The problem is, all true geeks nurse a desire to work at Google.
Errr, no they don't. Some geeks nurse a desire, and in a classic bit of "creating the earth in their image" they imagine that therefore all geeks want to work at Google. Search and making web apps that do type ahead really isn't the most personally fulfilling thing one can imagine.
Actually you're right in a way...
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
Federal agencies were recently told to start switching to SHA-256 or SHA-512. Here's an article detailing this that just came out a week ago.
However the term "broken" is a pretty questionable term - the paper apparently details a method of breaking SHA-1 using brute force in only 2^69 operations, versus the theoretical strength of 2^80. It's a hell of lot fewer operations, but it's still pretty high on the strength scale.
Now arguably MS is in the position that Netscape was then.
The propagation of myth through repetition really is extraordinary. I first saw this "IE development stopped because the code base is unworkable" a couple of weeks ago, and mentions of it have accelerated since. What is it based upon? Absolutely nothing.
What we do know is that Microsoft made a strategic decision to disband the IE team a couple of years ago. They did this for obvious reasons - they weren't competing against anyone but themselves, and IE as a powerful platform actually reduced people's need to upgrade. There are people running Windows 98, kicking ass with IE 6 with an experience just the same as those with XP SP2. Obviously this is a problem for Microsoft, and they weren't going to perpetuate it if they had no foe threatening their turf.
It's Enterprise Resource Planning, and is a catch-all phrase that allows large enterprises to dump millions on garbage solutions.
It really boggles the mind that ERP is presented as some sort of mythical height - most ERP systems are absolutely abysmal, terrible monstrosities. Most commercial software bought by Joe and Martha Average has a complexity, and quality, surpassing ERP systems.
My god. I apologize for my borderline-illiterate response. Here's the corrected version.
"Of course there are differences morally, and anyone who thinks that I am defending Mr. Gates is blinded by their own bias. I'm simply stating that Mr. Gates is fully within his rights to use the leverages he has available to try to get what he wants, morality having nothing to do with it. The government is fully within their rights to tell him to go F himself (and conversely to publicize it, as they have, to use THEIR leverage against Microsoft)."
Of course there different morally, and anyone who thinks that I am personally defending Mr. Gates is blinded by their own bias. I'm simply stating that Mr. Gates is fully within his rights to use the levarges he has to try to get what he wants, morality having nothing to do with it, and the government is fully within their rights to tell him to go F himself (and conversely to publicize it, as they have, to use THEIR leverage against Microsoft).
Software patents are largely bullshit, however there is nothing nefarious about a business negotiating with government for an optimal business environment. If Bill Gates really thinks that software patents are necessary for a business unit to be viable in a political region, then he has every legitimate right to express that. The government has the right to tell him to go screw himself, and if he really thinks it's do or die then he can pull out.
This sort of tactic is absolutely classic in many other business areas. Automakers these days only build plants where the government will concede to their demands, as well as often offering up hundreds of millions in incentives.
Verisign is not only trusted by IE, but XP itself!
Verisign is recognized as an authorized certificate authority because Windows has a central certificate store that can be used for a wide variety of applications (much more than just browsing the web). This sort of seems like a logical, good design way of doing it (rather than each app having an island of certificates).
The root certificates that you are speaking of, which you can find in the MMC snap-in Certificates, have specific uses that they are allowed for. There are several Verisign certificates, including one used to validate Verisign issued email signing certificates, another general purpose one for code signing (which can be pervasive in Windows if you desire) and client certificates, and so on. By themselves they don't allow Verisign to ownz your machine, but rather allow you to use Verisign issued certificates in a whole trust infrastructure.
"But its easily the slowest online mapping tool i have seen so far, or maybe its just slashdot slowing it down."
Maybe it's just you - for me it is remarkably quick. I would say that it competes quite competitively, both for looks and responsiveness, with a local install of MapPoint. Amazing.
