The current implementation in web browsers was designed by people who couldn't tell the difference between authentication and authorization.
The reason why this paradigm has persisted is unknown, but the answer for you may vary depending on which end of the paranoia spectrum you're on. If you're on the Hanlon side, you'd say that the code is too old, and trying to change it would require too much work, so nobody really bothered. If you're on the conspiracy nut side, you'd say that the NSA and their agents are actively trying to keep these types of changes from going in.
This problem with SSL certs has been known for the better part of 10 years now, and has been in focus for at least the past 5-7 years. Why Firefox could go through 30 revisions in that time and keep this behavior while changing practically everything else is quite the mystery. I'd say the same about Opera or IE, but they're closed-source and hence could not be subjected to the same standards of scrutiny. In fact, if there ever was a failure to the OSS model security-wise, Firefox's 1990's method of handling certs would be a prime example.
I've had all sorts of issues with them trying to integrate hangouts into everything. At some point in time, I was banning people through my hangouts profile, even though I didn't even have one.
Google, it's time to live up to your CEO's words and become adults.
BSOD is just a kernel dump. Every OS has its own kernel dump screen. The BSOD specifically is only an object of amusement because it happened with such frequency during the Win95 days. BSOD jokes reference the frustration of seeing one every 30 minutes, or 2 minutes after post if you accidentally botched your system in some way. And then from that point, it only got more frustrating because even after going through safe mode and trying to undo the error, you'd still end up having to reinstall Win95 from disc to clean your system out. And no, this was immediately before the prevelance of malware, especially screensaver malware, though viruses transmitted via floppy and diskette sharing were the trendy threat at the time.
There are several reasons for why the left shift is used by most people instead of both shifts:
1) The mouse is usually on that person's right, which means shift+click is impossible with the right shift. That leaves either taking both hands out of their home positions, or the left shift which can stay in the home position.
2) Again, the left hand is probably on the keyboard, so the left shift + left key can actually start typing while the right hand is moving back into home position. This is a big reason for me.
3) Shift+i is used very, very frequently. Shift+q/a/z is not. Shift+a is the only combination used with any frequency, but since starting a sentence with a certain particular popular conjunction is frowned upon, that reduces usage significantly. The only real problem with the left shift is when used in those combinations, as you'd have to shift your entire hand over one slot to do so. But this is hardly a significant slowdown for modern touch typists.
4) The arrow keys are on the right. Right ctrl/shift+arrow keys is only slightly less awkward than right ctrl/alt/shift+mouse.
Individually, each reason is not much. But when combined, they make a strong case for using only the left-side control keys.
This is a work computer. It's probably joined to a domain, which requires all workstations ctrl-alt-delete to login. And there's probably some group policy that dictates the password prompt after the screensaver, which again, requires ctrl-alt-delete.
Strange, I figure there'd be somebody who'd have pointed this out to you already. Either the Windows network admins have all been scared outta here, or they're hiding in a corner in shame.
I use start+D and start+R mostly, largely in part due to the fact that they're on the same side of the keyboard I hit all my controls keys (left side). I don't use it for anything else.
I never do Start+type. Too much work to go from the start button back to the home keys. Frequently-used programs (including explorer) go into my quick launch area. Yes, there's a show desktop button there too, but start+D is faster, and I don't risk bringing up yet another new window when what I really want is the desktop. Something like cmd or mounting drives I run with start+R and then hit the up/down arrows until I get to the command I need/want.
Oh yeah, I also use it to bring up the start menu. This especially when the taskbar refuses to unhide itself, even when my mouse is on the bottom edge of the screen.
"Too Obfuscatory" (yes, I had to look that form up) should be a reason for rejecting a patent. That way, patent examiners can just take a look at it, and if they cannot figure out what the hell is going on or come up with a clear picture of the patented object in question on first read, they can reject it outright without wasting more time on it.
Everybody here wasn't interested in Symbian. Everybody knew at the time it was a dead end, even with their plethora of existing apps. S60 sucked as a smartphone OS, even to the developers who wrote for it.
Meego was the way forward. It was built using Qt on top of Linux. It wasn't as popular as Android outside of Nokia and Intel, but it had a future. Just before the first Meego phone (N900) launched, Elop took over. It was killed without even given a chance. To answer your question, that is why Meego never competed with Android and the iOS.
