusation. There are penalties for DOS-attacks and he got hit with 'em. Now, the DOS-attack would never have taken place if the city management had not been completely incompetent - that is very clear. But if I had been a juror on this, and with the explanations given above, I would have considered him guilty too.
That said, I might still have hesitated to actually vote that way, given the circumstances. But it looks like he did a Denial of Service on the city and yes, that carries a stiff penalty.
On the other hand society already interferes in the relationship of consenting adults where polygamy is banned.
Not in the least because there are very strong suspicions that in a lot of cases, the consent only goes one way. Either by economic coercion, tradition, threat of social isolation (a death sentence in a lot of countries) or plain use of force. Which I doubt would apply in this case.
One of the things stated in the paper is that when the labour market is very easy (everyone can pack up and move, and everyone will always accept a new job) then general training is very expensive to provide for an employer. The consequence being that only company-specific training is given, but regular training rarely if at all. See China for a good example.
However, when people change jobs a bit less, there is less risk for the employer to lose his investment. Apparently, the Dutch labour market is more flexible than the UK one, so employers demanded a bit more assurance on this item. This seems to be supported by other observations on the labour market as well.
How do you keep an employee from taking that training you just paid for and leaving for what the employee sees as greener pastures? How do you get a return on the huge investment you just dumped into that employee? That is the real issue on why many companies won't expend the dime on training.
In the Netherlands, you can add a clause to any contract basically stating that when they are going on training, they will repay 100% if they leave in one year, 66% in 2, 33% in 3 and 0% after that (or any other declining rate that will hold up in court - 100% in 10 years will not hold up). Most of the companies are part of mandatory collective bargaining agreements with a similar clause.
So one of my friend has a new and shiny MBA - and he will have to fork over a serious amount of money if he decides to leave next year. If the new hiring company wants him bad enough, they'll pay it.
I'm surprised this isn't a standard clause in the USA as well, because it solves most of the issues in this area.
Oh, and to top things off: I'm not even a permanent employee, I'm there on a contract that expires next month:)
Actual quote: "it's no problem to give you my password, you're leaving anyway". Yes thank you very much.
These people are very lucky they can actually trust me, but I am going to recommend them strengthening their security a bit more, in the right direction (exit password aging).
We have a password expiration policy at my work. Every time I change my password I have to memorize a new one. So I pick a password that's easy to remember, as such it's also easy to guess. If I could just memorize a password once, and keep it forever I'd be using a password that's essentially random. This policy is nonsense.
Password rotation doesn't help with hackers, but it helps when a coworker learns what your password is.
Where I work, people give you their password without even asking twice, "because it expires anyway". You may think I'm exaggerating, but it happened twice today and I now have full database access to the production system that pays 20 million a month to clients.
Ah, but people inevitably give their password to a co-worker who then gets fired. The 2 month rule takes care of that situation.
Annoying 100% of your workforce with stupid rules that hurt security more than they help it, is an excellent way to shore up failing internal procedures. I'm equally sure most people who get fired will wait a month on average before doing something rash in a fit of anger.
"So why do people suggest aging passwords? Because they have nothing else they can suggest! Password aging is a feel good response to threats you have no control over. Unfortunately it annoys the users and often make them select passwords which are far easier to compromise. You are better off forcing your users to choose a very complex password (or better yet a pass phrase) of at least 12 characters which includes 3 character classes. That pretty much eliminates the guessing problem and makes voluntary sharing a little less convenient."
It depends on your definition of child porn I guess, but the picture of a girl sucking someones dick sure does look like child porn to me. Or didn't you know that cartoons are banned as well? It's not about the children, it's about enforcing societies moral standards.
As far as I can tell, this only works if you can accurately recreate the exact circumstances for each run, because under normal usage it is quite possible that a refactoring that seems slower, is actually faster but has to process a larger workset. As a programmer I'd be pretty unhappy if my compiler decided to rebel and reverse my O(n^4) refactoring back to the O(n^y) version because I happened to have a smallish y in the first run (so it seemed like an O(n^3) algorithm). Now, for most programs it's not a big deal because you're just reading something from the database. But you better hope the database doesn't get a hiccup or your code may be re-refactored behind your back.
