Do you know anything baout barcodes? Barcodes do not have serial numbers encoded on them. Every printer of the same brand and model has the same barcode. Any other system would increase the cost of printing boxes tenfold.
The best they could do is identify which store the item was shipped to. And really, even that is a stretch. In all likelihood a company has no idea which stores got products with which serial numbers. They probably know which serial numbers went to which regional distribution centre, but thats it.
If you honestly think that companies have the time and money to track things to that ability, you are crazy. It would cost them *millions*, and benefit them zero. They would be fighting tooth and nail against any request by the government to do that.
The thing serial numbers are used for is to identify the date and batch of the item (so they can track it back to the plant and workers if there are an unusually high number of defects in a batch), and also to track warrantys. That is it. Unless you file a warranty claim a company has no way to correltate that back to you, and really, they have no reason to waste money on that either.
If you need BlackBerry support, there is always Domino and GroupWise.
Also, I suspect that soon either support will be added to OpenExchange, or Groupwise will be opened up. It makes no sense for Novell to be selling two competing groupware solutions.
There isn't a "drop-in" replacement for exchange because the protocols are binary and not documented.
If you will be a little less lazy, there are Outlook plugins for both Kolab and OpenExchange that will let your users use the same client while you replace the server, they should not notice anything different at all.
But there is no way you are ever going to just replace the server and do nothing else. It is impossible - that is why the Outlook/Exchange combo is so horrible, it is not compatible with anything.
Kontact + Kolab is an excellent combof rom my experience, and offers everything Exchange has.
The problem is inter-operating with Windows clients as well. There is a commercial Outlook plugin that lets you use it with Kolab but I have never tried it.
I have never tried OpenExchange either, but I have heard very good things. Also since there is big money behind it I imagine it has good prospects.
Seriously, more thanyou would like to believe, it i simply because you are used to Windows.
I say this as someone who uses Linux at work every single day, it is the only OS on my laptop. And whenever I need to use windows for any length of time for some external project, I am constantly thinking "if only I had Linux..."
And that's just the tip of it. There are also commercial products.
Seriously - if you think there are not alternatives to Exchange out there, then either you have not done your homework or are seriously misinformed, or both.
This is, by deifnition, not a cross site scripting vulnerability, since all the requests were confined to the MySpace.com domain.
In fact, I don't see how anyone who even read the article could conclude that it was XSS. There isn't even a vulnerability in the browser being epxloited here, it is just vulnerabilities in the MySpace.com software.
XSS vulnerabilities are much worse than this. If this guy had tried to use XMLHttpRequest to access a site off of MySpace.com, he would find that all it would result in is raising a security exception. XSS vulnerabilities use holes in browsers to get around this, allowing data to flow from one website to another without the user's knowledge. That is dangerous.
A sure sign of a maturing market is when vendors stop talking about products and start talking about services and 'solution stacks
If anyone ever came to me pitching is "solution stack", I would take it as a sure sign that he was out to lunch.
Either that or he is in marketing.
Or is there a difference?
You obviously were not paying attention at all
on
Archimedes Death Ray
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
For one, they do *many* more experiments than they show on air. Check out their website for details - basically, for every one experiment that makes it to air, they did 5. In reference to this episode in particular, you can be sure they tried many different cell models with many different levels of gas. These guys have quite a large budget to work with, they aren't going to skimp out on one cell phone.
For two, in reference to this particular episode, they did bust the myth that a cell phone can cause an explosion *through normal useage*. What they ended up saying, is in all likelihood the reported explosions were not coming from cell phones, but were a result of static electricity buildup at the scene. This is entirely plauseable. In my last car, depnding on the clothes I was wearing, I would often get actual blue sparks coming from my fingers to the door handle if I touched the car in the wrong way while getting out of it.
An explosion from a spark caused by static is much more likely than anything caused by a cell phone. How could useing a cell phone or having it ring *possibly* be any ore dangerous than a car radio? The car radio operates simmilar electronics, and hell, old ones even have rotary contact-based resistors for the volumne, which would be an ample source of spark potential. Any cell phone whose batter is sparking is not going to work properly because the battery is not making proper contact with the battery, so your calls would be constantly dropping. No one would use it.
