Once you actually start thinking about it from a _real_ business perspective, none whatsoever.
Honestly, you're not seeing it from a real business perspective whatsoever, and your rationale for shooting it down is as flawed as the pubsters telling how they would solve the world's problems. Being a baseless contrarian is no higher of a ground than being a baseless believer. Would it be a merger? Of course it wouldn't - it'd be an acquisition. That's a nuance of terminology that is largely irrelevant.
They can, for example, start with Linux (which, arguably, has more mind-share than MacOS has to start with) and buy just enough application development to make it a more viable option
Saying that Intel could magically make software of OSX/Apple quality appear if they wanted to is just illusionary - Intel has poured billions of dollars down the tube in all sorts of software and hardware ventures that have led absolutely nowhere (at one point they were supposed to destroy nvidia and ATI. We see where that went). Secondly, Apple is a known quantity - if Intel acquired Apple in a stock swap, the market cap of Intel would appreciate about the value of the swap (because the market has already valued Apple). If Intel decided to spend $30 billion writing some software...
His predictions really aren't that insane, and are entirely within the realm of reason (presuming that you think from a business/marketshare perspective, and not from a religious vast-chasm viewpoint. Many were in the latter cateogry and completely thrown off guard by the switch to Intel). Perhaps an Intel acquisition won't be necessary, but I'll bet that Intel and Apple hop in bed together to a degree not seen since the early days of Wintel.
The reasons are pretty obvious - Apple is a formidable software engineering shop, and they have shown a tremendous ability to deliver and to deliver revolutions. Their training is complete, and they, along with a web-focused marketplace, are ready to challenge Microsoft. They can't be bound by their hardware crutches.
Microsoft ignoring the command line is just as silly as ignoring the Internet.
Well to be fair there have been alternative, and powerful, command-line tools for Windows systems for a very long time. Just last night I threw together a perl script to perform some tasks.
While I have access to the beta of this product, I haven't looked at it extensively and thus this should be taken with a grain of salt, but my first impression upon seeing this mentioned on blogs.msdn.com was "Jesus...someone else with NIH syndrome". Does the world REALLY need another scripting language? Do we really need to go back to the drawing board yet again? I understand that they want to leverage some of the great.NET stuff, but they could have done that within the confines of an existing, proven language.
(I'm talking specifically about scripting as the scripting language seems to be the bulk of Monad)
I discovered this by accident one day, however try the following - I've repeated it on several keyboards.
-Type on your keyboard via such exercises as posting a troll on Slashdot.
-Now, dial on your cell phone, and while it's negotiating, move the cell phone near the wire on the back of your cellphone.
-Continue typing your troll.
In my instance the cell phone transmission rendered the keyboard useless, as it interfered with the communications. I wouldn't want the same thing happening in a plane. Of course having a cell phone directly beside a cable is vastly different from it being near controls or control wires many feet away, but better safe than sorry.
Regenerative braking is a feature that may be included in any vehicle which uses an electric motor for propulsion, but is not in any way innate to such a system and many electrics and hybrids do not use regenerative braking.
Show me a car, you know since we're talking about cars (and _NEVER_ have I heard the term "hybrid" applied to trains, which are generally called diesel-electric. Of course trains have absolutely nothing to do with cars: You know, little differences like braking being distributed amongst potentially hundreds of cars and a thousand axels. Yeah, I worked in control software for trains for about five years), that has a hybrid engine but doesn't have regenerative braking. I'm really curious to see such an example, because you know it would take an enormous dumbass to design such a system, and no more-than-one-example hybrid car design on the planet uses such a system.
but the public does not seem ready to adandon the idea that a combustion engine is necessary somehow to provide drive.
I'm ignoring the other nonsensical energy claims (but wait - a hybrid usually has a smaller engine, so how much energy did they save not having to smelt that much more iron/aluminum?), however this really takes the cake - yeah, it's the public demanding the design of current hybrids. It's not like the best of the world's car engineers have determined this to be the best design currently to achieve a usable car, but instead it's just that crazy public. Ridiciulous.
There's no real evidence that hybrids are more efficient than a similar gas powered car would be
A Prius, or a hybrid Accord, or a hybrid Odyssey, isn't intended to be the most fuel efficient vehicle possible - it is intended to be the most fuel efficient for that particular size and category of car. Of course you can buy a largely unusable micro-car and get close to the same fuel economy, but that's sort of missing the point.
