The "Société de Transport de Montréal" (Montreal Public Transit) has had a public transit planner called "Tous Azimuts" (All directions) on their website since...
Shush you and all of the other naysayers! Google invented everything. Personally I can't wait until Google invents TCP/IP.
I don't see the above statements to be all that consistant
The two statements weren't intended to be consistent - Outlook is, by far, the most prevalent email client, and it is usually detrimental to the experience when the interface is customizable. One can achieve the former in spite of the latter.
In Outlook's case the interface is used in a "stock" manner by the overwhelming majority of users, and Outlook makes changes "difficult" enough that it isn't something you normally do accidentally (the kind where you go "WTF? How did that get there"). I just had one of those experiences with Opera, humorously - I was trying to paste some text, but hit some unknown keyboard shortcut and suddenly it switched to "User Style" mode, with an abhorrent layout. Any possible shortcuts didn't revert it back, so I had to go searching through the menus to determine what the deal was. Worse it was sticky, so I couldn't just close and restart.
We have Lotus Notes at work...Bringing OSS applications up to the level of current business applications is key to gaining acceptance.
Lotus Notes is hardly the model of current business applications. If you want to model a business app, clone Outlook (which doesn't feature tabs).
As with any other feature it should be selectable.
This is a double edged sword - users really don't like when the interface is inconsistent (be it jumping between machines, or accidentally toggling a setting), especially when it's accidentally toggled - you know they're trying to hit a shortcut key and hit the wrong thing, and suddenly the entire layout is screwed because they accidentally enabled/disabled something.
90% of the time when there is a "choice", the designers should have had the balls to save everyone the trouble and just picked one model. Less code, more consistency, and a committment to that decision. Not a bunch of half-hearted, poorly-implemented options to give users the impression that any failure is just that they haven't toggled all of the checkboxes properly.
I'm all for new features but can't really see a use case for this one.
Right on the money, and I was going to post exactly the same thing (no need now...well except a "I Agree!" post). Tabs are a great idea for concurrent work, primarily when you want to isolate types of work (e.g. I don't want the 10 webpages I have open regarding Firefox extensions to fill up my taskbar -- I segregate those in my mind to "web research", all gathered together with FF tabs).
Launching the MSXML parser in COM with the tag and/or using jscript/vbscript on the page was the equivalent of doing the same thing as playing with an APPLET with Javascript.
You could also use an IFRAME or remote scripting in IE to do this. Remote scripting was a Microsoft thing, and I believe Microsoft unilaterally "invented" IFRAMEs as well (a variation of a Netscape Layer). Nonetheless, what people call AJAX today is nothing more than a cross-platform clone of XMLHttp. Thus it is entirely true that Microsoft "invented" it.
Not true. You could call XMLHttpRequest an 'invention' of MS, but that's not a technology, it's a method. AJAX is an approach-- a combination of CSS, DTHML, XMLHttpRequest, and Server side technologies. Yes, it relies on the XMLHttpRequest as a major component, but that's all it is, a component. By your logic, all web apps are Netscape technology since they invented the browser. No wait, AJAX is MOSAIC technology. Yea, that's it!
So you're the keeper of the AJAX definition these days? Good to know, because it seems that every halfwit is declaring it whatever they feel that it should be today.
The "method" of AJAX - what made it a revolution - was the idea of progammatic data storage and capture without page loads. That alone defines why it was such a big revolution. XMLHttp(Request) is what enabled this functionality, and thus what allowed for the dramatic change in how web apps are delivered, so yes - Microsoft invented and implemented AJAX. Microsoft was pushing these sort of advanced web application many years ago.
The funny thing, though, is that developers using Microsoft technologies have been doing this for about 6 years now, wondering what all the fuss is about.
Maybe China should fine MS for bundeling "ipconfig" with windows. Better yet, they should fine MS for bundeling "notepad" with windows. This sueing for bundling crap is retarded.