Just because you can only buy > 2.4 GHz machines now *doe snot in any way* mean that that is the average speed of a home computer.
You're hard pressed to find a car that doesn't come with power windows and locks standard now too. That doesn't mean that the average car on the road has power windows and locks. It is probably more like a 60/40 split at best in favour of non-power windows and locks.
Not everyone buys a new PC every eyar, in fact most don't. My parent's are doing just fine on their AMD 850 from 5 years ago, why would they upgrade?
The 250 added blade servers each have two 3.4 GHz CPus, while the existing 1144 only had two 2.6 GHz CPUs.
Every two new servers is approx. as powerful as three old servers. It is more like they are now running 1519 dual 2.4 Ghz machines, or 3038 2.4 GHz cores.
Also, remember that a 2.4 GHz is faster than two 1.2 Ghz chips, because of instruction set improvements.
So, I would not say it would be far off to say that this cluster is approx. the computing power of 15,000 1 - 1.5 GHz machines. This is probably what they are basing the numbers off of.
Recently computers are used in developing dangerous nuclear weapons.
WTF? Steel is also used in developing nuclear weapons. So is plastic and electricity. I should create a blog about the 'negative effects of using steel' I guess?
People are thrown out of their jobs due to the computerization. This has affected the working middle aged persons a lot.
People were thrown out of their jobs due to the invention of the printing press as well.
Nowadays computers are misused by lots of people for sharing pornographic materials.
Better ban printed pictures as well. Oh, I guess cave-paintings are dangerous too.
In all seriousness, what is this ragtag group of drivel supposed to mean? I could come up with a simmiar list of the negative effects of useing oxygen.
Safari already had an XmlHttpRequest object when GMail launched. In fact GMail worked if you did UserAgent spoofing. It just was not officially supported.
And the XMLHttpRequest object was being written in Konqueror before GMail existed. GMail probably helped push it along though.
...since all of the technologies in question are so demonstrably ill-suited for this type of application, it takes a massive amount of effort to implement even a basic set of features while trying to mimic a true desktop app
What are you smoking? If it takes such an *enormous* effort to do, then how do you explain Writely? it's not like there is a massive software company with tons of resources behind it.
The truth is, AJAX based apps are *very* easy to write, since almost all of the important work has already been done for you by the browser. All you need to do is use JavaScript as the glue, and your favoirte language as the server-side processing backend for retrieval and storage.
and it makes it very hard to add new features, because everything from the presentation layer to the communication protocol to the back end infrastructure is a hideous kludge.
Actually, it makes it easier to add features. You can entirely swap back-ends at will without touching the front-end, an vice-versa. You can add new features to the back end and have them be instantly available to all customers since it is web based. How could it get any easier? I don't understand your reasoning here.
On top of that, the network bandwidth and server-side hardware requirements for hosting this type of software are staggering,
Staggering? Hardly. Your standard Dell 2850 would be able to host tens of thousands of clients with this kind of web application. The server is doing *almost nothing*, all it has to do is serve a few requests and retirve and store documents. There is no back-end processing going on here. The front-end is doing the majority of the work, which is the rendering and editing of the document. If you think otherwise then you don't understand how these AJAX office applications work at a fundamental level.
...while the typical desktop machine's substantial computing capacity is squandered by using it as a glorified dumb terminal. In other words, very little bang for the buck. Where's the business sense in that?
The very idea that an office suite should require any kind of processing power at all is just the kind of nonsense Microsoft Office has lead you to believe. I shouldn't need a P4 with 1 GB of ram to write a text document with a few tables in it.
The whole point of E3 is to show off games to the media and to the retailers. That is the whole point of the article. It has strayed from it's purpose, mainly because so many unimportant people are now going that it is impossible to *do* your job, when that is the whole point of the show.
Making his job as a reporter easier *would* be improving the show. It is not an amusement park, it is an expo.
And if there were going to suddenly be a huge switch to lightweight suites, why not to native, free-beer-and-speech open source apps? Would _you_ rather pay subscription fees to Google for the privilege of Google address book integration?
