Oh thank you. My wife's laptop has been going crazy with svchost using up insane amounts of CPU and memory. I seriously thought it was virus for a long time until I ran it through several anti-virus programs, then I noticed it went craziest in conjunction with Yahoo's IM client.
Actually, SVCHOST at 100% doesn't necessarily mean it's the bug this KB article is talking about. SVCHOST, as the name suggests, is a host process for services. Any service that it hosts could cause the CPU utilization.
You need to download proper tools (such as Process Explorer by SysInternals/owned by Microsoft/ - freeware tool) and see which exactly service causes the problem.
It *could* be a virus, or a poorly written service, or a service in conflict with some hardware/software piece on your system.
You can't do that. That's how federal, state, and local special enforcement squads troll the internet. They strike up a suggestive or alluring chat and then, once they've accumulated enough bad words or phrases portraying s3xual activity, they'll drop the "I'm 17" bomb.
I wonder. If the reply to this is "Oh, I'm 17 too". What then.
We have two adults who claim they're 17. Either you have no reason to check this guy since he claims he's 17, or if you check him, you'll have to realize that you both did the same thing. Claimed you're 17 and both aren't.
Well I'm gonna tell you once more so that you finally might get it. They are NOT sued for child abuse. They are actually sued for showing sexual practices involving a child. Got it?
Right, but stupid laws don't override my common sense circuits. I hope it doesn't do that for you.
There is no such freedom in germany, cause as said this is prohibited. And I don't see any reason for anyone drawing child porn (= actual sex involving one or more children, so this excepts bare pictures of naked children without any erotic background) other than being a pedophile.
Again that's like saying that there's no reason to write a book about a fictional serial murderer, unless you're one yourself.
Look at the big picture. People have to go to jail for harming someone. They shouldn't go to jail for what they think or draw or simulate.
In your case, even if someone drawing child porn is a pedophile. What then. He should go to jail for being a pedophile? What if he never harmed a kid, and never intends to, and may even have a normal family and three kids he never abused.
But he's a pedophile. He sometimes thinks about sex with children, but never carries it out, and never intends to.
You're in charge: do you put this guy in jail for thoughtcrime. Do you fire him from his job, for a thoughtcrime?
you seem to forget that pedophiles are mentally disordered people. They get affected by what they see in different ways than you and me. You might compare that to an alcoholic seeing someone drinking at a bar vs. a non-alcoholic watching it.
Additionally, they are not sued for abusing children. They shared material showing child abusing. This also includes animated child abuse. US law isn't quite different at this point, or why would you think that nude games are rated only for adults? No real sex here too.
You're a nice example of what I'm talking about. Guess what: serial killers are also mentally disordered people. What's with all the criminal murder investigation serials? We should be up to the neck full of serial killers by now.
You're trying to justify this non-sense by inventing reasons that don't exist.
They shared material showing child abusing.
The "child" was a 27 year old woman that clicked "OK" to participate in 3D figure animation in a virtual world. Where's the abused child? What if the "apparent child" was just an adult that looked like a child.. Oh wait, it WAS!
Let's ban midgets from having sex then. Especially if they look like "apparent children".
This also includes animated child abuse.
Think about it: if I doodle myself cutting a doodle representing you, in pieces, did I just commit an illegal depiction of a murder in cold blood? Do I have to be sent to jail or banned from somewhere because of it?
Which are depictions of "virtual" child porn are a sudden exception to all this? Do you even realize why?
We're just used to violence, we could watch hours and hours of movies with incredibly detailed and cruel murders, but most people are grossed out by child porn. So the natural reaction is to ban every possible depiction, because people are grossed out. Well, let me tell you: gross things aren't illegal, when noone is harmed, and there's no victim. They're just gross, that's all.
Maybe they should have disclaimers so kids don't see them, and should bear warnings, but they simply not illegal.
Another thing is, currently we're replicating Macartism in a way that demonstrates people don't learn from history at all. Are you afraid that if you support someone's freedom to *draw* child porn, someone could consider you're a pedophile?
Isn't this a big part of why people react so violently against all this. If we don't, we're "one of them" right?
Let me tell you: no, you're not. The gap between thinking or drawing a crime, and committing the crime is huge, don't let the current situation fool you that they're the same.