Right as Elop took over, Nokia took a 180 turn away from Meego. They spent 3, 4 years completely redeveloping their processes, completely revamping their developers, wasting countless resources that were Meego-based, just so they could put Windows Phone on their hardware. And to boot, they produced some less-than spectacular phones for an OS (Windows Phone 7) that was going to die before it hit the shelves.
All those wasted resources could have gone to Meego, and polishing what was already a fairly good OS. They had an OS in-house that was close to being ready. Elop threw it out and spent a fortune bringing in a third-party OS which suffered from the same flaws as Meego (namely not having a large app base) and had no advantages over it whatsoever.
I'll skip the uglier parts of the analogy, but if Meego was Nokia's baby, created to ensure the survival of the company, it was forcibly aborted by Microsoft two weeks before a full term. Then Nokia took in Microsoft's then-newborn, inbred child, despite having been told beforehand that it was born with severe genetic problems and whom the doctors had already said would not live for more than a few months. This child drained all of Nokia's resources in the process, the excuse being that this had to happen to prepare for Microsoft's next child. Microsoft's next child turned into, well, nothing too special. And you wonder why Nokia's now broke and ultimately had to sell itself to Microsoft.
The whole notion that 'print is dead' is bullshit excuses to cut staff and make generic news not local news. People are reading more text than ever before. People are writing more text than ever before. People have an expectation for distraction like never before. People want quality media in all forms across platforms.
You're thinking fiction, or when it comes to media, gossip. News is not a distraction. It's what people want to be distracted from.
Maybe service? New York has a lot of rural, hilly areas where you might get a revolving half-bar of service even on Verizon or AT&T. The smaller carriers, like Sprint and T-Mobile, have no chance in these locations.
I don't know if they've confirmed cell service for all networks in these places specifically. If not, it's going to draw the attention of lawyers all over the state.
Um, yes, but when you start your platform off with no apps at all, then you're kinda screwed. Having some apps is better than having none at all, and RT started off with no apps (and still is very limited).
Remember the N-Gage? This is Microsoft's implementation of that very same strategy.
Hitting only the edge of the brakes is as dangerous as sitting too far forward on a rollercoaster--every time!
I've been tapped in the back several times, usually while stuck in traffic, and while my foot may slip at the moment of impact, the brake pedal on automatics are large enough that my foot has enough pedal space on either side of to not slip off on impact. From there, it putting the car into park and going out to inspect the damage, which is usually negligible. That requires you to hit the brakes.
Granted, some people will hit the gas when they're trying to hit the brakes under duress, but there's nothing you can do about that except make it more difficult for these people to drive or put in some kind of computer system to lock up the brakes right after a fender-bender.
You forget the fact that the driving test for normal people is a joke. The driving test for cops is not. So unless you want to pass the cop's driving test to able to drive, you're not going to have the same privileges such as speeding, using a computer while driving, shooting while driving, communicating over the radio while driving, intentionally causing accidents, or any other such law enforcement tasks.
Maybe if the driving test for normal people were as stringent as that for the cops, there'd be something. Or, if the driving test for cops in that local jurisdiction was as easy as simply going around a few cones, you'd have a point. But I know the former is untrue anywhere in the states, and I seriously doubt the latter.
I can't believe I'm defending them, but there are arguable issues, and then there's nonsense.
1) That's what a horn is for. 2) That's what eyes are for.
What if instead of texting, the guy's car had just simply stalled? You can't be at fault for an accident if your car isn't actually moving under normal circumstances. Even if you're on a freeway/highway, if you're stopped, the expectation is for cars to go around you, slowing down as necessary. It's certainly not for them to slam into you from behind.
Actually, the way I envision it, Microsoft is on the third 10-minute break from a 6-10 night class. It missed dinner right before class, and it's starting to get hungry. There's actually a full meal in Microsoft's bag cooked by its live-in chef. But it's lasagna, and Microsoft doesn't want to disturb the rest of the class with the pungent aroma of parmesean cheese and tomato sauce. Besides, class is almost over. There's only another hour left, and then Microsoft gets to eat its dinner to its heart's desire.
