I don't think being fearful of death has anything to do with a decline in mental ability. I just think it's proportional with age.
Perhaps it's Mitchell's intelligence and sharpness that has caused his fear to manifest itself in the way it has. Instead of buying in to the fantastical didacticism of organised religion, the more rational, philosophical potential of the significance of extra-terrestrial life is perhaps more comforting to him.
He's not just been to space, but he spent 9 hours on the surface of the moon.
Unfortunately, neither his education nor his experience preclude him from succumbing to the paralysing fear that life may end with death. At 77, I'm sure the notion of higher beings is a comforting one.
It is quite true that SanDisk's SSD are woefully subpar in performance when running Windows Vista. Numerous benchmarks from around the web have shown SanDisk SSDs getting outpaced by the competition.
While Vista may be a performance inhibitor compared to Windows XP for SSDs, it appears that most new, current-generation SSDs are having no problems performing well with the operating system. The problem appears to be SanDisk's low reads and writes (67 MB/sec and 50 MB/sec respectively).
This would obviously only be used on sites dealing with information that isn't very sensitive. For example, forum login information. In these scenarios, the practical alternative (no cert) is worse than a self-signed cert.
Also, note that in your example the data would be encrypted with Mallory's public key, not his private one.
I think you're splitting hairs - once Mozilla decided to auction off the top spot, Google had to pay to stay there. If they don't pay, they don't get to be in the top spot. Therefore they are buying the top spot, regardless of what Mozilla did before they started auctioning the positions in the list.
Mozilla Corp's profits from search engine affiliation may indicate a commercialism that could be at the root of the change in how Firefox displays self-signed certificate warnings. After all, if Google can pay to have its search page top-ranked in Firefox's quick search menu, why couldn't Verisign pay to have Firefox encourage people (by inconveniencing users of websites with self-signed certs) to buy SSL certificates?
Given the many problems with the way CAs actually verify identities (and don't actually verify potential criminality), I don't really see the point in this aspect of certificates. Surely the fact that they provide public key encryption for sensitive information is far more important and should be encouraged.
The issue is one about identifying the meaning of an open network. That is, what's the perceptible difference between a network purposefully left open for public access, and one that is private, but mal-configured?
As far as I can tell there isn't one. That's why the house analogy fails.
This isn't to say, of course, that stealing bandwidth isn't wrong. It's just that when there's no way for people to know that they're stealing it, I don't think they should be punished.
Think of big cities with lots of wireless networks in range at any given location: some will be operated by hotels and restaurants and be intentionally open, and others will be badly configured home networks set up (unwisely some would say) in apartments. I face this situation every time I use a laptop in the centre of London or Paris.
Linux users and Linux developers have fought, and some died defending the vision of Linux and the FSF to preserve a future where some of us still do control how our computers are used Oh please. Rubbish like this will only ever increase the gap between closed and free software.
Come back down to Earth. The fight is about getting people to look at software differently in order to facilitate more productivity and ultimately better business.
How do you think the general public, let alone a company, would respond to your sci-fi inspired, quasi-revolutionary imagery? You would either be dismissed as delusional or dangerous. In either case, you wouldn't be helping your cause.
The features they discuss were only introduced in the most recent version of PHP, and many, many servers are still running older releases.
Furthermore, note that these safeguards are only a basic defence and programmer awareness is still required to ensure SQL injection can't happen:
But, magic quotes is a
generic solution that doesn't include all of the characters that require escaping, and the feature
isn't always enabled (for reasons outlined in the first chapter). Ultimately, it's up to you to
implement safeguards to protect against SQL injection.
SQL injection is a result of poor data validation on the part of the web application - not, as the blurb implies, an indicator of an insecure web server. LAMP installations are also susceptible to SQL injection (PDF). From TFA:
Unless [...] data is sanitized before it gets saved you can't control what the website will show to the users. This is what SQL injection is all about, exploiting weaknesses in these controls. As for the fact that Firefox + NoScript prevents the problems, that really isn't a surprise seeing as these specific exploits rely on executing a JScript. Any browser with scripting disabled would be immune.
The tone of the blurb is not only biased but also counter-productive to promoting open source (as this appears to be its intention): by trying to criticise closed technologies not by highlighting their actual deficiencies but instead by spreading FUD, the whole community is done a disservice.
No, the best to be in charge of my security is me. I am responsible for limiting access and ensuring it remains malware free. The software you're using is designed for people who aren't in a position to manage their system's security. If you feel so strongly, stop using Windows, and instead of moaning about it, I recommend you take action: get a stripped down version of Linux and customise it to suit your needs.