In the same line of reasoning, I expect these coming soon:
Banning midget sex (as they look like kids). You'll have to be this high to have sex. Banning sex with stupid individuals (they act like kids). You'll have to be this smart to have sex. Banning sex with people dressed like kids. strict outlines of what "dressed like adult" will be written in a law. Banning sex with people who said something that could suggest they pretend to be a child or pretend their mate is a child, or think about something child-related during sex. Banning videos pictures of adults looking at a kid, smiling or something else that could suggest the drawn indivial could have had eventually potentially thoughts about sex. Banning adults from touching kids, or people that look like kids, and talking about kids if they saw or did something sexual in the last 24 hours.
This is why kiddie porn and terrorism is often called a hack for the consitition. Things have evolved in such a way that people forgot why those things are not desires, and instead opt to ban and censor anything that could mention or seem like, or possibly suggest, terrorism or child porn.
We have 27 year old and 54 year old adults faking sex with avatars, one of which looked like a child. There's no child porn here. Even if they shot movies of their "act" and distributed it around, this is not child porn. There's no abused child. People apparently have forgotten why child porn is bad in the first place.
You can come up with all made-up reasons "but it can motivate people watching it to abuse children".. Right, if anything you see motivates you to replicate it, we have to bad 90% of the potentially violent or sexual content out there.
Just like talking about target shootout at work isn't terrorism, animation of avatars by adult people isn't child abuse.
Computers forget very easily, hit SHIFT+DEL, click YES, there we go. It's forgotten.
If people needed computers to randomly forget things, they wouldn't religiously create daily, hell, even hourly backups and using multi-million storage rooms with carefully adjusted temperature, humidity and so on, to store those backups in.
Computers can be trusted to forget only the day they are smarter and do everything better than a human can. Right now they are tools, which must obey their owner, and the owner decides what goes and what stays.
"An anonymous reader writes to tell us that this week at the JavaOne Conference, Sun debuted it's answer to the iPhone."
Who asked the question? Or maybe it's just a Java phone and not necessarily "an answer to iPhone"? Or is this too complex for a journalist to assimilate.
I magically know how these end, dunno why, so I filled in the gaps for all of you:
A simple chip added to a DVD disk COULD prevent retail theft, but won't. Game console DVDs COULD also be protected this way too, but won't. COULD this help to bring the prices down on DVD games and movies? It won't.
Bottom line is, apparently on Slashdot you can substitute "could" with "won't" and you get to read the actual material we're handed. Cut down the pointless speculation guys, it's lame.
Microsoft has frequently been caught knowing about a bug for months before a patch is released.
When they get caught they claim they're doing QA, but past experience with Microsoft patches suggests that they are doing no valuable testing anyway.
If they had ever demonstrated trustworthiness, they might be trusted a bit. As it is, they have demonstrated time and again that they will fuck you over and lie about it.
If you appreciate the way Microsoft treats you, then you are free to sing their praises. But it doesn't make you right.
That's what pisses me off with fanboys: they don't get context at all. For them any article with "Microsoft" in it, is a reason enough to recycle the entire 30 years of Microsoft faults in a single post. Over and over.
Let's see what's the event at case: regular monthly patches for Windows. That's it.
I, and some other people just asked for objective opinions: there's no "ignored vulnerability" or "delayed responce" in THIS ONE CASE. There is NO reason to regurgitate past faults of Microsoft every single month, when completely predictably, the patches are released.
But all of those are treated as an excuse for doing just that.
So you response is that "I'm singing praises for Microsoft". There's basically no way to argue with you guys. Keep living in your imaginary world, I hope you're happy there.
The article says they're not better, but don't claim they're worse either. Why does it matter to you, as a car owner, what makes your car more efficient. The bottomline is what counts, and if intelligent and hyrbids are both efficient, then great.
Also don't forget there are more reasons for hybrids to exist. We're not going to run on oil forever, and the effect it has on preparing the market for a chance shouldn't be downplayed. Plus, we have R & D and manifacturing/safety practices in the development of those cars won't go to waste, when "the time comes".
If anything, the real question isn't "why drive a hybrid when you can drive an intelligent car", but "where the heck are the intelligent hybrids?"...
If the linux kernel people would ignore vulnerabilities, downplay them, take months for them to produce a fix, merge distinct vulnerabilities into single advisories and finally try to claim improved security, then I'd guess I would want to see stories about it on slashdot. So what bias?