Regarding evidence - this isn't some mysterious dark science, and it's remarkably easy to measure the fuel efficiency of a vehicle. The Accord hybrid isn't the most fuel efficient car on the planet, but you get the power and comfort of a high-power car with the fuel efficiency of a small 4-cylinder. Pretty much a win/win.
Lack of range of hybrid vehicles? Okay this is the second nonsensical post - to explain what a hybrid is (because so many apparently don't know. I think some people are confusing fuel-cell with hybrid), it is a conventional car but with a generator that goes into generator mode when you press the brakes, and motor mode when you accelerate. Otherwise the car is a traditional car, just with less of the energy going to ruining brake pads.
There is, and has never been, a range problem with hybrids (in fact most have massive ranges) - the energy is coming from gas, and they have big fuel tanks just like normal cars. They just make it last even longer. The only reason every car on the road isn't a hybrid is because the technology relatively recently matured, and it does add some cost to the manufacture of the car (because it's parts above and beyond a normal car).
As they exist today electrics and hybrids do not help in reducing overall pollution or save energy
Do you know how a hybrid works? It works by recapturing energy that would have been dissipated as heat on the brake pads. A hybrid _absolutely_ reduces energy consumption, and by extrapolation pollution. It's a better conservation of energy.
It's a religious sort of thing. Sort of like when you hear the CSS fanatics proclaim the dirtiness and brokenness of table-layout designs. After beaten beaten about it for a while, you go about an arduous process of dealing with all of the oddities of CSS. Eventually you might end up with the same layout as your table design, and you'll wonder WTF you wasted your time for, but at least you won't hear the CSS fantatics yelling in your ear.
Oh, and the aspnet_isapi.dll extension (or the derivative of it) is mapped to every type of file in IIS, so your HttpHandlers/HttpModules can be used (it also means that forms authentication, as an example, would work for static content such as images as well. Right now unless you configure it otherwise the ASP.NET module doesn't handle that, so ASP.NET security and functions are irrelevant).
This is what apache did with modules ages ago and webmin did years ago as well.
Remember that this information is coming from bloggers. The barrier to entry to blogging about something is that you have the wherewithall to setup an account on a blogging host.
IIS has been module based since day one - ASP is nothing more than an ISAPI module. Logging can be configured as external modules. Filters are external modules.
I read a more detailed account and it really sounds like the big change is.htaccess kinds of files (the IIS configuration is already a big XML file, but it's not in your web directories), the use of a new service control manager, and a better admin console. Until more details come out, it really isn't that much of a schism.
They handle the case right now, and, frankly... they don't have a clue what went wrong with ASP engine!
As others have said, there are countless people who are running ASP sites on IIS. The fact that you encountered a quirk in an outdated hosting option is hardly surprizing. Most certainly your problem relates to some of the securing down of COM.
Opening up your application, let alone your OS for remote hacking.
Well most servers have remote desktop enabled, and web administration of IIS has existed since IIS 5. I think the point was moreso that you'll be able to fully configure your site. One of the issues, mentioned in the article, that IIS currently has is that there is a disconnect, and overlap, between the settings necessary in IIS and ASP.NET to configure a site properly, and it would be nice if they merged them (which really would be mapping some of the IIS metabase XML into the Web.Config).
Reading this article, I'm still not sure what the real message is- You can already create fully managed handlers and modules for IIS, and the idea of it being pulled "into" IIS is frightening, actually (IIS 6 is a gorgeous design because it is like a microkernel web architecture, with an extremely minimalist server module and cache that communicates to external modules to handle things like ASP.NET processing). I suspect some information was misunderstood.
I don't need to be peering myopically at a little 3" screen
I'm sure the state of the art has vastly improved, but several years ago I tried out one of those in-glasses video screens (in that case it was a television). Of course it was physically tiny, but perceptually it was bigger than a large screen TV in a normal room (per the amount of my vision real estate it took). If they could pack vastly more pixels into a small space, that would yield some impressively usable highly mobile devices.
but usually, running at resolutions higher than that is fairly pointless unless you have a 21" or bigger monitor
Dell has been managing to, quite effectively, stick 1920x1200 15" displays in laptops. I assure you that they are unbelievably crisp, and there is no blurring (because each pixel is an independent element). These sort of ultra high resolution panels are making their way to desktop LCDs now.