Instead, Microsoft opts for a small snack, one that'd be good enough to satisfy it for the rest of class. It didn't bring one, but it saw classmates Apple and Google heading off in some direction down the hall and then coming back with snacks like hostess cupcakes and twinkies and pop tarts and pretzels and tons of other snack items. Apple and Google have been eating these little things during the previous hours of the lecture, and this made Microsoft hungrier.
So during this third, final break, as Apple and Google head to the vending machine once again for more food, Microsoft decides to follow. Microsoft hides around the corner as Apple and Google are picking up some snacks. This being night time, the lights in the halls are off, giving Microsoft the perfect environment to remain hidden. Microsoft has had a lot of practice hiding away from the plain sight of others, watching them and then doing as they did, which helps now. It waits for Apple and Google to return to the classroom, and then goes up to the machine. Microsoft sees a brand of chips it likes. Microsoft doesn't normally each chips, preferring gourmet food over small snacks inthe past, but it sees that the bag is bigger than the other bags, and it's cheaper than most of the other comparable items in the machine. So after it punches the number in, the first bag comes out. But to Microsoft's surprise, the bag promptly gets stuck against the glass. The bag of chips in question is actually too big to fit between the rack and the glass.
Now, Microsoft's standing in front of the machine, staring at it, wondering why its chips haven't fallen. From having observed others buy food at vending machines, it knows that it can just buy a second bag when the first gets stuck, and both bags will fall. So Microsoft puts in the requisite amount again and punches in the code for a second bag of the same brand. The second bag just gets stuck behind the first bag. It did dislodge the first bag a little, so Microsoft thinks this is a success.
But Microsoft hears Apple and Google coming back for some more food, probably stocking up for the next hour or so of class. And so Microsoft runs to hide around the corner again. It notices that Apple and Google see the stuck bags through the window. They point at it and laugh and wonder who the poor sap was who tried unsuccessfully to get not one, but two bags of chips. Then they put money in, punch for their desired items, and walk away with carrying their loot.
Now Microsoft is a bit angry, jealous and upset over being ridiculed, and a bit frustrated that the chips it chose is still stuck between the rack and the glass. So it puts more money in, and punches the code for a third bag, hoping that this might dislodge the first and second bags. But this does not help. In fact, no matter how many times Microsoft puts money in, nothing falls out. Everything just gets stick. After a while, even the motor stops turning.
But it doesn't matter. There are already four loose bags of chips ready to fall down, more than Microsoft can reasonably eat in the last hour of class. Microsoft has no more cash to spend. And class probably has resumed. Hungry, frustrated, broke, and in a hurry, Microsoft kicks the bottom of the machine, succeeding in only bruising its big toe. The bags of chips are still stuck. Then, after a moment of standing there thinking, even as class has certainly resumed for Apple and Google, a lightbulb goes off in Microsoft's head.
Microsoft grabs the top of the vending machine, and pulls.
Not closed. OK, yes, closed, but closed is a narrow subset of the key attribute that makes for a successful Linux system.
Linux works best on standardized systems. It works best when all hardware that does the same thing runs exactly alike. Like the paradigm the software's built upon, it succeeds when there is a strong POSIX-like standard for hardware.
Since there is no hardware equivalent of POSIX, the only time this would actually happen is when there is a hardware dictator. For example, ARM. Or systems where hardware is not commodity and thus not fully interchangeable. Or in the majority of cases, closed systems where non-standard hardware and non-standard components of hardware can remain hidden for a competitive advantage.
At this point, a hardware equivalent to POSIX would be nearly impossible. Software is not governed by patents in many places currently, but hardware definitely is. And any such comprehensive standard would eventually run into patent problems.
Slashdot Mirror
The current implementation in web browsers was designed by people who couldn't tell the difference between authentication and authorization.
The reason why this paradigm has persisted is unknown, but the answer for you may vary depending on which end of the paranoia spectrum you're on. If you're on the Hanlon side, you'd say that the code is too old, and trying to change it would require too much work, so nobody really bothered. If you're on the conspiracy nut side, you'd say that the NSA and their agents are actively trying to keep these types of changes from going in.