Basically, this looks like IBM's version of Clippy, for programmers.
Aaaand.... i hate to repost to my own post, but I can't find the video anymore and the story has been taken off the front page. I think this will be more interesting than the video: to see what happens next.
IE doesn't hand off the PDF to the viewer just without asking. Chrome does. That's in this case the difference between "download?? what download? CANCEL" or "what just happened on my screen? OMG!".
I was reading a technical forum (used by a few dozen people, I'm in a niche market) with Chrome, when a PDF popped up containing nonsense text.
Ofcourse I wasn't happy about it, so I contacted the owner of the site and scanned my laptop with McAfee's antivirus. Didn't find anything, but 2 weeks later I received a mail that my passwords had been reset for my own website because of suspicious activity. As it turned out, someone had installed a virus similar to the one that got me, on my contact page. Great.
This is with a laptop running Chrome, Windows Vista with UAC enabled, McAfee security suite. I didn't even get a warning.
I used Malwarebytes' Anti-malware to find and remove the stuff that got installed. At least, I'm hoping it got removed - but nothing is certain:P The strange thing is now, that when i need to access a fishy site I use Internet Explorer because it caught the drive-by download the next time I visited. Sort of a complete reversal of policy for me.
Slashdot Mirror
Funny, but I noticed a near 100% speed increase in most tasks. Somehow, the fact that I have to move the mouse a few millimeters more doesn't put much weight in the scales when balanced with the fact that almost everything I need is now right in front of me, and not hidden under subsubsubmenus.
I'm pretty sure there are some tasks that are now slower. Yet, for most of the daily tasks at hand that take up 99% of my day, it's noticeably faster.
Also, in Office 2000, my wife (computer-illiterate) needed a lot of coaching. With Office 2007 everything she has ever used is right in front of her on the ribbon. Since the upgrade she hasn't asked me for help with Office again (and that's a year ago, now).
Summary: your objections to the ribbon are mostly theoretical. In practice it's a huge win.
Actually, please let them wait.
When they (should reasonably be expected to) know about infringement, but don't respond, they will lose most of the claims they have. This bit unisys in the face when they tried to go for licensing fees after 20 years of letting everyone use their stuff, AFAIK. But IANAL, so don't make this the center of your defense in a multimillion dollar lawsuit...
Which version of windows? I've seen VIsta recover from many really bad driver issues by rolling back to a restore point. XP however was less robust.
They look like a great acquisition target for GE, Shell, BP, or any of the other energy giants. Who could then lock these guys up in a lab forever doing "feasibility tests" and further research.
- Jasen.
Just like Activision tried to do with infinity ward? Yeah, that'll work out really well. Don't wait to see if they ever get funding: make SURE they get funded. Good move. And then drive them out to form your nightmare competitor. Good move again. Not to speak of the publicity, which would by itself account for a huge amount of damage. That's not even taking into account the fact they patented the stuff so it's out in the open and no longer a secret.
It's called "power" for a reason.
... I don't remember the flower stage. I had to kill it with fire. Not joking.
The flower stage is when the sprouts spread to unsuspecting humans and enter their brains through the nose, making them forget it happened in the process.
Have fun :)
Well, according to some of the best doctors in the U.S., prostate cancer is easily detectable at early onset and existing techniques prolong life closer to ten years.
This sounds like yet another modern-age snake-oil campaign. i.e. murder for profit by big pharma. It's just gonna get worse now that Obama has FORCED us to support them.
While prostate cancer may be easily detectable, this is not so for every prostate cancer case. Provenge is used for patients where the nice "live 10 years longer" treatments don't work, for some reason, and it's more like a few months until you're dead. But please, feel free to refuse the treatment and help with the budget.
And mind that it is only in recent years that life expectancy has gone to 10 years for 60% of patients. That means for about 40% they don't make it to the deadline, even with modern treatments.
Here's a link: http://info.cancerresearchuk.org/cancerstats/types/prostate/survival/
" Imagine a doctor in London performing surgery on your heart in New York!"