Right there in the first sentences of that quote, that bias. Those are released patches, not "downplayed patches" or "ignored vulnerabilities". Those are actual fixes, released on a monthly basis.
If Microsoft would ignore it, we get "microsoft ignores it!" article on Slashdot. If they release a patch, we get "omg critical patch for Windows" article on Slashdot.
It's ridiculous.
Also how about claims of security and bending truth, just like you prove it yourself, Linux fanboys twist the truth about Linux far more often than Microsoft does with Windows. Anything goes.
The workstation version of vmware is great for all kinds of things. I use it when setting up my portable apps on my USB drive (I don't use windows, regularly, but want to have some tools with me when on somebody else's computer, so I set up VMWare with winxp).
Take a snapshot, do an install. Tweak to make portable. Revert the snapshot to pre-install. See if the app works from the USB drive (which is actually mounted under linux, and shared to the vmware session).
Thing is, it doesn't prevent phishing, stealing sensitive info or any of this. Even if you try and keep everything important out of the virtual machine, you still have to type out your e-banking login in there, to login to your e-banking.
Bottom line, it makes reverting after a disaster easier. Which is easy enough on the real machine if you are doing full & regular incremental backups with a program like Acronis True Image.
Virtual machine has its uses, but it's not a layer of security, just the good old "divide and conquer" principle, as if you had a dedicated web browsing machine.
Internetnews is reporting on Sun's introduction of JavaFX at JavaOne today. Looks like a combination Applet, Flash, Javascript, and AJAX with a friendly programming interface. Does this really spell the end of AJAX?
Please don't insult our intelligence. So far it doesn't look like it spells the end of anything, except tha fact Sun hasn't learned anything yet about doing business in that area.
Flash had success early on basically because it was very small, very fast, and had the top tools on the market (the Flash IDE). Truth is, that sometimes the classical sentence reverses, and we're as good as the tools we use.
These tools, and early on Flash almost didn't have overlap with the things people used HTML/JS for. So there was a set of distinct reasons where you wanna go Flash and that's it. Do you imagine JoeCartoons.com if the guy had to code his toons in Eclipse? All the inspiring experimental and artsy sites, "experience" movie and games sites.
Silverlight has its distinct feature in better video experience, and a great runtime that supports theoretically any language on the planet as long as you write the compiler for it (and the existing subset if quite impressive already).
Granted, it's not quite distinct, as the Flash products have evolved tremendously in the meantime.
So, Adobe:
Has open source language machine (that will be part of Firefox 3), Flash CS3 for creative minds / animators / experimentators. It has Illustrator CS3 and Photoshop CS3 integration for designers and illustrators. It has Flex for developers (which is going to be opensource within a few months). It has tight workflow integration with its audio/video toolsets for delivering great video on the web.
Early market killer feature: animation and rich expressiveness (current killer feature, widespread use and packs lots of useful features in a light runtime).
Flash has 98% installed base.
Microsoft:
Has open sourced the DLR, and there's an open source implementation of the CLR in Mono. It has Microsoft Expression Studio for creative minds / animators / experimentators, and illutrators/designers. It has Visual Studio for developers (which has a free version as Visual Studio Express). It has tight integration with Windows Media and a cheap way to stream high quality videos over the internet with a small investment.
Early market killer feature: easy to deploy HQ video, hot runtime (CLR of.NET), best dev tools (Visual Studio), uses existing.NET experience.
Silverlight has the support of major companies in the field, and Microsoft is expected to utilize its windows monopoly (Windows Updates) and throw a lot of marketing money to quickly increase its installed plugin base.
Sun:
Has open sourced their engine and have a myriad of development tools that overlap each other in terms of where they sit in the market. Nothing for animation, designers, illustrators, experiementators. Basically designers are left out in the cold.
No partner announcements, and if JavaFX requires the full JRE it means a slow and clunky experience. If it's a new plugin means 0% market coverage and no money to burn for marketing and partnerships to improve on that. No easy to use integrated video toolsets, no light cross-platform, skinnable components that provide functional and rich experience. And no trust that Sun can have success after too many failed attempts in the area.
Early market killer features: ??? ("kinda better than JS" ?)