What, in your opinion, is the value for the multi-touch feature on this product? Simple: mouse-based scrolling and zooming is a pain in the arse on laptops. The designated scroll area often either misinterprets scroll gestures as normal mouse movements, or ignores them entirely. This has lead me to use an external mouse with my laptop, and that's an inconvenience I could do without when I'm working on a plane, or even worse, a crowded train. The multi-touch features will make using the mousepad for scrolling and zooming much easier, eliminating the need for extra peripherals for a device that is inherently portable.
I suppose the major problem with your complaints are that they are centred around the fact that things aren't the way you want them: you don't want an MP3 player in your phone, but you'd like a remote control; you don't want a grammar check, but you want a spell check; you want some level of security software, but not too much. These terms are all relative, and different users will have different ideas of what they need (think of the teenager who wants to listen to music and text their friends, the foreign student who finds the grammar check helpful, the novice user who needs to be told when a file may be dangerous). Most people are happy to have something that has more features than they use: those who feel strongly about it customise their software and hardware accordingly. If you don't want to/can't do this, then you have to accept that you are at the behest of market forces that do not favour your demographic. Mobile phones are designed for the technophilic younger generations; modern, mass-market operating systems are designed for the average, highly non-technical user.
I want my phone to make phone calls. Does your phone not make phone calls? Every modern mobile phone I've used, even advanced models and smartphones, allow users to make phone calls by simply dialling a number and pressing a "Call" button. This feature always remains simple - I can't see why you would have a problem with it.
I want my firewall to keep the badguys out and the information in What firewall are you using? Standard, home router firewalls are really easy to configure, and so is the Windows firewall, for that matter. On Linux, it's simple with an iptables-based firewall (see netfilter).
I want my word processing to be done in a dedicated processor As opposed to what? A software package on a PC? Apart from cost, don't you think that would come at the expense of usability and functionality?
I don't need an RSS reader in my browser I really don't understand why you would have a problem with this. You don't want to use your browser's RSS functionality, don't use it. There's no loss to you, but great benefit to the many that do want the feature.
I sure as hell don't want my operating system to think that it is also in charge of my security Your operating system is in the best position to be in charge of your security. It is responsible for providing access to your computer - it needs to also be responsible for limiting access to it.
Product placement is, at best, a necessary evil to fund content that is expensive to produce. Normally, product placement is worth the effort because the content is very popular - for example, the promotion of brands like Apple and Cisco in 24.
The significant point, however, is that the show comes first. By reversing the creative process and using product promotion as a starting point, not only is the quality of content likely to suffer, but the effectiveness of the advertising along with it.
What's worse, it seems these plans will give the brands involved an unprecedented level of influence over the content. From TFA:
[It will be] a unique way of giving brands a seat at the table with writers and producers in developing episodic programming that ties directly to brand needs
Social networking sites, and Facebook in particular, seem to be increasingly undesirable.
Apart from not wanting people such as potential employers to gain access to profiles that are by default made openly accessible, security vulnerabilities are particularly worrying, given the fact that social networking accounts often contain detailed personal information in context (i.e. not just a name, but a name connected to a university, email account, other people, images etc.) Add to that advertising schemes that intentionally deliver users' data to third-parties, and you have a dangerous mix, especially considering the average user's lack of awareness regarding safe-guarding personal data.
I was excited, until I read this:
But the concept is not an official aim of Esa, and one of the agency's senior officials has dismissed the idea as "science fiction".
As far as end user point of view goes:
apt-get install vlc That's a good point, but it also brings up another one: usability. I love VLC. I use it to play video exclusively on both Windows and Linux. When it comes to music, however, VLC doesn't cut it: the playlist is buggy (to the point of causing VLC to crash) and there's no media indexing/searching to speak of.
By contrast, Windows Media Player is an example (one of the only, you may argue) of great software from Microsoft. It can index huge quantities of media, present it in truly helpful and intuitive ways and search through it quickly.
Put simply, the ability for VLC to play "an order of magnitude more formats than Windows Media Player", while obviously of huge importance, is only half the picture.
This is an excellent of example of why we need to be more vigilent and less complacent when it comes to government legislation. The fact that with no actual precedent for requiring stronger powers, the FBI would lie to get them, is a testament to the fact that everyone is susceptible to feeling, and succombing to, a hunger for power, even at the expense of the people they are meant to be serving.
There is a laziness in the way people react to such legislative measures - a laziness that ignores the very real danger that our comfortable Western democracies could fall in to dictatorship much more easily than people think.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." --Edmund Burke
I just think that finding more ways to emphasise differences between people is the wrong way to a tolerant society. It breeds prejudice and segregation.