Hacking into these legitimate companies doesn't do anything to hurt the scammers.
?
You think that it doesn't hurt phishers when their "closer" is rendered inoperational? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm going to bet that some phisher that used their botnet to send out millions of emails (losing a number of their bots in the process) is going to be pretty pissed when some whitehat knocks their server offline before all of the morons enter their username and password.
Today's war is PC vs. Linux, and Slashdot if the focal point for this cutting edge flame war.
Do you really think so? I would say, with confidence, that Linux has been significantly supplanted by OSX in the minds of the adversaries. Before Linux that contrarians were fanatics of the Amiga, then OS/2, then Linus (though there was some fragmentation with alternatives such as BeOS), and finally the Switch is occurring to OSX.
Windows verus Linux is so 2002. The new battle is Windows verus OSX.
I wonder if this would actually hurt, or help Nvidia's sales, or have no effect?
Well regardless of nvidia sales, this would be a perfect opportunity for the publisher (in this case FiringSquad) to have some good contextual ads - if there was an ad on the page to buy a 6800 I'd very likely have followed it.
Going back to nvidia, we're talking a 7-10% speed increase - this lets the hackers rush to get this card rather than considering some of the potent ATI competitors. I doubt it's an error that nvidia made the pipelines capable of being enabled.
You mean, arbitrary and completely domain intermixed groups of people, whose only commonality is that they write (on a computer!), doesn't interest you?
This lame idea, and the transparent astroturfing that is occurring to advertise it, is retarded.
Oh noes, now I'll never crack into the lucrative Blogebrities list!
Slashdot Mirror
Once you actually start thinking about it from a _real_ business perspective, none whatsoever.
Honestly, you're not seeing it from a real business perspective whatsoever, and your rationale for shooting it down is as flawed as the pubsters telling how they would solve the world's problems. Being a baseless contrarian is no higher of a ground than being a baseless believer. Would it be a merger? Of course it wouldn't - it'd be an acquisition. That's a nuance of terminology that is largely irrelevant.
They can, for example, start with Linux (which, arguably, has more mind-share than MacOS has to start with) and buy just enough application development to make it a more viable option
Saying that Intel could magically make software of OSX/Apple quality appear if they wanted to is just illusionary - Intel has poured billions of dollars down the tube in all sorts of software and hardware ventures that have led absolutely nowhere (at one point they were supposed to destroy nvidia and ATI. We see where that went). Secondly, Apple is a known quantity - if Intel acquired Apple in a stock swap, the market cap of Intel would appreciate about the value of the swap (because the market has already valued Apple). If Intel decided to spend $30 billion writing some software...
His predictions really aren't that insane, and are entirely within the realm of reason (presuming that you think from a business/marketshare perspective, and not from a religious vast-chasm viewpoint. Many were in the latter cateogry and completely thrown off guard by the switch to Intel). Perhaps an Intel acquisition won't be necessary, but I'll bet that Intel and Apple hop in bed together to a degree not seen since the early days of Wintel.
The reasons are pretty obvious - Apple is a formidable software engineering shop, and they have shown a tremendous ability to deliver and to deliver revolutions. Their training is complete, and they, along with a web-focused marketplace, are ready to challenge Microsoft. They can't be bound by their hardware crutches.
Microsoft ignoring the command line is just as silly as ignoring the Internet.
.NET stuff, but they could have done that within the confines of an existing, proven language.
Well to be fair there have been alternative, and powerful, command-line tools for Windows systems for a very long time. Just last night I threw together a perl script to perform some tasks.
While I have access to the beta of this product, I haven't looked at it extensively and thus this should be taken with a grain of salt, but my first impression upon seeing this mentioned on blogs.msdn.com was "Jesus...someone else with NIH syndrome". Does the world REALLY need another scripting language? Do we really need to go back to the drawing board yet again? I understand that they want to leverage some of the great
(I'm talking specifically about scripting as the scripting language seems to be the bulk of Monad)
I discovered this by accident one day, however try the following - I've repeated it on several keyboards.
-Type on your keyboard via such exercises as posting a troll on Slashdot.
-Now, dial on your cell phone, and while it's negotiating, move the cell phone near the wire on the back of your cellphone.