Pro Tools are not very Pro, somehow. Every time I'm stuck using them I wonder how people manage. I'm pretty sure there is no available solution for people who want to use more than sixteen VSTi/DXI soft synths at a time. Despite its shortcomings, FL Studio scales easily to 300+ simultaneous synths over 64 main effect channels with eight effects each. If you want to do more than sampling on Linux, you're pretty much limited to a couple of synths.
Well, Pro Tools is mostly geared to multitrack recording, and FL Studio is mostly geared to original music (meaning, as a sequencer).
Of course you could do both things in both apps, but Pro Tools is an industry standard. Such "industry" apps stagnate and look arcane, but are used, because professionals are used to them and have ton of material in Pro Tools format. Such is life.
Correction: musicians use musical instruments (ie, guitars, drums, bass, cow bells...) to make music. People who think they are musicians use computers to emulate music.
Are you trying to be funny or something? All modern studios are digital. The recording is digital, the music is mastered with digital tools and filters. Even in a music that sounds totally acoustic, there are plenty of sampled material, digitally injected and corrected.
The voices of the majority of the singers are digitally corrected and edited.
The jingles of most commercials you see use electronic instruments. The cap music of the news you watch uses electronic instruments. Movie music uses electronic instruments. Experimental music uses electronic instruments.
Computers in music are everywhere. Analog instruments also. They work together, and produce music. There's no "fake music" and "real music". You're putting artificial boundaries and your snobbery where they don't belong. It wasn't long ago when people lamented how "artificial" CD-s sound like and hugged their "warm and real sounding" cassettes. You're just like them.
Why would the end user be responsible? That's just silly. With that outlook Linux is going nowhere.. A heard a loud "ouch" right there at the end of that quote.
In an ideal world, file formats would be designed to support this. An example of a good file format is the RCS format used by CVS. You have the current TOT stored as a complete copy, then every previous version as a reverse diff. I'd go one step farther, though. Add metarevisions that refer to arbitrary later revisions without branching. Revision 1.13 might incorporate changes, then 1.14 might revert to 1.12. Since 1.13 would now be defined as a diff from 1.12, the 1.12 revision diff from 1.13 would be cleared to reduce storage, and would be replaced by a metarevision that says "see 1.14". In this way, it becomes simple to have unlimited undo and redo without ever losing any of the states. If you undo ten revisions and make a new change, you could still back out that change, back out the undos, and you'd be back to effectively another branch.
The GP said that basically it should be simple and obvious, but reading what you're saying I guess you think otherwise.
If the stereotypical Mac users tries to read and understand the system you described, he'd just sigh and say "Phew, good thing on a Mac I just get that Time Machine with the stars, and spin back to the window I want."
Branches are lost. Most people won't understand branching and merging anyway. They're not supposed to.
I'll suggest (again) that every financial organization make a "catch a phisher" link on their page
right...
that provides a unique (so that phishers can't build a list of the trojans) account number / login information that the intelligent users can request from the bank.
right (which the phishers will also see)...
The users will provide this red flagged account information to the phisher, who upon logging in a few times with these flagged accounts causes the banks to silently freeze other transactions placed from the same source until they can determine who's account data has been compromised.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an Incremental vs. Bulk release debate.
There's of course the option of releasing it both ways and people can click an option in Windows Update which they prefer.
Of course, if you release patches both ways, it leaves the bulk updaters more vulnerable, as hackers would reverse engineer from the earlier release.
So the immediate patches should be only for known exploits already in the wild, and bulk for the rest.
Oh thank you. My wife's laptop has been going crazy with svchost using up insane amounts of CPU and memory. I seriously thought it was virus for a long time until I ran it through several anti-virus programs, then I noticed it went craziest in conjunction with Yahoo's IM client.
/owned by Microsoft/ - freeware tool) and see which exactly service causes the problem.
Actually, SVCHOST at 100% doesn't necessarily mean it's the bug this KB article is talking about. SVCHOST, as the name suggests, is a host process for services. Any service that it hosts could cause the CPU utilization.
You need to download proper tools (such as Process Explorer by SysInternals
It *could* be a virus, or a poorly written service, or a service in conflict with some hardware/software piece on your system.
You can't do that. That's how federal, state, and local special enforcement squads troll the internet. They strike up a suggestive or alluring chat and then, once they've accumulated enough bad words or phrases portraying s3xual activity, they'll drop the "I'm 17" bomb.
