The differences in how to gain administrator access do affect up front security requirements.
You're missing the point -- administrator access isn't needed to compromise a system. If I can harvest someone's saved credit card data from ~/.mozilla or %PROFILE%\ApplicationData\mozilla, and while I'm there drop a script into ~/.kde/autostart or %PROFILE%...\StartMenu\Startup , why do I need root? Privileged permissions certainly let you extend the damage you're capable of -- but *any* access at all is the only requirement for compromising a system.
iexplore.exe is asking for administrator access. grant forever/don't ask again? Way to go, giving viruses admin access. It happens all the time.
Konqueror is requesting admin permissions. Please enter your password. Way to go, giving worms and spyware admin access. This isn't a platform issue - the underlying model (from the user perspective) is the same: Trivial, everyday activities cause the user to be inundated with confirmation requests. The user gets trained to accept them without thinking -- whether it be by clicking a button or entering a password. So when it matters, they're *still* going to give permission.
Maybe both systems need to take a closer look at what they're doing. Windows prompts you for installing new programs, for accessing certain folders in Explorer, and various other pointless things that you do in the normal course of interacting with your computer. Ubuntu does the exact same thing - except the range of things it prompts for is even bigger. Changing network settings. Configuring hardware. Installing security updates (unless that's changed in 10.04 - I'm still on 9.10). All of these things that you won't ever say no to, because you initiate them in the first place.
When presented with an obstacle such as a prompt, most users don't read it. They take whatever action is the quickest one to take in order to make it go away. The answer to this is not to put more prompts up -- because if you *do* have a scenario in which Something Bad is going to happen, the user is well-trained to just keep plowing through it.
The major problem we actually are suffering from is that the world depends way too much on users. And those users are often too trusting, because their computer skills are not the most important things in their lives.
I'm not saying that geeks are much better - just somewhat better since they at least know the general principles to be followed. .
As for losing the battle - this is a battle you only lose when you give up. As long as any person can go out and buy a computer, hop online, and click the bunnies, giving up is about all you can do. You may continue to beat your head against the wall if it makes you feel better - and clearly it must because you keep coming back to do it again.
Let me ask an equally meaningless question: Are DVD players finally ready to take over for game consoles? How about, "Does this apple taste as good as that metal trash can?" (Answer: that depends -- are you a rust monster?)
a) that person is in other ways engaging in risky behavior b) it's that time of the month (revenue time, duh...)
or c) that person is the single fastest car on the road. Never be the fastest car if you want to avoid tickets - always find those idiots who want to drive faster AND weave through traffic. I have a name for them: "cop-bait".
Indeed. You will be much less danger at 80mph in a straight line on an open road than you will at 60 when you're half a car length from the car in front of you. Did you ever notice how people like to tailgate even when there's a perfectly empty lane next to them? As if the driver they're mowing down is suddenly - after five minutes of this - going to suddenly say "Oh gosh, maybe this nice gentleman wants to go faster than I am?"
The thing about in-person cops is that they generally realize this. You usually don't see the person tooling along at 80mph with plenty of following room getting pulled over unless a) that person is in other ways engaging in risky behavior b) it's that time of the month (revenue time, duh...) When you make it automated, that judgment goes away -- and you get a nice revenue spike, but you do very little to actually make the roads safer.
As far as driving consistent speeds: if you want to see something funny, pick any car on the road next time you're out. Pace him. Notice that - assuming no traffic - he will be accelerating downhill and decelerating going uphill. I used to get all kinds of annoyed because I keep my speed consistent within 1-2 mph. So I would start to pass someone as we got to the top of hill, and "suddenly" they sped up. Clearly they're aggressively trying to stop me... right? Nope (well, not usually). I start to pass them because when I arrive they're slowing at the top of hill. Then they go downhill and speed up - going faster than the speed I want to travel.
The best part is they look at me like I'm driving inconsistently and won't just pass them. Once I started to realize this several years back, it became more amusing than frustrating.... erm... most of the time.
Joanna Peters, a Phoenix traffic-safety activist, called the Brewer administration's decision irresponsible.
"They're ignoring a silent majority of folks who actually support the program," Peters said. "This is something we could fix, not just throw out the baby."
I've noticed that the vocal minority loves to refer to themselves as the silent majority in many situations.
Personally the moment I find myself grinding just to continue with the main plot (as opposed to grinding for some particular little side goal) I stop playing the game since I know I've just hit the point where the devs ran out of good idea
This. ANd who's to say this isn't tracked as "giving up" because it's too hard?