-Continue typing your troll.
In my instance the cell phone transmission rendered the keyboard useless, as it interfered with the communications. I wouldn't want the same thing happening in a plane. Of course having a cell phone directly beside a cable is vastly different from it being near controls or control wires many feet away, but better safe than sorry.
Regenerative braking is a feature that may be included in any vehicle which uses an electric motor for propulsion, but is not in any way innate to such a system and many electrics and hybrids do not use regenerative braking.
Show me a car, you know since we're talking about cars (and _NEVER_ have I heard the term "hybrid" applied to trains, which are generally called diesel-electric. Of course trains have absolutely nothing to do with cars: You know, little differences like braking being distributed amongst potentially hundreds of cars and a thousand axels. Yeah, I worked in control software for trains for about five years), that has a hybrid engine but doesn't have regenerative braking. I'm really curious to see such an example, because you know it would take an enormous dumbass to design such a system, and no more-than-one-example hybrid car design on the planet uses such a system.
but the public does not seem ready to adandon the idea that a combustion engine is necessary somehow to provide drive.
I'm ignoring the other nonsensical energy claims (but wait - a hybrid usually has a smaller engine, so how much energy did they save not having to smelt that much more iron/aluminum?), however this really takes the cake - yeah, it's the public demanding the design of current hybrids. It's not like the best of the world's car engineers have determined this to be the best design currently to achieve a usable car, but instead it's just that crazy public. Ridiciulous.
There's no real evidence that hybrids are more efficient than a similar gas powered car would be
h tml
A Prius, or a hybrid Accord, or a hybrid Odyssey, isn't intended to be the most fuel efficient vehicle possible - it is intended to be the most fuel efficient for that particular size and category of car. Of course you can buy a largely unusable micro-car and get close to the same fuel economy, but that's sort of missing the point.
Regarding evidence - this isn't some mysterious dark science, and it's remarkably easy to measure the fuel efficiency of a vehicle. The Accord hybrid isn't the most fuel efficient car on the planet, but you get the power and comfort of a high-power car with the fuel efficiency of a small 4-cylinder. Pretty much a win/win.
http://www.toyota.com/vehicles/modelselector/mpg.
Lack of range of hybrid vehicles? Okay this is the second nonsensical post - to explain what a hybrid is (because so many apparently don't know. I think some people are confusing fuel-cell with hybrid), it is a conventional car but with a generator that goes into generator mode when you press the brakes, and motor mode when you accelerate. Otherwise the car is a traditional car, just with less of the energy going to ruining brake pads.
There is, and has never been, a range problem with hybrids (in fact most have massive ranges) - the energy is coming from gas, and they have big fuel tanks just like normal cars. They just make it last even longer. The only reason every car on the road isn't a hybrid is because the technology relatively recently matured, and it does add some cost to the manufacture of the car (because it's parts above and beyond a normal car).
As they exist today electrics and hybrids do not help in reducing overall pollution or save energy
Do you know how a hybrid works? It works by recapturing energy that would have been dissipated as heat on the brake pads. A hybrid _absolutely_ reduces energy consumption, and by extrapolation pollution. It's a better conservation of energy.
Not that I blame them, from a business standpoint why have one product when you can have two with none of the extra work?
u bberDuckies.html
It's called market segmentation, and it exists in virtually every area of business. There is nothing insidious or unusual about this.
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/CamelsandR
I wonder how meaningful the Acid2 test really is?
It's a religious sort of thing. Sort of like when you hear the CSS fanatics proclaim the dirtiness and brokenness of table-layout designs. After beaten beaten about it for a while, you go about an arduous process of dealing with all of the oddities of CSS. Eventually you might end up with the same layout as your table design, and you'll wonder WTF you wasted your time for, but at least you won't hear the CSS fantatics yelling in your ear.
Oh, and the aspnet_isapi.dll extension (or the derivative of it) is mapped to every type of file in IIS, so your HttpHandlers/HttpModules can be used (it also means that forms authentication, as an example, would work for static content such as images as well. Right now unless you configure it otherwise the ASP.NET module doesn't handle that, so ASP.NET security and functions are irrelevant).
This is what apache did with modules ages ago and webmin did years ago as well.
.htaccess kinds of files (the IIS configuration is already a big XML file, but it's not in your web directories), the use of a new service control manager, and a better admin console. Until more details come out, it really isn't that much of a schism.