All of these companies are just following the lead of the US government. With that precedent, these countries and unions can engage in corporate piracy to impose additional taxes against an American company, and to attempt to hobble it to help their own home-brewed competitors, and there is little the US can say to appeal this (given that Microsoft was found to be a monopoly in the US).
I've never understood how any userland bullshit software could manage the complexities of opening up a hole *on accident*. Call me paranoid, but, when shit like this gets 'found', they call it being 'found' because someone put it there.
To install the software originally the user had to be an administrator (a lot of software requires admin rights because most of the system won't allow a basic user to install system-wide software. e.g. It could add files in your user directory and the like, but not in Program Files). From then on the software is running as System, operating as a part of the system (which is why it's called a root kit).
My guess is that the folder where the software is stored has the ACLs set to Everyone with Full Control, or something similar. Because this root kit is run as System when the system boots up, a simple user exploit could circumvent user isolation by overwriting some of the rootkit files, and on next boot it'll be running as System, with full local permissions.
Beg to differ. "This page offers the latest news and advice for RSS developers," if you want it in a nutshell. Not just they are going to follow it; they suggest very strongly that this is how things are going to be in the future
It's the Microsoft Developer Network. The site is for Microsoft-centric developers. Microsoft can say "English for Developers" and present a specification, just as they can say "Naming Guidelines for Developers". It's just an extension for RSS, like there are dozens of other extensions for RSS (and those extensions are for...uh...RSS developers).
You were wrong. Just let it go and admit that you were wrong - Microsoft never called this a standard, and what they've done is entirely within their rights. It doesn't "look like a standard", it looks like a specification, and it's one that Microsoft has stated that they are going to follow. Good for them for at least publishing it for the world to see.
IBM does things entirely the same way, by the way, as does Google, Sun, Apple, and everyone else. That's if they're nice enough to making it unburdened and public.
Microsoft has a lot of things that people can slam them about, but this isn't it. It just makes this group of people look idiotic when there's reaching to the depths like this ("Uh...it looks like a standard!").
Worrying about IPods and usb-drives just seems like this decade's nod to a B-movie scenario that was just as tired last decade.
iPod 60GB - $460 USB cable - $8 Misappropriating the financial database because you're the DBA - Priceless
Well, maybe not priceless. Billions of dollars in actual and capitalization damage, destroyed market image, thousands or tens of thousands who'll have issues for years.
It isn't tired - it's a very, very real risk. Too much data is being treated sloppily, and while this is only one of many steps that need to be taken to secure data, it is a concern.
Perhaps most keyboard jockeys may not use digital cameras, but most of the businesses I know of who have employees that leave the building outfit their employees with digital camera.
I didn't say it doesn't happen, it just isn't quite that high on the risk chart (especially given that most organizations still have zero physical restrictions on removable storage beyond perhaps never enforced corporate policy).
But if you work for a company like mine, where the data is the company's life-blood I can completely understand why they'd want to keep your USB and other storage devices (like iPods) out of their space.
Employees don't need to be treated like criminals, but they shouldn't have more access than they need. For instance USB storage devices should be disallowed as a matter of security policy (not as a lame "leave what you tell us about at the door", but as an actual OS enforced system policy). I care about this from a user and customer perspective, where random employees of banks, insurance companies, and other businesses have access to an enormous amount of my data: I've worked at a large bank and a large insurance company, and the controls aren't anything like most people imagine.
Since the article seems to be more concerned about using cameras to store information, rather than taking pictures of sensitive documents, how long until USB Memmory sticks are targeted? Floppies? Geez, if they're that worried about security they need to be concerned about anything that stores info, not just what appears to be everyday items.
Removable storage devices are the problem, and the invention of "camstuffing" seems like a lame gimmick to try to spin more news out of it. The article ridiculously claims that "many employees use digital cameras in their day to day work" - Maybe at a photojournalism shop, but in most real businesses you'd look pretty odd connecting your camera to the PC. It's vastly lower on the threat scale than PDAs, cell phones, burnable media, or flash cards/keys.