I wonder. If the reply to this is "Oh, I'm 17 too". What then.
We have two adults who claim they're 17. Either you have no reason to check this guy since he claims he's 17, or if you check him, you'll have to realize that you both did the same thing. Claimed you're 17 and both aren't.
Well I'm gonna tell you once more so that you finally might get it. They are NOT sued for child abuse. They are actually sued for showing sexual practices involving a child. Got it?
Right, but stupid laws don't override my common sense circuits. I hope it doesn't do that for you.
There is no such freedom in germany, cause as said this is prohibited. And I don't see any reason for anyone drawing child porn (= actual sex involving one or more children, so this excepts bare pictures of naked children without any erotic background) other than being a pedophile.
Again that's like saying that there's no reason to write a book about a fictional serial murderer, unless you're one yourself.
Look at the big picture. People have to go to jail for harming someone. They shouldn't go to jail for what they think or draw or simulate.
In your case, even if someone drawing child porn is a pedophile. What then. He should go to jail for being a pedophile? What if he never harmed a kid, and never intends to, and may even have a normal family and three kids he never abused.
But he's a pedophile. He sometimes thinks about sex with children, but never carries it out, and never intends to.
You're in charge: do you put this guy in jail for thoughtcrime. Do you fire him from his job, for a thoughtcrime?
I think if I worked where you do I'd be a little bit terrified...
And you gotta be. Since I know where you live. And I'm coming for you. And I'll animate me killing you in 3DSMax and give you a CD of it.
Hello,
you seem to forget that pedophiles are mentally disordered people. They get affected by what they see in different ways than you and me. You might compare that to an alcoholic seeing someone drinking at a bar vs. a non-alcoholic watching it.
Additionally, they are not sued for abusing children. They shared material showing child abusing. This also includes animated child abuse. US law isn't quite different at this point, or why would you think that nude games are rated only for adults? No real sex here too.
You're a nice example of what I'm talking about. Guess what: serial killers are also mentally disordered people.
What's with all the criminal murder investigation serials? We should be up to the neck full of serial killers by now.
You're trying to justify this non-sense by inventing reasons that don't exist.
They shared material showing child abusing.
The "child" was a 27 year old woman that clicked "OK" to participate in 3D figure animation in a virtual world. Where's the abused child? What if the "apparent child" was just an adult that looked like a child.. Oh wait, it WAS!
Let's ban midgets from having sex then. Especially if they look like "apparent children".
This also includes animated child abuse.
Think about it: if I doodle myself cutting a doodle representing you, in pieces, did I just commit an illegal depiction of a murder in cold blood? Do I have to be sent to jail or banned from somewhere because of it?
Which are depictions of "virtual" child porn are a sudden exception to all this? Do you even realize why?
We're just used to violence, we could watch hours and hours of movies with incredibly detailed and cruel murders, but most people are grossed out by child porn. So the natural reaction is to ban every possible depiction, because people are grossed out. Well, let me tell you: gross things aren't illegal, when noone is harmed, and there's no victim. They're just gross, that's all.
Maybe they should have disclaimers so kids don't see them, and should bear warnings, but they simply not illegal.
Another thing is, currently we're replicating Macartism in a way that demonstrates people don't learn from history at all. Are you afraid that if you support someone's freedom to *draw* child porn, someone could consider you're a pedophile?
Isn't this a big part of why people react so violently against all this. If we don't, we're "one of them" right?
Let me tell you: no, you're not. The gap between thinking or drawing a crime, and committing the crime is huge, don't let the current situation fool you that they're the same.
In the same line of reasoning, I expect these coming soon:
Banning midget sex (as they look like kids). You'll have to be this high to have sex.
Banning sex with stupid individuals (they act like kids). You'll have to be this smart to have sex.
Banning sex with people dressed like kids. strict outlines of what "dressed like adult" will be written in a law.
Banning sex with people who said something that could suggest they pretend to be a child or pretend their mate is a child, or think about something child-related during sex.
Banning videos pictures of adults looking at a kid, smiling or something else that could suggest the drawn indivial could have had eventually potentially thoughts about sex.
Banning adults from touching kids, or people that look like kids, and talking about kids if they saw or did something sexual in the last 24 hours.
This is why kiddie porn and terrorism is often called a hack for the consitition. Things have evolved in such a way that people forgot why those things are not desires, and instead opt to ban and censor anything that could mention or seem like, or possibly suggest, terrorism or child porn.