There is a basic technical schism between the way Google has done it and the other online mapping sites do it - Google's doesn't just server-render and then feed a whole GIF back. I'm not sure how exactly they do it (I started delving through the source but decided to just wait for a "How they did it" story), but it looks like they... hell I'm not even going to hypothesize as it'll make me look silly, however the basic difference is why you can drag this one and it fills in the missing detail.
The inmates don't take to kindly to f'd up shit any more then we do.
This is such a load of nonsense, as if prison is full of biblical "rough justice". The reality is that big name inmates that don't have a support structure get killed in jail because it gives someone infamy.
If you think the guy that knifed an old lady for her purse is really the edge of justice...
BTW, can you point to any ecomonic research which shows that patents generally promote innovation?
Uh, it's basic property rights - it's the same reason why banks are willing to give loans, and homeowners are willing to pay for land. I highly recommend you read the book "The Birth of Plenty".
Patents are incredibly valuable at encouraging innovation, in that an innovator knows that their time and investment can't immediately be cloned by a competitor that didn't have to make an investment. Without patents we wouldn't have a lot of the innovations we have today.
Having said that patents are supposed to be for non-obvious "inventions" -- i.e. things that you actually need to protect the innovation of. I'm just guessing, but about 99.999% of software patents are brutally obvious "inventions". Most software patents aren't used to defensively protect a creation, but rather to offensively siphon off of other people's creations. This is absolutely the opposite of the goal of the patent system, and there are currently countless people just skipping software altogether rather than worry about the patent risks.
I do think there should be software patents, but the bar should be dramatically higher than it currently is (and software patents shouldn't depend upon an enforcement in court to be vetted - they should be thoroughly examined before being issue to avoid destroying innovation in the field).
Most of the time that means someone who doesn't listen to the people that do the actual work but there are other reasons...
So you're telling me that you've never seen a situation where the technical staff overestimates their own ability, and underestimate the potential for failure?
Of course you can turn this around and proclaim that in that case managers just shouldn't trust their staff when they tell them that they can replace a massive internal administration system built over decades with 10s of millions of lines and a huge amount of invested business knowledge with a copy of BizTalk and a Linux server running Jakarta. Perhaps that's true, but I think some of the blame falls on technical staff in many cases.
Of course if you air condition then during the summer you have a double hit - the consumption of the chip, and the consumption of the AC to remove that heat energy from the air. Loss/loss.
Firstly there is absolutely no question that the donation is a very, very good thing. I think a lot of the outrage is a result of the flamebait submission that did exactly what it was intended to (polarizing camps).
how many of you have honestly donated %1.5 of your assets?
People keep comparing "percentage of his wealth to percentage of my wealth". That is an errant comparison. If Bill lost a hypothetical $20 billion dollar bill down the sewer that would have absolutely zero impact on his life - his housing isn't at risk, his vacation homes are fine, and so on - he certainly isn't at risk of being evicted if his dayjob gets offshored. If Joe Average dropped a $100 bill down the drain, that can seriously cause a lifestyle change. Like it or not, you have to admit that Bill has an obscene, impersonal amount of money.
Secondly this isn't selfless giving - the foundation is rather egotistically named, and it's not like this was quiet anonymous giving just to make an impact: Bill's giving is always very public. If you don't think that this is intended to lever the position of Microsoft (which is in Bill's personal financial best interest, at least in that power "ridiculous amount of money" perspective) then you are terribly naive. "Boy, when I buy a copy of XP Pro I feel like I'm saving children!"
Thirdly, some would argue that Bill is spending the consumer's money (either directly, or indirectly via higher priced goods and services due to IT software licensing costs). I don't buy this myself, but it is an arguable position. Some people have an arguably valid feeling that Bill is riding the white stallion with buckets of cash that are actually theirs. Standard Oil made a bounty of cash that could be benevolently given a way by "taxing" every single consumer of oil.
Right, but we're talking from the perspective of the people whose computers suddenly had no power - the infrastructure suddenly stopped providing power, so from their perspective it is a power failure. The NorthEast blackout of 2003 was a power failure, even though the protection circuits were doing exactly what they were supposed to do by shutting off the grid.