While I think the whole hacker vs cracker thing is a lame debate, in this case they're talking about people simply stealing or misappropriating data that they rightfully have access to. There is nothing (h|cr)ackeresque about that.
After reading this 'article' (and I use the term loosely), one is left wondering if this "Bonhomie Snoutintroff" has an axe to grind against EFF specifically, or if EFF was simply unfortunate enough to present an accessable target for one of "Bonhomie's" mindless rants.
Or maybe it was just a great topic to earn a Slashdot swarm? Writers often have little personally invested in the things they write about. Instead they write what people want to hear, or what they know will get them attention (see John C. Dvorak). I doubt the apparently fake guy has an "axe to grind".
In any case, even flamebait stories like this often have a grain of truth to them, and if it does inspire some discussion it can be beneficial. For instance there is truth that precedent is extremely important, and it is critical that early cases are argued as effectively as possible.
Would you want to bet that if such a thing would be even considered in Congress/Sejm/Parliament/Duma/etc, the first act you'd see would be making electronic government-certified odometers mandatory; with each one costing $250+?
Most odometers are already made to be tamper resistant, and it is illegal to tamper with it. In addition to that, here in Canada it is the law that all repair shops (even oil change shops) have to record your VIN (the vehicle's GUID of sorts) and odometer reading on every visit. I don't know if it goes to some master database, but presumably it is used to catch odometer tamperers.
The purpose here, of course, is that a lot of people foolishly pin most of their auto valuation on the odometer, so it is an area of fraud.
Yeah, "old technology" couldn't do anything better than new stuff like NT right? Come to think of it, there's not a LOT of difference between XP's kernel and NT's from what I understand... a few bug fixes here and there... but basically, it uses the same vulnerable messaging scheme and drivers running at ring-0 and all that....I guess I've repeated enough digs on microsoft for one posting...
Drivers generally run in kernel mode in Linux, and most other operating systems for that matter. One of the few that doesn't is QNX.
In any case, the kernel of Windows has been the slowest moving piece of the platform - because it's a very good kernel. It's a mix of performance of reliability that actually exemplifies a lot of great design techniques (BTW: you should have gone for the gold and mentioned VMS).
That I am streaming video from Microsoft.com, on a story that is front page on slashdot right now? That's a lot of bandwidth;-)
The/. effect is grossly exaggerated. I've been Slashdotted, and truth be told I got more hits from a joelonsoftware.com mention than I did from Slashdot. Slashdot has a lot of readers, but very few of them follow the links to TFA.
Nonetheless, Microsoft does have extraordinary bandwidth. On the day that Visual Studio was released to the MSDN, amid great fanfar, I downloaded that night at 650KB/second (the cap on my cable modem) for the entirity of the download.
Look, the "busiest site on Earth" should be hosted on a farm of serious big iron and not x86i32. It shouldn't even be on x86i64.
Right...."big iron". Give me a break. What does Google run on again?
Dollar for dollar - which is what usually determines how much power ends up in the server room - a bunch of x86 boxes kick the ass out of "Big iron". The only people advocating big iron are desperate gray beards hiding in the computer room, fearing the wicked winds of change outside.
I thought the XBox CPU was a three-core jobby. I don't know if all the three cores are the same or whether thre are different sorts of cores for doing different sorts of things. Presumably, as long as you've got the correct glue, and can stick any number of cores on a chip. I don't think there's any need to stick (sorry!) to powers of two.
Indeed, the 3-core xbox360 is mentioned in the article.
I really don't get the point of this article - I've never seen a claim that a processor had to have a power-of-two number of cores (as this article claims), and of course work-schedulers for concurrent processing can accommodate any number of processors. It was also a bit telling that they were surprized that the task manager reported 3 "CPUs" (they had a dual core and a single core - of course it reported 3 CPUs because that's how it appears to it).
i'd say thats a pretty decent accomplishment. and what sounds better - "security mvp" finds x, y and z" or "some random guy"? Surely a little background info goes a long way?