We have 27 year old and 54 year old adults faking sex with avatars, one of which looked like a child. There's no child porn here. Even if they shot movies of their "act" and distributed it around, this is not child porn. There's no abused child. People apparently have forgotten why child porn is bad in the first place.
You can come up with all made-up reasons "but it can motivate people watching it to abuse children".. Right, if anything you see motivates you to replicate it, we have to bad 90% of the potentially violent or sexual content out there.
Just like talking about target shootout at work isn't terrorism, animation of avatars by adult people isn't child abuse.
Computers forget very easily, hit SHIFT+DEL, click YES, there we go. It's forgotten.
If people needed computers to randomly forget things, they wouldn't religiously create daily, hell, even hourly backups and using multi-million storage rooms with carefully adjusted temperature, humidity and so on, to store those backups in.
Computers can be trusted to forget only the day they are smarter and do everything better than a human can. Right now they are tools, which must obey their owner, and the owner decides what goes and what stays.
"An anonymous reader writes to tell us that this week at the JavaOne Conference, Sun debuted it's answer to the iPhone."
Who asked the question? Or maybe it's just a Java phone and not necessarily "an answer to iPhone"? Or is this too complex for a journalist to assimilate.
Bottom line is, apparently on Slashdot you can substitute "could" with "won't" and you get to read the actual material we're handed. Cut down the pointless speculation guys, it's lame.
Microsoft has frequently been caught knowing about a bug for months before a patch is released.
When they get caught they claim they're doing QA, but past experience with Microsoft patches suggests that they are doing no valuable testing anyway.
If they had ever demonstrated trustworthiness, they might be trusted a bit. As it is, they have demonstrated time and again that they will fuck you over and lie about it.
If you appreciate the way Microsoft treats you, then you are free to sing their praises. But it doesn't make you right.
That's what pisses me off with fanboys: they don't get context at all. For them any article with "Microsoft" in it, is a reason enough to recycle the entire 30 years of Microsoft faults in a single post. Over and over.
Let's see what's the event at case: regular monthly patches for Windows. That's it.
I, and some other people just asked for objective opinions: there's no "ignored vulnerability" or "delayed responce" in THIS ONE CASE. There is NO reason to regurgitate past faults of Microsoft every single month, when completely predictably, the patches are released.
But all of those are treated as an excuse for doing just that.
So you response is that "I'm singing praises for Microsoft". There's basically no way to argue with you guys. Keep living in your imaginary world, I hope you're happy there.
In other words, if you're an Xbox owner thinking about an Apple TV for playing back video in your living room, you might want to think again.
...
Raise your hands everybody who has Xbox and was "thinking about an Apple TV for playing back video". Anyone? Anyone...?
In the same line of constructing long sentences that convey no additional information at ALL:
If you're a calculator owner who was thinking of calculating the square root of a 10 digit number with a pen and paper, you may want to think again.
If you're a car owner who has to travel 40 miles every day to work and thought walking foot, you may want to think again.
If you're a wrist watch owner and you want to stop random people asking them what's the time on the street anyway, you may want to think again.
The article says they're not better, but don't claim they're worse either. Why does it matter to you, as a car owner, what makes your car more efficient. The bottomline is what counts, and if intelligent and hyrbids are both efficient, then great.
Also don't forget there are more reasons for hybrids to exist. We're not going to run on oil forever, and the effect it has on preparing the market for a chance shouldn't be downplayed. Plus, we have R & D and manifacturing/safety practices in the development of those cars won't go to waste, when "the time comes".
If anything, the real question isn't "why drive a hybrid when you can drive an intelligent car", but "where the heck are the intelligent hybrids?"...
If the linux kernel people would ignore vulnerabilities, downplay them, take months for them to produce a fix, merge distinct vulnerabilities into single advisories and finally try to claim improved security, then I'd guess I would want to see stories about it on slashdot. So what bias?
Right there in the first sentences of that quote, that bias. Those are released patches, not "downplayed patches" or "ignored vulnerabilities". Those are actual fixes, released on a monthly basis.
If Microsoft would ignore it, we get "microsoft ignores it!" article on Slashdot. If they release a patch, we get "omg critical patch for Windows" article on Slashdot.
It's ridiculous.