You are making a *huge* assumton that you would have to pay here.
Google could offer such an office quite for free for several reasons.
They would have even more ad revenue.
It would be a huge driver for people to adopt GMail and GTalk to collaberate and share their online office documents.
They could offer the suite for free, with a hosted behind-the-firewall storage solution for companies who want their data to remain their data, while preserving the awesome collaberaiton and indexing features.
Who would have thought 5 years ago anyone could offer free e-mail with over 2 GB of storage to anyone? Who would have thought that Keyhole would be a free download?
I am surprised people still underestimate both the foresight and business sense of Google. They usually know exactly what they are doing.
Creating something like a simple web-based word processor is certainly within the realm of possibility. Unfortunately, the implementation ends up being a Rube Goldberg machine of clunky technologies duct-taped together into a horribly convoluted, difficult to maintain, spaghetti-code mess.
Unfortunately, you are thinking like a coder and not a businessman.
If efficiency was the gold standard by which an application was judged, then we'd all be writing assembler all the time. If code readability was the gold standard, then we would all be writing every application in CobolBasic.
All that matters, in reality, is a) Does this application look good, b) Does it do it's job well, and most importantly, c) Will people use it?
The consumer does not give a flying f*** if the codebase of an application is reuseable, or if it is cobbeled together with toothpicks and jello, as long as it works and makes their life easier. A web-based office suite would fit that role nicely. It would *just work*, it would do the job it was designed to do. It may not have every bell and whistle, but guess what? The vast majority of people don't care about that.
Not everyoule would use such an application, but Google would not need everyone to use it to be profitable. Hell, it would be so cheap to create and maintain, they could likely be profitable with a very small number of users in proportion to the number it takes Microsoft to turn a profit on MS Office.
Google should be proud. But to say that they can just bang out a Javascript-based office suite because you guys think it would be fun is simply nuts. It's not like they have magic powers over there, no matter what the cafeteria serves.
If you don't believe it can be done, check out the actual applications. What many people don't seem to realize when they scoff at the idea of an AJAX based office quite is that Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari and Konqueror, all have "design mode" APIs that allow a user and JavaScript to manipulate the web page directly. Combine that with some excellent import/export filters for HTMl to popular office formats, and you have a decent office suite framework already at your grasp.
If you really don't think it can be done, look at those sample apps, and consider that they are done with basically no budget. Now throw the mihgt of Google, it's money, and it's developers at the problem. It is not beyond feasability that they could construct such a suite in a matter of months, especially when you consider that 80% of the functions in MS Office are only used by 20% of the people
Also consider how well this would integrate with their existing core competancies (indexing and searching). You could store all your documents online ina shareable Google store, and they woudl already all be indexed and searchable. You could use your Google addrfesss book to select other people who would be allwed to access and search the documents. And of course you would use Google Talk to collaberate on them.
You have to admit that Visual Studio, while it has its own variety of suck, is nominally better than just about any Java IDE out there. And I have tried a lot of them.
I don't know what kind of crack you are smoking, but I would sure like to get some!
Java 5.0 + Eclipse 3.1 is by far the best combination of panguage power and IDE power I have ever seen. It is head and shoulders above Visual Studio.Net. There are so many things better about Eclipse that I can't even go into it.
They wouldn't have been a transit until that link broke down.
Say you have 3 huge backbone providers, A, B, and C.
A peers with B B peers with C A peers with C
None of these providers is a transit provider for the others, because none of them need it as they all have peering relationships.
Now say the deal between A and C goes bad; the traffic can still get bwtween them by going through B. Now, in this situation, B would become a transit carrier, yes. I don't know if that would mean immediately that they would have to start paying higher fees or what, because that would not be their original contract
Ok, I understand then how a libel case wouldn't work precisely because the defendant could merely say that this was his opinion...but I don't understand that paragraph above...why would it then come to you having to disprove the statements, ever?
Not sure I understand your question, but what I was trying to say above, is that those kind of statements can neither be proven nor disproven. So anyone can assert them.