It said "Microsoft MVP" (which could mean an MVP in any number of very isolated technologies) rather than Microsoft Security MVP. In any case, if someone has that sort of history a simple "Noted security expert" would be vastly preferrable to "Security MVP", as least IMHO.
The shot about MVPs is unwarranted, in my opinion.
I didn't intend to make a shot at MVPs (and I'm sure there are a lot of kick-ass, very talented people with the designation. Usually it's one of their many designations). All I was doing was questioning whether it really gives any additional weight to the submission (most of the people who are linked have a BSc - how many times do submissions say "BSc holder John Topley says that...". A BSc is a much greater accomplishment than a MVP).
There are any number of accomplishments that people in this field have achieved, but unless they are pertinent they really don't usually get mentioned in a Slashdot submission. In this case the "Microsoft MVP" thing just looked ridiculous (especially outside of a Microsoft only forum).
Perhaps I'm missing a joke, however both the linked blog entry, and the linked Burgess entry that he links to, are MVPs. Good for them, but it really doesn't designate quite a level of accomplishment or credibility that it merits mention in the submission.
No kidding. The blog article has ZERO content, apart from linking to two other sites about some program that purportedly is being flagged as spyware.
If slashdot is accepting lame "my blog entry" submissions like this (and what's with the "Microsoft MVP" comment in the submission? That's like trying to give credibility to a blog entry by purporting it to come from a "high school graduate"), then I'm going to start submitting every entry I make. Maybe I'll blog about this blog entry that blogs about a blog entry and submit that.
Slashdot Mirror
The "Société de Transport de Montréal" (Montreal Public Transit) has had a public transit planner called "Tous Azimuts" (All directions) on their website since...
Shush you and all of the other naysayers! Google invented everything. Personally I can't wait until Google invents TCP/IP.
I don't see the above statements to be all that consistant
The two statements weren't intended to be consistent - Outlook is, by far, the most prevalent email client, and it is usually detrimental to the experience when the interface is customizable. One can achieve the former in spite of the latter.
In Outlook's case the interface is used in a "stock" manner by the overwhelming majority of users, and Outlook makes changes "difficult" enough that it isn't something you normally do accidentally (the kind where you go "WTF? How did that get there"). I just had one of those experiences with Opera, humorously - I was trying to paste some text, but hit some unknown keyboard shortcut and suddenly it switched to "User Style" mode, with an abhorrent layout. Any possible shortcuts didn't revert it back, so I had to go searching through the menus to determine what the deal was. Worse it was sticky, so I couldn't just close and restart.
We have Lotus Notes at work...Bringing OSS applications up to the level of current business applications is key to gaining acceptance.
Lotus Notes is hardly the model of current business applications. If you want to model a business app, clone Outlook (which doesn't feature tabs).
As with any other feature it should be selectable.
This is a double edged sword - users really don't like when the interface is inconsistent (be it jumping between machines, or accidentally toggling a setting), especially when it's accidentally toggled - you know they're trying to hit a shortcut key and hit the wrong thing, and suddenly the entire layout is screwed because they accidentally enabled/disabled something.
90% of the time when there is a "choice", the designers should have had the balls to save everyone the trouble and just picked one model. Less code, more consistency, and a committment to that decision. Not a bunch of half-hearted, poorly-implemented options to give users the impression that any failure is just that they haven't toggled all of the checkboxes properly.
I'm all for new features but can't really see a use case for this one.
Right on the money, and I was going to post exactly the same thing (no need now...well except a "I Agree!" post). Tabs are a great idea for concurrent work, primarily when you want to isolate types of work (e.g. I don't want the 10 webpages I have open regarding Firefox extensions to fill up my taskbar -- I segregate those in my mind to "web research", all gathered together with FF tabs).