Power failed to get to the computers. It was a power failure - whether it was the electric grid, the UPS blowing up, or all the wires in the wall, or in this case the EPO button, it's a bloody power failure.
So someone manages to fool my machine into thinking mybank.com is really found at their server -- there's still a problem that they need a signed certificate (the private certificate) on their end that says mybank.com, and it needs to be issued by one of the CAs on my trust chain.
Obviously all of this relies upon the user noting that the connection is secure, and paying attention to URLs and any warning messages, however SSL is far more secure than people are pretending it is on here - first we're told that you just need to control a router. Nope, that's wrong. Then we're told that you just need to control a router AND DNS. Nope, that's wrong. Next we're going to be told that SSL is insecure because someone might stage an armed takeover of a CA and issue themselves certificates.
They have started to add dots in strange places on the film to deter those who are making cam images of them.
Have you seen the movie Fight Club? I ask only because they describe "cigarette burns" in that movie -- I had never noticed them in movies before, but since seeing FC I can't help but notice them now. Perhaps these aren't what you mean, but if FC is to be believed they're signals for the projection operator to switch reels (maybe it's automated now or something).
instead of a teenager with an acne problem shining a light in your face and asking you to be quiet.
BE QUIET!
Seriously if you have a problem with that teenage shining a light in your face, then you're a loud mouth.
The reality is that most theater staff are highly non-confrontational, and they'll do everything they can to pretend they don't notice the asshole who's ruining it for everyone else. For one of them to actually react generally requires it to be really blatantly, grotesquely obvious, or yielding several complaints.
So stay at home to avoid that acned teenager. Everyone else will appreciate it.
Slashdot Mirror
The problem is, all true geeks nurse a desire to work at Google.
Errr, no they don't. Some geeks nurse a desire, and in a classic bit of "creating the earth in their image" they imagine that therefore all geeks want to work at Google. Search and making web apps that do type ahead really isn't the most personally fulfilling thing one can imagine.
Federal agencies were recently told to start switching to SHA-256 or SHA-512. Here's an article detailing this that just came out a week ago.
However the term "broken" is a pretty questionable term - the paper apparently details a method of breaking SHA-1 using brute force in only 2^69 operations, versus the theoretical strength of 2^80. It's a hell of lot fewer operations, but it's still pretty high on the strength scale.
Now arguably MS is in the position that Netscape was then.
The propagation of myth through repetition really is extraordinary. I first saw this "IE development stopped because the code base is unworkable" a couple of weeks ago, and mentions of it have accelerated since. What is it based upon? Absolutely nothing.
What we do know is that Microsoft made a strategic decision to disband the IE team a couple of years ago. They did this for obvious reasons - they weren't competing against anyone but themselves, and IE as a powerful platform actually reduced people's need to upgrade. There are people running Windows 98, kicking ass with IE 6 with an experience just the same as those with XP SP2. Obviously this is a problem for Microsoft, and they weren't going to perpetuate it if they had no foe threatening their turf.
It's Enterprise Resource Planning, and is a catch-all phrase that allows large enterprises to dump millions on garbage solutions.
It really boggles the mind that ERP is presented as some sort of mythical height - most ERP systems are absolutely abysmal, terrible monstrosities. Most commercial software bought by Joe and Martha Average has a complexity, and quality, surpassing ERP systems.
My god. I apologize for my borderline-illiterate response. Here's the corrected version.
"Of course there are differences morally, and anyone who thinks that I am defending Mr. Gates is blinded by their own bias. I'm simply stating that Mr. Gates is fully within his rights to use the leverages he has available to try to get what he wants, morality having nothing to do with it. The government is fully within their rights to tell him to go F himself (and conversely to publicize it, as they have, to use THEIR leverage against Microsoft)."