Next question, is it possible to suffer damage due to someone's unsubstantiated opinion? Like if I make a website about how much I hate someone, and other people actually pick up on that and then that person has a tough time getting a job or something...can he still sue me for libel in that case?
Not successfully. He could try, but all you were doing is voicing your opinion. That is what the first amendment is all about.
Then again, your pocketbook may not be able to afford to go to court, and you'd be willing to give in anyway. This is a type of SLAPP suit.
Slashdot Mirror
Do you know anything baout barcodes? Barcodes do not have serial numbers encoded on them. Every printer of the same brand and model has the same barcode. Any other system would increase the cost of printing boxes tenfold.
The best they could do is identify which store the item was shipped to. And really, even that is a stretch. In all likelihood a company has no idea which stores got products with which serial numbers. They probably know which serial numbers went to which regional distribution centre, but thats it.
If you honestly think that companies have the time and money to track things to that ability, you are crazy. It would cost them *millions*, and benefit them zero. They would be fighting tooth and nail against any request by the government to do that.
The thing serial numbers are used for is to identify the date and batch of the item (so they can track it back to the plant and workers if there are an unusually high number of defects in a batch), and also to track warrantys. That is it. Unless you file a warranty claim a company has no way to correltate that back to you, and really, they have no reason to waste money on that either.
If you need BlackBerry support, there is always Domino and GroupWise.
Also, I suspect that soon either support will be added to OpenExchange, or Groupwise will be opened up. It makes no sense for Novell to be selling two competing groupware solutions.
There isn't a "drop-in" replacement for exchange because the protocols are binary and not documented.
If you will be a little less lazy, there are Outlook plugins for both Kolab and OpenExchange that will let your users use the same client while you replace the server, they should not notice anything different at all.
But there is no way you are ever going to just replace the server and do nothing else. It is impossible - that is why the Outlook/Exchange combo is so horrible, it is not compatible with anything.
Kontact + Kolab is an excellent combof rom my experience, and offers everything Exchange has.
The problem is inter-operating with Windows clients as well. There is a commercial Outlook plugin that lets you use it with Kolab but I have never tried it.
I have never tried OpenExchange either, but I have heard very good things. Also since there is big money behind it I imagine it has good prospects.
Seriously, more thanyou would like to believe, it i simply because you are used to Windows.
I say this as someone who uses Linux at work every single day, it is the only OS on my laptop. And whenever I need to use windows for any length of time for some external project, I am constantly thinking "if only I had Linux..."
There's Novell-backed OpenExchange
There's Germany-backed Kolab
There's RedHat-backed eGroupWare
There's all-open OpenGroupware
And that's just the tip of it. There are also commercial products.
Seriously - if you think there are not alternatives to Exchange out there, then either you have not done your homework or are seriously misinformed, or both.
Nope. you can't go into the prefereces because the alert box is modal. You can't do *anything* other than kill the browser window.
This is the point of the bugzilla bug.
So clicking on a link can lock up the browser. So what?
How is this any different from this, which effectively locks up *all* current browsers?
<script>
while(true){
alert('Haha!');
}
<script>
This is hardly important. I don't see any way this can crash my machine or infect me with a trojan.
PS if you want a fix for the above vote for bug 61098] at bugzilla.
Both my cats were microchipped for free when I adopted them from the local SPCA. They do it for all adoptions.
Since the SPCA is an underfunded non-profit (at least around here), I don't think that it can be too expensive.
This is, by deifnition, not a cross site scripting vulnerability, since all the requests were confined to the MySpace.com domain.
In fact, I don't see how anyone who even read the article could conclude that it was XSS. There isn't even a vulnerability in the browser being epxloited here, it is just vulnerabilities in the MySpace.com software.
XSS vulnerabilities are much worse than this. If this guy had tried to use XMLHttpRequest to access a site off of MySpace.com, he would find that all it would result in is raising a security exception. XSS vulnerabilities use holes in browsers to get around this, allowing data to flow from one website to another without the user's knowledge. That is dangerous.
A sure sign of a maturing market is when vendors stop talking about products and start talking about services and 'solution stacks
If anyone ever came to me pitching is "solution stack", I would take it as a sure sign that he was out to lunch.