Yeah, that might happen. Or it might just go the way things already are moving and see some outsourcing to China and India. Which wouldn't have to be all that bad, since (a) you get Western hygiene and staff during the operation and while recovering, and you (may/might) get the benefit of a doctor who treats 10 patients a day and is really, really experienced. This is actually a good reason for Chinese people in The Netherlands to go to China for certain procedures, like operations on joints and other non-life threatening stuff. Whereas a Dutch doctor might treat a few patients a week with and never see arare complication, his Chinese colleague will treat a dozen a day and is likely to have handled that complication several times in the last month. And in this type of surgery, experience matters.
Where I see most use for this though, is to get an expert online for a very difficult surgery, who does the really tricky stuff then leaves the opening and closing procedures to the staff at hand. I think the military might be the biggest users for this type of machinery.
Terry had removed that possibility too - check the posts from the guy on this page who was a juror. Terry basically had the whole thing locked down with:
- password protection on everything (ofcourse)
- unrecoverable passwords where possible on routers that supported it
- routers that did not support that option, he had the configurations stored in RAM only, flashed the NVRAM to disable the ability to reboot the router (would have turned it into expensive scrap metal until they could have re-installed it from scratch) and provided a modem line into the router to reload a copy of the configuration if needed.
- those configuration copies were stored on an encrypted DVD only decryptable on Terry Childs laptop
- physical access to servers prevented if possible (and by no small means either, the guy had secured the logging server in a closed metal case with 2 padlocks, only a few holes for cables present)
Do you think this guy would leave his console open for access?
Refusing to provide a password is absolutely not a denial of service. That's like claiming losing keys to a rack in a data center is a denial of service.
How this is a criminal act? Was he under court order to stay within the state of California and not touch his money?
This whole case was never a criminal matter.
Please re-read all the replies before that post. The problem wasn't the refusal of providing a password, but the refusal of providing ANY access at all. Combine that with the attempt to leave the state and it looks likely that he was going for a Denial Of Service in the most literal sense of the word. That's what got him convicted, not a refusal to hand over a password.
To rephase the issue, the city accused him of Denial of Service. His actions support that accusation. There are penalties for DOS-attacks and he got hit with 'em. Now, the DOS-attack would never have taken place if the city management had not been completely incompetent - that is very clear. But if I had been a juror on this, and with the explanations given above, I would have considered him guilty too.
That said, I might still have hesitated to actually vote that way, given the circumstances. But it looks like he did a Denial of Service on the city and yes, that carries a stiff penalty.
Assuming their two heads can agree ...
On the other hand society already interferes in the relationship of consenting adults where polygamy is banned.
Not in the least because there are very strong suspicions that in a lot of cases, the consent only goes one way. Either by economic coercion, tradition, threat of social isolation (a death sentence in a lot of countries) or plain use of force. Which I doubt would apply in this case.
I think you should read this:
http://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/conferences/epunet/2005/docs/pdf/papers/brunello.pdf
One of the things stated in the paper is that when the labour market is very easy (everyone can pack up and move, and everyone will always accept a new job) then general training is very expensive to provide for an employer. The consequence being that only company-specific training is given, but regular training rarely if at all. See China for a good example.
However, when people change jobs a bit less, there is less risk for the employer to lose his investment. Apparently, the Dutch labour market is more flexible than the UK one, so employers demanded a bit more assurance on this item. This seems to be supported by other observations on the labour market as well.
How do you keep an employee from taking that training you just paid for and leaving for what the employee sees as greener pastures? How do you get a return on the huge investment you just dumped into that employee? That is the real issue on why many companies won't expend the dime on training.
In the Netherlands, you can add a clause to any contract basically stating that when they are going on training, they will repay 100% if they leave in one year, 66% in 2, 33% in 3 and 0% after that (or any other declining rate that will hold up in court - 100% in 10 years will not hold up). Most of the companies are part of mandatory collective bargaining agreements with a similar clause.
So one of my friend has a new and shiny MBA - and he will have to fork over a serious amount of money if he decides to leave next year. If the new hiring company wants him bad enough, they'll pay it.
I'm surprised this isn't a standard clause in the USA as well, because it solves most of the issues in this area.