Launching the MSXML parser in COM with the tag and/or using jscript/vbscript on the page was the equivalent of doing the same thing as playing with an APPLET with Javascript.
You could also use an IFRAME or remote scripting in IE to do this. Remote scripting was a Microsoft thing, and I believe Microsoft unilaterally "invented" IFRAMEs as well (a variation of a Netscape Layer). Nonetheless, what people call AJAX today is nothing more than a cross-platform clone of XMLHttp. Thus it is entirely true that Microsoft "invented" it.
Not true. You could call XMLHttpRequest an 'invention' of MS, but that's not a technology, it's a method. AJAX is an approach-- a combination of CSS, DTHML, XMLHttpRequest, and Server side technologies. Yes, it relies on the XMLHttpRequest as a major component, but that's all it is, a component. By your logic, all web apps are Netscape technology since they invented the browser. No wait, AJAX is MOSAIC technology. Yea, that's it!
So you're the keeper of the AJAX definition these days? Good to know, because it seems that every halfwit is declaring it whatever they feel that it should be today.
The "method" of AJAX - what made it a revolution - was the idea of progammatic data storage and capture without page loads. That alone defines why it was such a big revolution. XMLHttp(Request) is what enabled this functionality, and thus what allowed for the dramatic change in how web apps are delivered, so yes - Microsoft invented and implemented AJAX. Microsoft was pushing these sort of advanced web application many years ago.
The funny thing, though, is that developers using Microsoft technologies have been doing this for about 6 years now, wondering what all the fuss is about.
Maybe China should fine MS for bundeling "ipconfig" with windows. Better yet, they should fine MS for bundeling "notepad" with windows. This sueing for bundling crap is retarded.
All of these companies are just following the lead of the US government. With that precedent, these countries and unions can engage in corporate piracy to impose additional taxes against an American company, and to attempt to hobble it to help their own home-brewed competitors, and there is little the US can say to appeal this (given that Microsoft was found to be a monopoly in the US).
I've never understood how any userland bullshit software could manage the complexities of opening up a hole *on accident*. Call me paranoid, but, when shit like this gets 'found', they call it being 'found' because someone put it there.
To install the software originally the user had to be an administrator (a lot of software requires admin rights because most of the system won't allow a basic user to install system-wide software. e.g. It could add files in your user directory and the like, but not in Program Files). From then on the software is running as System, operating as a part of the system (which is why it's called a root kit).
My guess is that the folder where the software is stored has the ACLs set to Everyone with Full Control, or something similar. Because this root kit is run as System when the system boots up, a simple user exploit could circumvent user isolation by overwriting some of the rootkit files, and on next boot it'll be running as System, with full local permissions.
Beg to differ. "This page offers the latest news and advice for RSS developers," if you want it in a nutshell. Not just they are going to follow it; they suggest very strongly that this is how things are going to be in the future
It's the Microsoft Developer Network. The site is for Microsoft-centric developers. Microsoft can say "English for Developers" and present a specification, just as they can say "Naming Guidelines for Developers". It's just an extension for RSS, like there are dozens of other extensions for RSS (and those extensions are for...uh...RSS developers).
You were wrong. Just let it go and admit that you were wrong - Microsoft never called this a standard, and what they've done is entirely within their rights. It doesn't "look like a standard", it looks like a specification, and it's one that Microsoft has stated that they are going to follow. Good for them for at least publishing it for the world to see.
IBM does things entirely the same way, by the way, as does Google, Sun, Apple, and everyone else. That's if they're nice enough to making it unburdened and public.
Microsoft has a lot of things that people can slam them about, but this isn't it. It just makes this group of people look idiotic when there's reaching to the depths like this ("Uh...it looks like a standard!").