By this logic no-one is American, everyone is [Insert Nth Generation of Relatives' Nationality] American. Even native Americans aren't American, they're Native American. I just think this is ridiculous.
Did you even read this full branch of posts? The parent suggested that research into proportions of people from ethnic groups playing video games was irrelevant, and that distinguishing between "American" and "African American" is a form of prejudice.
Sounds like you are attempting to turn this article into something racial. Have you read the title of the post? "African Americans and the Video Game Industry". I'm not turning it into anything. It is racial.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think being fearful of death has anything to do with a decline in mental ability. I just think it's proportional with age.
Perhaps it's Mitchell's intelligence and sharpness that has caused his fear to manifest itself in the way it has. Instead of buying in to the fantastical didacticism of organised religion, the more rational, philosophical potential of the significance of extra-terrestrial life is perhaps more comforting to him.
He's not just been to space, but he spent 9 hours on the surface of the moon.
Unfortunately, neither his education nor his experience preclude him from succumbing to the paralysing fear that life may end with death. At 77, I'm sure the notion of higher beings is a comforting one.
It is quite true that SanDisk's SSD are woefully subpar in performance when running Windows Vista. Numerous benchmarks from around the web have shown SanDisk SSDs getting outpaced by the competition.
While Vista may be a performance inhibitor compared to Windows XP for SSDs, it appears that most new, current-generation SSDs are having no problems performing well with the operating system. The problem appears to be SanDisk's low reads and writes (67 MB/sec and 50 MB/sec respectively).
This would obviously only be used on sites dealing with information that isn't very sensitive. For example, forum login information. In these scenarios, the practical alternative (no cert) is worse than a self-signed cert.
Also, note that in your example the data would be encrypted with Mallory's public key, not his private one.
I think you're splitting hairs - once Mozilla decided to auction off the top spot, Google had to pay to stay there. If they don't pay, they don't get to be in the top spot. Therefore they are buying the top spot, regardless of what Mozilla did before they started auctioning the positions in the list.
Mozilla Corp's profits from search engine affiliation may indicate a commercialism that could be at the root of the change in how Firefox displays self-signed certificate warnings. After all, if Google can pay to have its search page top-ranked in Firefox's quick search menu, why couldn't Verisign pay to have Firefox encourage people (by inconveniencing users of websites with self-signed certs) to buy SSL certificates?
Given the many problems with the way CAs actually verify identities (and don't actually verify potential criminality), I don't really see the point in this aspect of certificates. Surely the fact that they provide public key encryption for sensitive information is far more important and should be encouraged.
That will have cost them big in licensing!
Exactly. However, I suppose incorporating this into law may be more difficult because anyone is allowed to set up a public network.
The issue is one about identifying the meaning of an open network. That is, what's the perceptible difference between a network purposefully left open for public access, and one that is private, but mal-configured?
As far as I can tell there isn't one. That's why the house analogy fails.
This isn't to say, of course, that stealing bandwidth isn't wrong. It's just that when there's no way for people to know that they're stealing it, I don't think they should be punished.
Think of big cities with lots of wireless networks in range at any given location: some will be operated by hotels and restaurants and be intentionally open, and others will be badly configured home networks set up (unwisely some would say) in apartments. I face this situation every time I use a laptop in the centre of London or Paris.
Come back down to Earth. The fight is about getting people to look at software differently in order to facilitate more productivity and ultimately better business.
How do you think the general public, let alone a company, would respond to your sci-fi inspired, quasi-revolutionary imagery? You would either be dismissed as delusional or dangerous. In either case, you wouldn't be helping your cause.
Exactly. A Linux distribution is the OS plus userland applications.
The Linux OS itself doesn't provide any of the functionality the GP talks about.
Furthermore, note that these safeguards are only a basic defence and programmer awareness is still required to ensure SQL injection can't happen: But, magic quotes is a generic solution that doesn't include all of the characters that require escaping, and the feature isn't always enabled (for reasons outlined in the first chapter). Ultimately, it's up to you to implement safeguards to protect against SQL injection.
Unless [...] data is sanitized before it gets saved you can't control what the website will show to the users. This is what SQL injection is all about, exploiting weaknesses in these controls. As for the fact that Firefox + NoScript prevents the problems, that really isn't a surprise seeing as these specific exploits rely on executing a JScript. Any browser with scripting disabled would be immune.
The tone of the blurb is not only biased but also counter-productive to promoting open source (as this appears to be its intention): by trying to criticise closed technologies not by highlighting their actual deficiencies but instead by spreading FUD, the whole community is done a disservice.