This problem with SSL certs has been known for the better part of 10 years now, and has been in focus for at least the past 5-7 years. Why Firefox could go through 30 revisions in that time and keep this behavior while changing practically everything else is quite the mystery. I'd say the same about Opera or IE, but they're closed-source and hence could not be subjected to the same standards of scrutiny. In fact, if there ever was a failure to the OSS model security-wise, Firefox's 1990's method of handling certs would be a prime example.
I've had all sorts of issues with them trying to integrate hangouts into everything. At some point in time, I was banning people through my hangouts profile, even though I didn't even have one.
Google, it's time to live up to your CEO's words and become adults.
Google does not release software for production. They have Idea, Alpha, Beta, User Testing, and Rewrite.
BSOD is just a kernel dump. Every OS has its own kernel dump screen. The BSOD specifically is only an object of amusement because it happened with such frequency during the Win95 days. BSOD jokes reference the frustration of seeing one every 30 minutes, or 2 minutes after post if you accidentally botched your system in some way. And then from that point, it only got more frustrating because even after going through safe mode and trying to undo the error, you'd still end up having to reinstall Win95 from disc to clean your system out. And no, this was immediately before the prevelance of malware, especially screensaver malware, though viruses transmitted via floppy and diskette sharing were the trendy threat at the time.
Seesh, kids these days, right?
There are several reasons for why the left shift is used by most people instead of both shifts:
1) The mouse is usually on that person's right, which means shift+click is impossible with the right shift. That leaves either taking both hands out of their home positions, or the left shift which can stay in the home position.
2) Again, the left hand is probably on the keyboard, so the left shift + left key can actually start typing while the right hand is moving back into home position. This is a big reason for me.
3) Shift+i is used very, very frequently. Shift+q/a/z is not. Shift+a is the only combination used with any frequency, but since starting a sentence with a certain particular popular conjunction is frowned upon, that reduces usage significantly. The only real problem with the left shift is when used in those combinations, as you'd have to shift your entire hand over one slot to do so. But this is hardly a significant slowdown for modern touch typists.
4) The arrow keys are on the right. Right ctrl/shift+arrow keys is only slightly less awkward than right ctrl/alt/shift+mouse.
Individually, each reason is not much. But when combined, they make a strong case for using only the left-side control keys.
We use it all the time:
kill -9 2531696; exit
This is a work computer. It's probably joined to a domain, which requires all workstations ctrl-alt-delete to login. And there's probably some group policy that dictates the password prompt after the screensaver, which again, requires ctrl-alt-delete.
Strange, I figure there'd be somebody who'd have pointed this out to you already. Either the Windows network admins have all been scared outta here, or they're hiding in a corner in shame.
I know you're being facetious, but you can't recover data off powered-down RAM. At least not on an industrial scale.
The CIA/NSA might have something, but it'd be super expensive per attempt, and they'd never share.
I use start+D and start+R mostly, largely in part due to the fact that they're on the same side of the keyboard I hit all my controls keys (left side). I don't use it for anything else.
I never do Start+type. Too much work to go from the start button back to the home keys. Frequently-used programs (including explorer) go into my quick launch area. Yes, there's a show desktop button there too, but start+D is faster, and I don't risk bringing up yet another new window when what I really want is the desktop. Something like cmd or mounting drives I run with start+R and then hit the up/down arrows until I get to the command I need/want.
Oh yeah, I also use it to bring up the start menu. This especially when the taskbar refuses to unhide itself, even when my mouse is on the bottom edge of the screen.
"Too Obfuscatory" (yes, I had to look that form up) should be a reason for rejecting a patent. That way, patent examiners can just take a look at it, and if they cannot figure out what the hell is going on or come up with a clear picture of the patented object in question on first read, they can reject it outright without wasting more time on it.
And Mrs. Sham was out shopping with friends.
Everybody here wasn't interested in Symbian. Everybody knew at the time it was a dead end, even with their plethora of existing apps. S60 sucked as a smartphone OS, even to the developers who wrote for it.
Meego was the way forward. It was built using Qt on top of Linux. It wasn't as popular as Android outside of Nokia and Intel, but it had a future. Just before the first Meego phone (N900) launched, Elop took over. It was killed without even given a chance. To answer your question, that is why Meego never competed with Android and the iOS.