Worrying about IPods and usb-drives just seems like this decade's nod to a B-movie scenario that was just as tired last decade.
iPod 60GB - $460
USB cable - $8
Misappropriating the financial database because you're the DBA - Priceless
Well, maybe not priceless. Billions of dollars in actual and capitalization damage, destroyed market image, thousands or tens of thousands who'll have issues for years.
It isn't tired - it's a very, very real risk. Too much data is being treated sloppily, and while this is only one of many steps that need to be taken to secure data, it is a concern.
Perhaps most keyboard jockeys may not use digital cameras, but most of the businesses I know of who have employees that leave the building outfit their employees with digital camera.
I didn't say it doesn't happen, it just isn't quite that high on the risk chart (especially given that most organizations still have zero physical restrictions on removable storage beyond perhaps never enforced corporate policy).
But if you work for a company like mine, where the data is the company's life-blood I can completely understand why they'd want to keep your USB and other storage devices (like iPods) out of their space.
Employees don't need to be treated like criminals, but they shouldn't have more access than they need. For instance USB storage devices should be disallowed as a matter of security policy (not as a lame "leave what you tell us about at the door", but as an actual OS enforced system policy). I care about this from a user and customer perspective, where random employees of banks, insurance companies, and other businesses have access to an enormous amount of my data: I've worked at a large bank and a large insurance company, and the controls aren't anything like most people imagine.
Since the article seems to be more concerned about using cameras to store information, rather than taking pictures of sensitive documents, how long until USB Memmory sticks are targeted? Floppies? Geez, if they're that worried about security they need to be concerned about anything that stores info, not just what appears to be everyday items.
Removable storage devices are the problem, and the invention of "camstuffing" seems like a lame gimmick to try to spin more news out of it. The article ridiculously claims that "many employees use digital cameras in their day to day work" - Maybe at a photojournalism shop, but in most real businesses you'd look pretty odd connecting your camera to the PC. It's vastly lower on the threat scale than PDAs, cell phones, burnable media, or flash cards/keys.
While I think the whole hacker vs cracker thing is a lame debate, in this case they're talking about people simply stealing or misappropriating data that they rightfully have access to. There is nothing (h|cr)ackeresque about that.
After reading this 'article' (and I use the term loosely), one is left wondering if this "Bonhomie Snoutintroff" has an axe to grind against EFF specifically, or if EFF was simply unfortunate enough to present an accessable target for one of "Bonhomie's" mindless rants.
Or maybe it was just a great topic to earn a Slashdot swarm? Writers often have little personally invested in the things they write about. Instead they write what people want to hear, or what they know will get them attention (see John C. Dvorak). I doubt the apparently fake guy has an "axe to grind".
In any case, even flamebait stories like this often have a grain of truth to them, and if it does inspire some discussion it can be beneficial. For instance there is truth that precedent is extremely important, and it is critical that early cases are argued as effectively as possible.
Would you want to bet that if such a thing would be even considered in Congress/Sejm/Parliament/Duma/etc, the first act you'd see would be making electronic government-certified odometers mandatory; with each one costing $250+?
Most odometers are already made to be tamper resistant, and it is illegal to tamper with it. In addition to that, here in Canada it is the law that all repair shops (even oil change shops) have to record your VIN (the vehicle's GUID of sorts) and odometer reading on every visit. I don't know if it goes to some master database, but presumably it is used to catch odometer tamperers.
The purpose here, of course, is that a lot of people foolishly pin most of their auto valuation on the odometer, so it is an area of fraud.
The Canadian anti-speeding technology has been completely misrepresented.
1 81251
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=170150&cid=14
Yeah, "old technology" couldn't do anything better than new stuff like NT right? Come to think of it, there's not a LOT of difference between XP's kernel and NT's from what I understand... a few bug fixes here and there... but basically, it uses the same vulnerable messaging scheme and drivers running at ring-0 and all that. ...I guess I've repeated enough digs on microsoft for one posting...
Drivers generally run in kernel mode in Linux, and most other operating systems for that matter. One of the few that doesn't is QNX.