Remember that this information is coming from bloggers. The barrier to entry to blogging about something is that you have the wherewithall to setup an account on a blogging host.
IIS has been module based since day one - ASP is nothing more than an ISAPI module. Logging can be configured as external modules. Filters are external modules.
I read a more detailed account and it really sounds like the big change is
They handle the case right now, and, frankly... they don't have a clue what went wrong with ASP engine!
As others have said, there are countless people who are running ASP sites on IIS. The fact that you encountered a quirk in an outdated hosting option is hardly surprizing. Most certainly your problem relates to some of the securing down of COM.
Opening up your application, let alone your OS for remote hacking.
Well most servers have remote desktop enabled, and web administration of IIS has existed since IIS 5. I think the point was moreso that you'll be able to fully configure your site. One of the issues, mentioned in the article, that IIS currently has is that there is a disconnect, and overlap, between the settings necessary in IIS and ASP.NET to configure a site properly, and it would be nice if they merged them (which really would be mapping some of the IIS metabase XML into the Web.Config).
Reading this article, I'm still not sure what the real message is- You can already create fully managed handlers and modules for IIS, and the idea of it being pulled "into" IIS is frightening, actually (IIS 6 is a gorgeous design because it is like a microkernel web architecture, with an extremely minimalist server module and cache that communicates to external modules to handle things like ASP.NET processing). I suspect some information was misunderstood.
I don't need to be peering myopically at a little 3" screen
I'm sure the state of the art has vastly improved, but several years ago I tried out one of those in-glasses video screens (in that case it was a television). Of course it was physically tiny, but perceptually it was bigger than a large screen TV in a normal room (per the amount of my vision real estate it took). If they could pack vastly more pixels into a small space, that would yield some impressively usable highly mobile devices.
but usually, running at resolutions higher than that is fairly pointless unless you have a 21" or bigger monitor
Dell has been managing to, quite effectively, stick 1920x1200 15" displays in laptops. I assure you that they are unbelievably crisp, and there is no blurring (because each pixel is an independent element). These sort of ultra high resolution panels are making their way to desktop LCDs now.
I didn't see Natalie Portman or hot grits anywhere in that. Clearly all your base are belong to FreeBSD being dead on behalf of the goatse GNAA.
No, these people are Whitehats - their ultimate motivation is a good one, even if they use potentially illegal means to pursue them.
Hacking into these legitimate companies doesn't do anything to hurt the scammers.
?
You think that it doesn't hurt phishers when their "closer" is rendered inoperational? Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm going to bet that some phisher that used their botnet to send out millions of emails (losing a number of their bots in the process) is going to be pretty pissed when some whitehat knocks their server offline before all of the morons enter their username and password.
Today's war is PC vs. Linux, and Slashdot if the focal point for this cutting edge flame war.
Do you really think so? I would say, with confidence, that Linux has been significantly supplanted by OSX in the minds of the adversaries. Before Linux that contrarians were fanatics of the Amiga, then OS/2, then Linus (though there was some fragmentation with alternatives such as BeOS), and finally the Switch is occurring to OSX.
Windows verus Linux is so 2002. The new battle is Windows verus OSX.
The same sort of thing exists in Toronto.
I wonder if this would actually hurt, or help Nvidia's sales, or have no effect?
Well regardless of nvidia sales, this would be a perfect opportunity for the publisher (in this case FiringSquad) to have some good contextual ads - if there was an ad on the page to buy a 6800 I'd very likely have followed it.
Going back to nvidia, we're talking a 7-10% speed increase - this lets the hackers rush to get this card rather than considering some of the potent ATI competitors. I doubt it's an error that nvidia made the pipelines capable of being enabled.
As an aside, I read the blog and it turns out that it's a eyeballs site to apparently win the Contagious Media Showdown.
Lame.
You mean, arbitrary and completely domain intermixed groups of people, whose only commonality is that they write (on a computer!), doesn't interest you?
This lame idea, and the transparent astroturfing that is occurring to advertise it, is retarded.
Oh noes, now I'll never crack into the lucrative Blogebrities list!
Whooops, wrong link.
h ments/331162_Rsie_f0298.pdf
http://www.trd.fin.gov.on.ca/userfiles/page_attac