If the overwhelming majority of gamers don't finish the game in the first place, how would replayability help? The problem is that people give up anyway, not that they don't start it once more.
I think the mistake is int his assumption - that they're giving up. Very likely that they're getting bored. There have only been a couple of games I haven't played through -- Assassin's Creed 1 was one of them. It was a fantastic concept, but in the end you kept doing the same actions the same way ad nauseum. I couldn't bring myself to spend more time on it just to learn how it ended. If that was being monitored, perhaps it would have been interpreted as "too hard" -- after all I stopped playing in the middle of a supposedly difficult mission. In reality I stopped because it wasn't hard enough.
When a game becomes repetitive, or a simple contest of button mashing skill -- when there's an impression it has nothing more to offer -- people will tend to stop playing it.
That puts a different light on things. Even considering the costs of training, I don't see how they could justify it as both a new and ongoing expense where there previously was (presumably) none outside of routine management -- which will also be required for MS servers.
I am curious. You mentioned this large conversion, but haven't really said how it went. Is it working as well or better than the old mixed systems did? Or worse? Are you having any particular pain now that the transition has been made (other than emotional, of course)?
But proprietary vendors don't want the competition. Steve Jobs mentioned the MPEG-LA consortium is looking through their patents to see if they can shutdown Ogg Theora before it takes root.
Ogg Theora has been out there since 2001. If it hasn't taken root by now, it ain't gonna.
In part the sentiment is right. People don't like choices; there have been studies that prove even simple choices cause some degree of anxiety in people. (Sorry, I don't have references available.) This doesn't have to do with "growing a set" though, I rather think it's just human nature. Things are *easier* if you don't have to think about them. If diddling with computers/tech isn't your primary job like it is for many of us -- if these things are just a means to an end -- why wouldn't you want a walled garden?
The only reason that apple doesn't have more users is because people are more uncomfortable with change than they are distressed by choices.
Proprietary software for a proprietary format can't be compared to either proprietary OR open software for an open format. If you want to render the proprietary format, you must use the software that is capable of it. Saying that that not having the proprietary renderer available is somehow providing more choice (as OP did) is either misguided or disingenuous.
I'm guessing that OP ran out of system restore space, at which point windows will delete the oldest. Perhaps he decreased the amount of drive space available for system restore... or perhaps by taking them so meticulously, he simply took too many for whatever capacity he had.
What OS? When I stopped using it on Windows (2.2 or so) it wasn't focus-stealing, and hadn't been since it was gaim. (I stopped because it's just too kludgy overall. I gave up on GUI IM clients and went with irssi+bitlbee. It does what I want it to - always connected , send and receive text messages, and irssi is second-to-none as an IRC client.)
I've often wondered what the thought process is for people who end up with a silly number of televisions -- perhaps you can share? (I've got a mere two, and wish it was just one.)
Um, we've got this thing called "Google", you can type words into it and it finds pages with those words on them.
You could try it with those words...see what happens.
We've got these things called "eyes"*, attached via optical nerve to this thing called a "brain"; in conjunction one can apply cognitive ability to the symbols on the screen and convert them not only to words, but a message converying meaning as well.
My post rather strongly implied that I knew it wasn't original -- how else to infer (sardonically) a statement on copyright by such an AC's post, unless it's copyrighted material? This aside from the fact that I said "I'd be impressed if it was original... but as it is it's just offtopic".
* to those of you without eyes -- well, yes, I guess I AM an insensitive clod.
I'd be impressed if it was original... but as it is, it's just offtopic. I suppose we could get all intellectual and assume that he's trying to make some deeper point about copyright infringement and anonymity;)
Macbooks and iPads may be pretty sweet, but creative individuals don't really like to give their business to jackbooted thugs.
Thanks for the laughs. If the creative individuals aren't prevented from being creative, they (for the most part) don't really care -- just like anyone else.
Outside of that, though - saying "1-2%" is playing the same percentages game that politicians and bloggers love to play when they say that the wealthiest people "only" pay a 15% tax rate, while the poor middle-class working man is paying 20-25%. It doesn't make a good sound bite to say that (for example) in 2007 the wealthiest people (over 100k in income) have paid 203bn in taxes (for 2007, last year data is available for now) while the total income from under 100k earners was 38bn. (Source: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html)
Slashdot Mirror
The differences in how to gain administrator access do affect up front security requirements.