In any case, the kernel of Windows has been the slowest moving piece of the platform - because it's a very good kernel. It's a mix of performance of reliability that actually exemplifies a lot of great design techniques (BTW: you should have gone for the gold and mentioned VMS).
That I am streaming video from Microsoft.com, on a story that is front page on slashdot right now? That's a lot of bandwidth ;-)
/. effect is grossly exaggerated. I've been Slashdotted, and truth be told I got more hits from a joelonsoftware.com mention than I did from Slashdot. Slashdot has a lot of readers, but very few of them follow the links to TFA.
The
Nonetheless, Microsoft does have extraordinary bandwidth. On the day that Visual Studio was released to the MSDN, amid great fanfar, I downloaded that night at 650KB/second (the cap on my cable modem) for the entirity of the download.
Look, the "busiest site on Earth" should be hosted on a farm of serious big iron and not x86i32. It shouldn't even be on x86i64.
Right...."big iron". Give me a break. What does Google run on again?
Dollar for dollar - which is what usually determines how much power ends up in the server room - a bunch of x86 boxes kick the ass out of "Big iron". The only people advocating big iron are desperate gray beards hiding in the computer room, fearing the wicked winds of change outside.
I thought the XBox CPU was a three-core jobby. I don't know if all the three cores are the same or whether thre are different sorts of cores for doing different sorts of things. Presumably, as long as you've got the correct glue, and can stick any number of cores on a chip. I don't think there's any need to stick (sorry!) to powers of two.
Indeed, the 3-core xbox360 is mentioned in the article.
I really don't get the point of this article - I've never seen a claim that a processor had to have a power-of-two number of cores (as this article claims), and of course work-schedulers for concurrent processing can accommodate any number of processors. It was also a bit telling that they were surprized that the task manager reported 3 "CPUs" (they had a dual core and a single core - of course it reported 3 CPUs because that's how it appears to it).
Weird. Maybe I'm missing something.
i'd say thats a pretty decent accomplishment. and what sounds better - "security mvp" finds x, y and z" or "some random guy"? Surely a little background info goes a long way?
It said "Microsoft MVP" (which could mean an MVP in any number of very isolated technologies) rather than Microsoft Security MVP. In any case, if someone has that sort of history a simple "Noted security expert" would be vastly preferrable to "Security MVP", as least IMHO.
The shot about MVPs is unwarranted, in my opinion.
I didn't intend to make a shot at MVPs (and I'm sure there are a lot of kick-ass, very talented people with the designation. Usually it's one of their many designations). All I was doing was questioning whether it really gives any additional weight to the submission (most of the people who are linked have a BSc - how many times do submissions say "BSc holder John Topley says that...". A BSc is a much greater accomplishment than a MVP).
There are any number of accomplishments that people in this field have achieved, but unless they are pertinent they really don't usually get mentioned in a Slashdot submission. In this case the "Microsoft MVP" thing just looked ridiculous (especially outside of a Microsoft only forum).
but the mike burgess guy *is* an MVP...
Perhaps I'm missing a joke, however both the linked blog entry, and the linked Burgess entry that he links to, are MVPs. Good for them, but it really doesn't designate quite a level of accomplishment or credibility that it merits mention in the submission.
The linked-to blog article is clear as mud
No kidding. The blog article has ZERO content, apart from linking to two other sites about some program that purportedly is being flagged as spyware.
If slashdot is accepting lame "my blog entry" submissions like this (and what's with the "Microsoft MVP" comment in the submission? That's like trying to give credibility to a blog entry by purporting it to come from a "high school graduate"), then I'm going to start submitting every entry I make. Maybe I'll blog about this blog entry that blogs about a blog entry and submit that.
Ah well, like I - esteemed high school graduate and Blockbuster cardholder - said - most blogging is bloggers talking about blogging. (Yes, hypocrisy runs deep with this)