Of course there different morally, and anyone who thinks that I am personally defending Mr. Gates is blinded by their own bias. I'm simply stating that Mr. Gates is fully within his rights to use the levarges he has to try to get what he wants, morality having nothing to do with it, and the government is fully within their rights to tell him to go F himself (and conversely to publicize it, as they have, to use THEIR leverage against Microsoft).
How mafioso
Software patents are largely bullshit, however there is nothing nefarious about a business negotiating with government for an optimal business environment. If Bill Gates really thinks that software patents are necessary for a business unit to be viable in a political region, then he has every legitimate right to express that. The government has the right to tell him to go screw himself, and if he really thinks it's do or die then he can pull out.
This sort of tactic is absolutely classic in many other business areas. Automakers these days only build plants where the government will concede to their demands, as well as often offering up hundreds of millions in incentives.
I think you're confusing the single sign on presented here, which is an intra-enterprise sign-on, with universal single-sign on systems like Passport.
Verisign is not only trusted by IE, but XP itself!
Verisign is recognized as an authorized certificate authority because Windows has a central certificate store that can be used for a wide variety of applications (much more than just browsing the web). This sort of seems like a logical, good design way of doing it (rather than each app having an island of certificates).
The root certificates that you are speaking of, which you can find in the MMC snap-in Certificates, have specific uses that they are allowed for. There are several Verisign certificates, including one used to validate Verisign issued email signing certificates, another general purpose one for code signing (which can be pervasive in Windows if you desire) and client certificates, and so on. By themselves they don't allow Verisign to ownz your machine, but rather allow you to use Verisign issued certificates in a whole trust infrastructure.
"But its easily the slowest online mapping tool i have seen so far, or maybe its just slashdot slowing it down."
Maybe it's just you - for me it is remarkably quick. I would say that it competes quite competitively, both for looks and responsiveness, with a local install of MapPoint. Amazing.
There is a basic technical schism between the way Google has done it and the other online mapping sites do it - Google's doesn't just server-render and then feed a whole GIF back. I'm not sure how exactly they do it (I started delving through the source but decided to just wait for a "How they did it" story), but it looks like they... hell I'm not even going to hypothesize as it'll make me look silly, however the basic difference is why you can drag this one and it fills in the missing detail.
The inmates don't take to kindly to f'd up shit any more then we do.
This is such a load of nonsense, as if prison is full of biblical "rough justice". The reality is that big name inmates that don't have a support structure get killed in jail because it gives someone infamy.
If you think the guy that knifed an old lady for her purse is really the edge of justice...
Fucking ream the shit out of the murderers and child rapists with broomsticks and they'll never rape again.
Uh, who do you think is doing the raping? Nuns with dildos? It's murderers and rapists plying their trade in the big house.
Well then doesn't that diminish the Google advantage?
Countless people did search before Google did, but that doesn't reverse the fact that Google kicked their ass.
What the hell are you trying to say in that diatribe?
BTW, can you point to any ecomonic research which shows that patents generally promote innovation?
Uh, it's basic property rights - it's the same reason why banks are willing to give loans, and homeowners are willing to pay for land. I highly recommend you read the book "The Birth of Plenty".
Thanks.
Could be good for war?
Patents are incredibly valuable at encouraging innovation, in that an innovator knows that their time and investment can't immediately be cloned by a competitor that didn't have to make an investment. Without patents we wouldn't have a lot of the innovations we have today.
Having said that patents are supposed to be for non-obvious "inventions" -- i.e. things that you actually need to protect the innovation of. I'm just guessing, but about 99.999% of software patents are brutally obvious "inventions". Most software patents aren't used to defensively protect a creation, but rather to offensively siphon off of other people's creations. This is absolutely the opposite of the goal of the patent system, and there are currently countless people just skipping software altogether rather than worry about the patent risks.
I do think there should be software patents, but the bar should be dramatically higher than it currently is (and software patents shouldn't depend upon an enforcement in court to be vetted - they should be thoroughly examined before being issue to avoid destroying innovation in the field).
Most of the time that means someone who doesn't listen to the people that do the actual work but there are other reasons...