Either that or he is in marketing.
Or is there a difference?
For one, they do *many* more experiments than they show on air. Check out their website for details - basically, for every one experiment that makes it to air, they did 5. In reference to this episode in particular, you can be sure they tried many different cell models with many different levels of gas. These guys have quite a large budget to work with, they aren't going to skimp out on one cell phone.
For two, in reference to this particular episode, they did bust the myth that a cell phone can cause an explosion *through normal useage*. What they ended up saying, is in all likelihood the reported explosions were not coming from cell phones, but were a result of static electricity buildup at the scene. This is entirely plauseable. In my last car, depnding on the clothes I was wearing, I would often get actual blue sparks coming from my fingers to the door handle if I touched the car in the wrong way while getting out of it.
An explosion from a spark caused by static is much more likely than anything caused by a cell phone. How could useing a cell phone or having it ring *possibly* be any ore dangerous than a car radio? The car radio operates simmilar electronics, and hell, old ones even have rotary contact-based resistors for the volumne, which would be an ample source of spark potential. Any cell phone whose batter is sparking is not going to work properly because the battery is not making proper contact with the battery, so your calls would be constantly dropping. No one would use it.
So what?
Just because you can only buy > 2.4 GHz machines now *doe snot in any way* mean that that is the average speed of a home computer.
You're hard pressed to find a car that doesn't come with power windows and locks standard now too. That doesn't mean that the average car on the road has power windows and locks. It is probably more like a 60/40 split at best in favour of non-power windows and locks.
Not everyone buys a new PC every eyar, in fact most don't. My parent's are doing just fine on their AMD 850 from 5 years ago, why would they upgrade?
The 250 added blade servers each have two 3.4 GHz CPus, while the existing 1144 only had two 2.6 GHz CPUs.
Every two new servers is approx. as powerful as three old servers. It is more like they are now running 1519 dual 2.4 Ghz machines, or 3038 2.4 GHz cores.
Also, remember that a 2.4 GHz is faster than two 1.2 Ghz chips, because of instruction set improvements.
So, I would not say it would be far off to say that this cluster is approx. the computing power of 15,000 1 - 1.5 GHz machines. This is probably what they are basing the numbers off of.
Recently computers are used in developing dangerous nuclear weapons.
WTF? Steel is also used in developing nuclear weapons. So is plastic and electricity. I should create a blog about the 'negative effects of using steel' I guess?
People are thrown out of their jobs due to the computerization. This has affected the working middle aged persons a lot.
People were thrown out of their jobs due to the invention of the printing press as well.Nowadays computers are misused by lots of people for sharing pornographic materials.
Better ban printed pictures as well. Oh, I guess cave-paintings are dangerous too.
In all seriousness, what is this ragtag group of drivel supposed to mean? I could come up with a simmiar list of the negative effects of useing oxygen.
Safari already had an XmlHttpRequest object when GMail launched. In fact GMail worked if you did UserAgent spoofing. It just was not officially supported.
And the XMLHttpRequest object was being written in Konqueror before GMail existed. GMail probably helped push it along though.
.. and all Firefox users will get dumped into the old clunky interface.
Nevermind the fact that Google have proven it is trivial to make a useable dynamic interface work in most major browsers.
What are you smoking? If it takes such an *enormous* effort to do, then how do you explain Writely? it's not like there is a massive software company with tons of resources behind it.
The truth is, AJAX based apps are *very* easy to write, since almost all of the important work has already been done for you by the browser. All you need to do is use JavaScript as the glue, and your favoirte language as the server-side processing backend for retrieval and storage.
Actually, it makes it easier to add features. You can entirely swap back-ends at will without touching the front-end, an vice-versa. You can add new features to the back end and have them be instantly available to all customers since it is web based. How could it get any easier? I don't understand your reasoning here.
Staggering? Hardly. Your standard Dell 2850 would be able to host tens of thousands of clients with this kind of web application. The server is doing *almost nothing*, all it has to do is serve a few requests and retirve and store documents. There is no back-end processing going on here. The front-end is doing the majority of the work, which is the rendering and editing of the document. If you think otherwise then you don't understand how these AJAX office applications work at a fundamental level.