You're missing the point -- administrator access isn't needed to compromise a system. If I can harvest someone's saved credit card data from ~/.mozilla or %PROFILE%\ApplicationData\mozilla, and while I'm there drop a script into ~/.kde/autostart or %PROFILE%...\StartMenu\Startup , why do I need root? Privileged permissions certainly let you extend the damage you're capable of -- but *any* access at all is the only requirement for compromising a system.
iexplore.exe is asking for administrator access. grant forever/don't ask again? Way to go, giving viruses admin access. It happens all the time.
Konqueror is requesting admin permissions. Please enter your password. Way to go, giving worms and spyware admin access. This isn't a platform issue - the underlying model (from the user perspective) is the same: Trivial, everyday activities cause the user to be inundated with confirmation requests. The user gets trained to accept them without thinking -- whether it be by clicking a button or entering a password. So when it matters, they're *still* going to give permission.
Maybe both systems need to take a closer look at what they're doing. Windows prompts you for installing new programs, for accessing certain folders in Explorer, and various other pointless things that you do in the normal course of interacting with your computer. Ubuntu does the exact same thing - except the range of things it prompts for is even bigger. Changing network settings. Configuring hardware. Installing security updates (unless that's changed in 10.04 - I'm still on 9.10). All of these things that you won't ever say no to, because you initiate them in the first place.
When presented with an obstacle such as a prompt, most users don't read it. They take whatever action is the quickest one to take in order to make it go away. The answer to this is not to put more prompts up -- because if you *do* have a scenario in which Something Bad is going to happen, the user is well-trained to just keep plowing through it.
The major problem we actually are suffering from is that the world depends way too much on users. And those users are often too trusting, because their computer skills are not the most important things in their lives.
I'm not saying that geeks are much better - just somewhat better since they at least know the general principles to be followed. .
As for losing the battle - this is a battle you only lose when you give up. As long as any person can go out and buy a computer, hop online, and click the bunnies, giving up is about all you can do. You may continue to beat your head against the wall if it makes you feel better - and clearly it must because you keep coming back to do it again.
Let me ask an equally meaningless question: Are DVD players finally ready to take over for game consoles? How about, "Does this apple taste as good as that metal trash can?" (Answer: that depends -- are you a rust monster?)
a) that person is in other ways engaging in risky behavior b) it's that time of the month (revenue time, duh...)
or c) that person is the single fastest car on the road. Never be the fastest car if you want to avoid tickets - always find those idiots who want to drive faster AND weave through traffic. I have a name for them: "cop-bait".
Indeed. You will be much less danger at 80mph in a straight line on an open road than you will at 60 when you're half a car length from the car in front of you. Did you ever notice how people like to tailgate even when there's a perfectly empty lane next to them? As if the driver they're mowing down is suddenly - after five minutes of this - going to suddenly say "Oh gosh, maybe this nice gentleman wants to go faster than I am?"
The thing about in-person cops is that they generally realize this. You usually don't see the person tooling along at 80mph with plenty of following room getting pulled over unless a) that person is in other ways engaging in risky behavior b) it's that time of the month (revenue time, duh...) When you make it automated, that judgment goes away -- and you get a nice revenue spike, but you do very little to actually make the roads safer.
As far as driving consistent speeds: if you want to see something funny, pick any car on the road next time you're out. Pace him. Notice that - assuming no traffic - he will be accelerating downhill and decelerating going uphill. I used to get all kinds of annoyed because I keep my speed consistent within 1-2 mph. So I would start to pass someone as we got to the top of hill, and "suddenly" they sped up. Clearly they're aggressively trying to stop me... right? Nope (well, not usually). I start to pass them because when I arrive they're slowing at the top of hill. Then they go downhill and speed up - going faster than the speed I want to travel.
The best part is they look at me like I'm driving inconsistently and won't just pass them. Once I started to realize this several years back, it became more amusing than frustrating. ... erm... most of the time.
Joanna Peters, a Phoenix traffic-safety activist, called the Brewer administration's decision irresponsible. "They're ignoring a silent majority of folks who actually support the program," Peters said. "This is something we could fix, not just throw out the baby."
I've noticed that the vocal minority loves to refer to themselves as the silent majority in many situations.
CHeck with your local DMV and police - there's a reason that insurance is expensive for road construction workers.
"Every" is a great word- a complete logical concept neatly packaged for consumption in a single word. . The same for "Each".
Personally the moment I find myself grinding just to continue with the main plot (as opposed to grinding for some particular little side goal) I stop playing the game since I know I've just hit the point where the devs ran out of good idea
This. ANd who's to say this isn't tracked as "giving up" because it's too hard?