Right as Elop took over, Nokia took a 180 turn away from Meego. They spent 3, 4 years completely redeveloping their processes, completely revamping their developers, wasting countless resources that were Meego-based, just so they could put Windows Phone on their hardware. And to boot, they produced some less-than spectacular phones for an OS (Windows Phone 7) that was going to die before it hit the shelves.
All those wasted resources could have gone to Meego, and polishing what was already a fairly good OS. They had an OS in-house that was close to being ready. Elop threw it out and spent a fortune bringing in a third-party OS which suffered from the same flaws as Meego (namely not having a large app base) and had no advantages over it whatsoever.
I'll skip the uglier parts of the analogy, but if Meego was Nokia's baby, created to ensure the survival of the company, it was forcibly aborted by Microsoft two weeks before a full term. Then Nokia took in Microsoft's then-newborn, inbred child, despite having been told beforehand that it was born with severe genetic problems and whom the doctors had already said would not live for more than a few months. This child drained all of Nokia's resources in the process, the excuse being that this had to happen to prepare for Microsoft's next child. Microsoft's next child turned into, well, nothing too special. And you wonder why Nokia's now broke and ultimately had to sell itself to Microsoft.
What? Corporations are people, no?
I too wonder why more sites don't adopt it.
It's difficult to create and maintain, complicated to use, and involves a strong community with more than a passing interest.
It also doesn't support unicode.
The whole notion that 'print is dead' is bullshit excuses to cut staff and make generic news not local news. People are reading more text than ever before. People are writing more text than ever before. People have an expectation for distraction like never before. People want quality media in all forms across platforms.
You're thinking fiction, or when it comes to media, gossip. News is not a distraction. It's what people want to be distracted from.
Maybe service? New York has a lot of rural, hilly areas where you might get a revolving half-bar of service even on Verizon or AT&T. The smaller carriers, like Sprint and T-Mobile, have no chance in these locations.
I don't know if they've confirmed cell service for all networks in these places specifically. If not, it's going to draw the attention of lawyers all over the state.
Would this be like or unlike a LAN party?
Um, yes, but when you start your platform off with no apps at all, then you're kinda screwed. Having some apps is better than having none at all, and RT started off with no apps (and still is very limited).
Remember the N-Gage? This is Microsoft's implementation of that very same strategy.
Hitting only the edge of the brakes is as dangerous as sitting too far forward on a rollercoaster--every time!
I've been tapped in the back several times, usually while stuck in traffic, and while my foot may slip at the moment of impact, the brake pedal on automatics are large enough that my foot has enough pedal space on either side of to not slip off on impact. From there, it putting the car into park and going out to inspect the damage, which is usually negligible. That requires you to hit the brakes.
Granted, some people will hit the gas when they're trying to hit the brakes under duress, but there's nothing you can do about that except make it more difficult for these people to drive or put in some kind of computer system to lock up the brakes right after a fender-bender.
You forget the fact that the driving test for normal people is a joke. The driving test for cops is not. So unless you want to pass the cop's driving test to able to drive, you're not going to have the same privileges such as speeding, using a computer while driving, shooting while driving, communicating over the radio while driving, intentionally causing accidents, or any other such law enforcement tasks.
Maybe if the driving test for normal people were as stringent as that for the cops, there'd be something. Or, if the driving test for cops in that local jurisdiction was as easy as simply going around a few cones, you'd have a point. But I know the former is untrue anywhere in the states, and I seriously doubt the latter.
I can't believe I'm defending them, but there are arguable issues, and then there's nonsense.
1) That's what a horn is for.
2) That's what eyes are for.
What if instead of texting, the guy's car had just simply stalled? You can't be at fault for an accident if your car isn't actually moving under normal circumstances. Even if you're on a freeway/highway, if you're stopped, the expectation is for cars to go around you, slowing down as necessary. It's certainly not for them to slam into you from behind.
Answer: It looks good on paper.
What? You didn't think any other criterion was necessary or even relevant to make pencil-pushers and politicians act, did you?