The very idea that an office suite should require any kind of processing power at all is just the kind of nonsense Microsoft Office has lead you to believe. I shouldn't need a P4 with 1 GB of ram to write a text document with a few tables in it.
Making his job as a reporter easier *would* be improving the show. It is not an amusement park, it is an expo.
And if there were going to suddenly be a huge switch to lightweight suites, why not to native, free-beer-and-speech open source apps? Would _you_ rather pay subscription fees to Google for the privilege of Google address book integration?
You are making a *huge* assumton that you would have to pay here.
Google could offer such an office quite for free for several reasons.
- They would have even more ad revenue.
- It would be a huge driver for people to adopt GMail and GTalk to collaberate and share their online office documents.
- They could offer the suite for free, with a hosted behind-the-firewall storage solution for companies who want their data to remain their data, while preserving the awesome collaberaiton and indexing features.
Who would have thought 5 years ago anyone could offer free e-mail with over 2 GB of storage to anyone? Who would have thought that Keyhole would be a free download?I am surprised people still underestimate both the foresight and business sense of Google. They usually know exactly what they are doing.
Unfortunately, you are thinking like a coder and not a businessman.
If efficiency was the gold standard by which an application was judged, then we'd all be writing assembler all the time. If code readability was the gold standard, then we would all be writing every application in CobolBasic.
All that matters, in reality, is a) Does this application look good, b) Does it do it's job well, and most importantly, c) Will people use it?
The consumer does not give a flying f*** if the codebase of an application is reuseable, or if it is cobbeled together with toothpicks and jello, as long as it works and makes their life easier. A web-based office suite would fit that role nicely. It would *just work*, it would do the job it was designed to do. It may not have every bell and whistle, but guess what? The vast majority of people don't care about that.
Not everyoule would use such an application, but Google would not need everyone to use it to be profitable. Hell, it would be so cheap to create and maintain, they could likely be profitable with a very small number of users in proportion to the number it takes Microsoft to turn a profit on MS Office.
You would be right, except for the fact that people are already doing it.
If you don't believe it can be done, check out the actual applications. What many people don't seem to realize when they scoff at the idea of an AJAX based office quite is that Internet Explorer, Firefox, Safari and Konqueror, all have "design mode" APIs that allow a user and JavaScript to manipulate the web page directly. Combine that with some excellent import/export filters for HTMl to popular office formats, and you have a decent office suite framework already at your grasp.
If you really don't think it can be done, look at those sample apps, and consider that they are done with basically no budget. Now throw the mihgt of Google, it's money, and it's developers at the problem. It is not beyond feasability that they could construct such a suite in a matter of months, especially when you consider that 80% of the functions in MS Office are only used by 20% of the people
Also consider how well this would integrate with their existing core competancies (indexing and searching). You could store all your documents online ina shareable Google store, and they woudl already all be indexed and searchable. You could use your Google addrfesss book to select other people who would be allwed to access and search the documents. And of course you would use Google Talk to collaberate on them.
Java 5.0 + Eclipse 3.1 is by far the best combination of panguage power and IDE power I have ever seen. It is head and shoulders above Visual Studio .Net. There are so many things better about Eclipse that I can't even go into it.
They wouldn't have been a transit until that link broke down.
Say you have 3 huge backbone providers, A, B, and C.
A peers with B
B peers with C
A peers with C
None of these providers is a transit provider for the others, because none of them need it as they all have peering relationships.
Now say the deal between A and C goes bad; the traffic can still get bwtween them by going through B. Now, in this situation, B would become a transit carrier, yes. I don't know if that would mean immediately that they would have to start paying higher fees or what, because that would not be their original contract
Not sure I understand your question, but what I was trying to say above, is that those kind of statements can neither be proven nor disproven. So anyone can assert them.
Not successfully. He could try, but all you were doing is voicing your opinion. That is what the first amendment is all about.
Then again, your pocketbook may not be able to afford to go to court, and you'd be willing to give in anyway. This is a type of SLAPP suit.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SLAPP