If the overwhelming majority of gamers don't finish the game in the first place, how would replayability help? The problem is that people give up anyway, not that they don't start it once more.
I think the mistake is int his assumption - that they're giving up. Very likely that they're getting bored. There have only been a couple of games I haven't played through -- Assassin's Creed 1 was one of them. It was a fantastic concept, but in the end you kept doing the same actions the same way ad nauseum. I couldn't bring myself to spend more time on it just to learn how it ended. If that was being monitored, perhaps it would have been interpreted as "too hard" -- after all I stopped playing in the middle of a supposedly difficult mission. In reality I stopped because it wasn't hard enough.
When a game becomes repetitive, or a simple contest of button mashing skill -- when there's an impression it has nothing more to offer -- people will tend to stop playing it.
That puts a different light on things. Even considering the costs of training, I don't see how they could justify it as both a new and ongoing expense where there previously was (presumably) none outside of routine management -- which will also be required for MS servers.
I've been using VR in Win7 for a few weeks now. I can honestly say that after a few trainings, I'm near 100% accuracy.
That's great! But how's the computer's accuracy coming along?
I am curious. You mentioned this large conversion, but haven't really said how it went. Is it working as well or better than the old mixed systems did? Or worse? Are you having any particular pain now that the transition has been made (other than emotional, of course)?
But proprietary vendors don't want the competition. Steve Jobs mentioned the MPEG-LA consortium is looking through their patents to see if they can shutdown Ogg Theora before it takes root.
Ogg Theora has been out there since 2001. If it hasn't taken root by now, it ain't gonna.
The only reason that apple doesn't have more users is because people are more uncomfortable with change than they are distressed by choices.
Proprietary software for a proprietary format can't be compared to either proprietary OR open software for an open format. If you want to render the proprietary format, you must use the software that is capable of it. Saying that that not having the proprietary renderer available is somehow providing more choice (as OP did) is either misguided or disingenuous.
I'm guessing that OP ran out of system restore space, at which point windows will delete the oldest. Perhaps he decreased the amount of drive space available for system restore... or perhaps by taking them so meticulously, he simply took too many for whatever capacity he had.
What OS? When I stopped using it on Windows (2.2 or so) it wasn't focus-stealing, and hadn't been since it was gaim. (I stopped because it's just too kludgy overall. I gave up on GUI IM clients and went with irssi+bitlbee. It does what I want it to - always connected , send and receive text messages, and irssi is second-to-none as an IRC client.)
nd with eight TVs there's no cohesive way
I've often wondered what the thought process is for people who end up with a silly number of televisions -- perhaps you can share? (I've got a mere two, and wish it was just one.)
Um, we've got this thing called "Google", you can type words into it and it finds pages with those words on them.
You could try it with those words...see what happens.
We've got these things called "eyes"*, attached via optical nerve to this thing called a "brain"; in conjunction one can apply cognitive ability to the symbols on the screen and convert them not only to words, but a message converying meaning as well.
My post rather strongly implied that I knew it wasn't original -- how else to infer (sardonically) a statement on copyright by such an AC's post, unless it's copyrighted material? This aside from the fact that I said "I'd be impressed if it was original... but as it is it's just offtopic".
* to those of you without eyes -- well, yes, I guess I AM an insensitive clod.
I'd be impressed if it was original... but as it is, it's just offtopic. I suppose we could get all intellectual and assume that he's trying to make some deeper point about copyright infringement and anonymity ;)
Macbooks and iPads may be pretty sweet, but creative individuals don't really like to give their business to jackbooted thugs.
Thanks for the laughs. If the creative individuals aren't prevented from being creative, they (for the most part) don't really care -- just like anyone else.
Cool, but old news. Haven't really heard anything about it since (other than rehashes of that same info from Oct)
while not mentioning that he & Melinda give along the lines of 1% ~ 2%.
Yeah, that Gates, he's a real miser.
Outside of that, though - saying "1-2%" is playing the same percentages game that politicians and bloggers love to play when they say that the wealthiest people "only" pay a 15% tax rate, while the poor middle-class working man is paying 20-25%. It doesn't make a good sound bite to say that (for example) in 2007 the wealthiest people (over 100k in income) have paid 203bn in taxes (for 2007, last year data is available for now) while the total income from under 100k earners was 38bn. (Source: http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html)
Didn't you get the memo? That kind of talk isn't allowed here. Profits are evil.