So you're telling me that you've never seen a situation where the technical staff overestimates their own ability, and underestimate the potential for failure?
Of course you can turn this around and proclaim that in that case managers just shouldn't trust their staff when they tell them that they can replace a massive internal administration system built over decades with 10s of millions of lines and a huge amount of invested business knowledge with a copy of BizTalk and a Linux server running Jakarta. Perhaps that's true, but I think some of the blame falls on technical staff in many cases.
Of course if you air condition then during the summer you have a double hit - the consumption of the chip, and the consumption of the AC to remove that heat energy from the air. Loss/loss.
Firstly there is absolutely no question that the donation is a very, very good thing. I think a lot of the outrage is a result of the flamebait submission that did exactly what it was intended to (polarizing camps).
how many of you have honestly donated %1.5 of your assets?
People keep comparing "percentage of his wealth to percentage of my wealth". That is an errant comparison. If Bill lost a hypothetical $20 billion dollar bill down the sewer that would have absolutely zero impact on his life - his housing isn't at risk, his vacation homes are fine, and so on - he certainly isn't at risk of being evicted if his dayjob gets offshored. If Joe Average dropped a $100 bill down the drain, that can seriously cause a lifestyle change. Like it or not, you have to admit that Bill has an obscene, impersonal amount of money.
Secondly this isn't selfless giving - the foundation is rather egotistically named, and it's not like this was quiet anonymous giving just to make an impact: Bill's giving is always very public. If you don't think that this is intended to lever the position of Microsoft (which is in Bill's personal financial best interest, at least in that power "ridiculous amount of money" perspective) then you are terribly naive. "Boy, when I buy a copy of XP Pro I feel like I'm saving children!"
Thirdly, some would argue that Bill is spending the consumer's money (either directly, or indirectly via higher priced goods and services due to IT software licensing costs). I don't buy this myself, but it is an arguable position. Some people have an arguably valid feeling that Bill is riding the white stallion with buckets of cash that are actually theirs. Standard Oil made a bounty of cash that could be benevolently given a way by "taxing" every single consumer of oil.
Right, but we're talking from the perspective of the people whose computers suddenly had no power - the infrastructure suddenly stopped providing power, so from their perspective it is a power failure. The NorthEast blackout of 2003 was a power failure, even though the protection circuits were doing exactly what they were supposed to do by shutting off the grid.
Power failed to get to the computers. It was a power failure - whether it was the electric grid, the UPS blowing up, or all the wires in the wall, or in this case the EPO button, it's a bloody power failure.
So someone manages to fool my machine into thinking mybank.com is really found at their server -- there's still a problem that they need a signed certificate (the private certificate) on their end that says mybank.com, and it needs to be issued by one of the CAs on my trust chain.
Obviously all of this relies upon the user noting that the connection is secure, and paying attention to URLs and any warning messages, however SSL is far more secure than people are pretending it is on here - first we're told that you just need to control a router. Nope, that's wrong. Then we're told that you just need to control a router AND DNS. Nope, that's wrong. Next we're going to be told that SSL is insecure because someone might stage an armed takeover of a CA and issue themselves certificates.
They have started to add dots in strange places on the film to deter those who are making cam images of them.
Have you seen the movie Fight Club? I ask only because they describe "cigarette burns" in that movie -- I had never noticed them in movies before, but since seeing FC I can't help but notice them now. Perhaps these aren't what you mean, but if FC is to be believed they're signals for the projection operator to switch reels (maybe it's automated now or something).
instead of a teenager with an acne problem shining a light in your face and asking you to be quiet.
BE QUIET!
Seriously if you have a problem with that teenage shining a light in your face, then you're a loud mouth.
The reality is that most theater staff are highly non-confrontational, and they'll do everything they can to pretend they don't notice the asshole who's ruining it for everyone else. For one of them to actually react generally requires it to be really blatantly, grotesquely obvious, or yielding several complaints.
So stay at home to avoid that acned teenager. Everyone else will appreciate it.