Oh, and to top things off: I'm not even a permanent employee, I'm there on a contract that expires next month :)
Actual quote: "it's no problem to give you my password, you're leaving anyway". Yes thank you very much.
These people are very lucky they can actually trust me, but I am going to recommend them strengthening their security a bit more, in the right direction (exit password aging).
We have a password expiration policy at my work. Every time I change my password I have to memorize a new one. So I pick a password that's easy to remember, as such it's also easy to guess. If I could just memorize a password once, and keep it forever I'd be using a password that's essentially random. This policy is nonsense.
Password rotation doesn't help with hackers, but it helps when a coworker learns what your password is.
Where I work, people give you their password without even asking twice, "because it expires anyway". You may think I'm exaggerating, but it happened twice today and I now have full database access to the production system that pays 20 million a month to clients.
Yay for password aging, it really works! :)
Ah, but people inevitably give their password to a co-worker who then gets fired. The 2 month rule takes care of that situation.
Annoying 100% of your workforce with stupid rules that hurt security more than they help it, is an excellent way to shore up failing internal procedures. I'm equally sure most people who get fired will wait a month on average before doing something rash in a fit of anger.
Actually, the reasoning behind most password aging rules is pretty sad. To quote http://rusecure.rutgers.edu/content/password-aging (Rutgers uni) on password aging reasons:
"So why do people suggest aging passwords? Because they have nothing else they can suggest! Password aging is a feel good response to threats you have no control over. Unfortunately it annoys the users and often make them select passwords which are far easier to compromise. You are better off forcing your users to choose a very complex password (or better yet a pass phrase) of at least 12 characters which includes 3 character classes. That pretty much eliminates the guessing problem and makes voluntary sharing a little less convenient."
I wholeheartedly agree with that.
Whoooooosh....
Omg can't believe I actually used an internet meme :)
Anyway, the parent was likely referring to the fact that most users thereafter would not be able to use Pine and thus be safe from harm :)
A lot of receiving parties beg to differ.
It depends on your definition of child porn I guess, but the picture of a girl sucking someones dick sure does look like child porn to me. Or didn't you know that cartoons are banned as well? It's not about the children, it's about enforcing societies moral standards.
Hmm... this doesn't look at all appealing to me.
As far as I can tell, this only works if you can accurately recreate the exact circumstances for each run, because under normal usage it is quite possible that a refactoring that seems slower, is actually faster but has to process a larger workset. As a programmer I'd be pretty unhappy if my compiler decided to rebel and reverse my O(n^4) refactoring back to the O(n^y) version because I happened to have a smallish y in the first run (so it seemed like an O(n^3) algorithm). Now, for most programs it's not a big deal because you're just reading something from the database. But you better hope the database doesn't get a hiccup or your code may be re-refactored behind your back.
Basically, this looks like IBM's version of Clippy, for programmers.
Aaaand.... i hate to repost to my own post, but I can't find the video anymore and the story has been taken off the front page. I think this will be more interesting than the video: to see what happens next.
It's just been posted (3 times by different people) to the biggest Dutch news website. Good luck taking it down, CIA.
IE doesn't hand off the PDF to the viewer just without asking. Chrome does. That's in this case the difference between "download?? what download? CANCEL" or "what just happened on my screen? OMG!".
I was reading a technical forum (used by a few dozen people, I'm in a niche market) with Chrome, when a PDF popped up containing nonsense text.
Ofcourse I wasn't happy about it, so I contacted the owner of the site and scanned my laptop with McAfee's antivirus. Didn't find anything, but 2 weeks later I received a mail that my passwords had been reset for my own website because of suspicious activity. As it turned out, someone had installed a virus similar to the one that got me, on my contact page. Great.
This is with a laptop running Chrome, Windows Vista with UAC enabled, McAfee security suite. I didn't even get a warning.
I used Malwarebytes' Anti-malware to find and remove the stuff that got installed. At least, I'm hoping it got removed - but nothing is certain :P The strange thing is now, that when i need to access a fishy site I use Internet Explorer because it caught the drive-by download the next time I visited. Sort of a complete reversal of policy for me.
screenshot or it didn't happen