Actually, the way I envision it, Microsoft is on the third 10-minute break from a 6-10 night class. It missed dinner right before class, and it's starting to get hungry. There's actually a full meal in Microsoft's bag cooked by its live-in chef. But it's lasagna, and Microsoft doesn't want to disturb the rest of the class with the pungent aroma of parmesean cheese and tomato sauce. Besides, class is almost over. There's only another hour left, and then Microsoft gets to eat its dinner to its heart's desire.
Instead, Microsoft opts for a small snack, one that'd be good enough to satisfy it for the rest of class. It didn't bring one, but it saw classmates Apple and Google heading off in some direction down the hall and then coming back with snacks like hostess cupcakes and twinkies and pop tarts and pretzels and tons of other snack items. Apple and Google have been eating these little things during the previous hours of the lecture, and this made Microsoft hungrier.
So during this third, final break, as Apple and Google head to the vending machine once again for more food, Microsoft decides to follow. Microsoft hides around the corner as Apple and Google are picking up some snacks. This being night time, the lights in the halls are off, giving Microsoft the perfect environment to remain hidden. Microsoft has had a lot of practice hiding away from the plain sight of others, watching them and then doing as they did, which helps now. It waits for Apple and Google to return to the classroom, and then goes up to the machine. Microsoft sees a brand of chips it likes. Microsoft doesn't normally each chips, preferring gourmet food over small snacks inthe past, but it sees that the bag is bigger than the other bags, and it's cheaper than most of the other comparable items in the machine. So after it punches the number in, the first bag comes out. But to Microsoft's surprise, the bag promptly gets stuck against the glass. The bag of chips in question is actually too big to fit between the rack and the glass.
Now, Microsoft's standing in front of the machine, staring at it, wondering why its chips haven't fallen. From having observed others buy food at vending machines, it knows that it can just buy a second bag when the first gets stuck, and both bags will fall. So Microsoft puts in the requisite amount again and punches in the code for a second bag of the same brand. The second bag just gets stuck behind the first bag. It did dislodge the first bag a little, so Microsoft thinks this is a success.
But Microsoft hears Apple and Google coming back for some more food, probably stocking up for the next hour or so of class. And so Microsoft runs to hide around the corner again. It notices that Apple and Google see the stuck bags through the window. They point at it and laugh and wonder who the poor sap was who tried unsuccessfully to get not one, but two bags of chips. Then they put money in, punch for their desired items, and walk away with carrying their loot.
Now Microsoft is a bit angry, jealous and upset over being ridiculed, and a bit frustrated that the chips it chose is still stuck between the rack and the glass. So it puts more money in, and punches the code for a third bag, hoping that this might dislodge the first and second bags. But this does not help. In fact, no matter how many times Microsoft puts money in, nothing falls out. Everything just gets stick. After a while, even the motor stops turning.
But it doesn't matter. There are already four loose bags of chips ready to fall down, more than Microsoft can reasonably eat in the last hour of class. Microsoft has no more cash to spend. And class probably has resumed. Hungry, frustrated, broke, and in a hurry, Microsoft kicks the bottom of the machine, succeeding in only bruising its big toe. The bags of chips are still stuck. Then, after a moment of standing there thinking, even as class has certainly resumed for Apple and Google, a lightbulb goes off in Microsoft's head.
Microsoft grabs the top of the vending machine, and pulls.
The irony is Linux works best on Closed systems.
Not closed. OK, yes, closed, but closed is a narrow subset of the key attribute that makes for a successful Linux system.
Linux works best on standardized systems. It works best when all hardware that does the same thing runs exactly alike. Like the paradigm the software's built upon, it succeeds when there is a strong POSIX-like standard for hardware.
Since there is no hardware equivalent of POSIX, the only time this would actually happen is when there is a hardware dictator. For example, ARM. Or systems where hardware is not commodity and thus not fully interchangeable. Or in the majority of cases, closed systems where non-standard hardware and non-standard components of hardware can remain hidden for a competitive advantage.
At this point, a hardware equivalent to POSIX would be nearly impossible. Software is not governed by patents in many places currently, but hardware definitely is. And any such comprehensive standard would eventually run into patent problems.
Correction: I believe they enjoy being XBoned.
Tell that to Hoover. Or his lieutenant, Mark Felt, Mr. Deep Throat himself.
Blackmail works. It's worked most of the 20th century. It's probably working even now.