What, in your opinion, is the value for the multi-touch feature on this product? Simple: mouse-based scrolling and zooming is a pain in the arse on laptops. The designated scroll area often either misinterprets scroll gestures as normal mouse movements, or ignores them entirely. This has lead me to use an external mouse with my laptop, and that's an inconvenience I could do without when I'm working on a plane, or even worse, a crowded train. The multi-touch features will make using the mousepad for scrolling and zooming much easier, eliminating the need for extra peripherals for a device that is inherently portable.
I suppose the major problem with your complaints are that they are centred around the fact that things aren't the way you want them: you don't want an MP3 player in your phone, but you'd like a remote control; you don't want a grammar check, but you want a spell check; you want some level of security software, but not too much. These terms are all relative, and different users will have different ideas of what they need (think of the teenager who wants to listen to music and text their friends, the foreign student who finds the grammar check helpful, the novice user who needs to be told when a file may be dangerous). Most people are happy to have something that has more features than they use: those who feel strongly about it customise their software and hardware accordingly. If you don't want to/can't do this, then you have to accept that you are at the behest of market forces that do not favour your demographic. Mobile phones are designed for the technophilic younger generations; modern, mass-market operating systems are designed for the average, highly non-technical user.
I want my firewall to keep the badguys out and the information in What firewall are you using? Standard, home router firewalls are really easy to configure, and so is the Windows firewall, for that matter. On Linux, it's simple with an iptables-based firewall (see netfilter).
I want my word processing to be done in a dedicated processor As opposed to what? A software package on a PC? Apart from cost, don't you think that would come at the expense of usability and functionality?
I don't need an RSS reader in my browser I really don't understand why you would have a problem with this. You don't want to use your browser's RSS functionality, don't use it. There's no loss to you, but great benefit to the many that do want the feature.
I sure as hell don't want my operating system to think that it is also in charge of my security Your operating system is in the best position to be in charge of your security. It is responsible for providing access to your computer - it needs to also be responsible for limiting access to it.
The significant point, however, is that the show comes first. By reversing the creative process and using product promotion as a starting point, not only is the quality of content likely to suffer, but the effectiveness of the advertising along with it.
What's worse, it seems these plans will give the brands involved an unprecedented level of influence over the content. From TFA: [It will be] a unique way of giving brands a seat at the table with writers and producers in developing episodic programming that ties directly to brand needs
Social networking sites, and Facebook in particular, seem to be increasingly undesirable.
Apart from not wanting people such as potential employers to gain access to profiles that are by default made openly accessible, security vulnerabilities are particularly worrying, given the fact that social networking accounts often contain detailed personal information in context (i.e. not just a name, but a name connected to a university, email account, other people, images etc.) Add to that advertising schemes that intentionally deliver users' data to third-parties, and you have a dangerous mix, especially considering the average user's lack of awareness regarding safe-guarding personal data.
Argh! Evidently!
Silly me.
apt-get install vlc That's a good point, but it also brings up another one: usability. I love VLC. I use it to play video exclusively on both Windows and Linux. When it comes to music, however, VLC doesn't cut it: the playlist is buggy (to the point of causing VLC to crash) and there's no media indexing/searching to speak of.
By contrast, Windows Media Player is an example (one of the only, you may argue) of great software from Microsoft. It can index huge quantities of media, present it in truly helpful and intuitive ways and search through it quickly.
Put simply, the ability for VLC to play "an order of magnitude more formats than Windows Media Player", while obviously of huge importance, is only half the picture.
I'm English. I live in the UK.
The situation in Europe is but a few steps behind that in the US.
Further references: here, here and here.
This is an excellent of example of why we need to be more vigilent and less complacent when it comes to government legislation. The fact that with no actual precedent for requiring stronger powers, the FBI would lie to get them, is a testament to the fact that everyone is susceptible to feeling, and succombing to, a hunger for power, even at the expense of the people they are meant to be serving.
There is a laziness in the way people react to such legislative measures - a laziness that ignores the very real danger that our comfortable Western democracies could fall in to dictatorship much more easily than people think.
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
--Edmund Burke
The difference between solar thermal power and more well-known solar photovoltaics.
I just think that finding more ways to emphasise differences between people is the wrong way to a tolerant society. It breeds prejudice and segregation.
By this logic no-one is American, everyone is [Insert Nth Generation of Relatives' Nationality] American. Even native Americans aren't American, they're Native American. I just think this is ridiculous.
Sounds like you are attempting to turn this article into something racial. Have you read the title of the post? "African Americans and the Video Game Industry". I'm not turning it into anything. It is racial.