Also how about claims of security and bending truth, just like you prove it yourself, Linux fanboys twist the truth about Linux far more often than Microsoft does with Windows. Anything goes.
Depends on the version - you need to buy the most expensive one in order to be allowed to virtualise. Big surprise, huh?
Right, windows sucks, and so on! What about OSX, which version do I buy to virtualize that?
The workstation version of vmware is great for all kinds of things. I use it when setting up my portable apps on my USB drive (I don't use windows, regularly, but want to have some tools with me when on somebody else's computer, so I set up VMWare with winxp).
Take a snapshot, do an install. Tweak to make portable. Revert the snapshot to pre-install. See if the app works from the USB drive (which is actually mounted under linux, and shared to the vmware session).
Thing is, it doesn't prevent phishing, stealing sensitive info or any of this. Even if you try and keep everything important out of the virtual machine, you still have to type out your e-banking login in there, to login to your e-banking.
Bottom line, it makes reverting after a disaster easier. Which is easy enough on the real machine if you are doing full & regular incremental backups with a program like Acronis True Image.
Virtual machine has its uses, but it's not a layer of security, just the good old "divide and conquer" principle, as if you had a dedicated web browsing machine.
Internetnews is reporting on Sun's introduction of JavaFX at JavaOne today. Looks like a combination Applet, Flash, Javascript, and AJAX with a friendly programming interface. Does this really spell the end of AJAX?
.NET), best dev tools (Visual Studio), uses existing .NET experience.
Please don't insult our intelligence. So far it doesn't look like it spells the end of anything, except tha fact Sun hasn't learned anything yet about doing business in that area.
Flash had success early on basically because it was very small, very fast, and had the top tools on the market (the Flash IDE). Truth is, that sometimes the classical sentence reverses, and we're as good as the tools we use.
These tools, and early on Flash almost didn't have overlap with the things people used HTML/JS for. So there was a set of distinct reasons where you wanna go Flash and that's it.
Do you imagine JoeCartoons.com if the guy had to code his toons in Eclipse? All the inspiring experimental and artsy sites, "experience" movie and games sites.
Silverlight has its distinct feature in better video experience, and a great runtime that supports theoretically any language on the planet as long as you write the compiler for it (and the existing subset if quite impressive already).
Granted, it's not quite distinct, as the Flash products have evolved tremendously in the meantime.
So, Adobe:
Has open source language machine (that will be part of Firefox 3), Flash CS3 for creative minds / animators / experimentators. It has Illustrator CS3 and Photoshop CS3 integration for designers and illustrators. It has Flex for developers (which is going to be opensource within a few months). It has tight workflow integration with its audio/video toolsets for delivering great video on the web.
Early market killer feature: animation and rich expressiveness (current killer feature, widespread use and packs lots of useful features in a light runtime).
Flash has 98% installed base.
Microsoft:
Has open sourced the DLR, and there's an open source implementation of the CLR in Mono. It has Microsoft Expression Studio for creative minds / animators / experimentators, and illutrators/designers. It has Visual Studio for developers (which has a free version as Visual Studio Express). It has tight integration with Windows Media and a cheap way to stream high quality videos over the internet with a small investment.
Early market killer feature: easy to deploy HQ video, hot runtime (CLR of
Silverlight has the support of major companies in the field, and Microsoft is expected to utilize its windows monopoly (Windows Updates) and throw a lot of marketing money to quickly increase its installed plugin base.
Sun:
Has open sourced their engine and have a myriad of development tools that overlap each other in terms of where they sit in the market. Nothing for animation, designers, illustrators, experiementators. Basically designers are left out in the cold.
No partner announcements, and if JavaFX requires the full JRE it means a slow and clunky experience. If it's a new plugin means 0% market coverage and no money to burn for marketing and partnerships to improve on that. No easy to use integrated video toolsets, no light cross-platform, skinnable components that provide functional and rich experience.
And no trust that Sun can have success after too many failed attempts in the area.
Early market killer features: ??? ("kinda better than JS" ?)
What on Earth is Sun trying to accomplish?
Pro Tools are not very Pro, somehow. Every time I'm stuck using them I wonder how people manage. I'm pretty sure there is no available solution for people who want to use more than sixteen VSTi/DXI soft synths at a time. Despite its shortcomings, FL Studio scales easily to 300+ simultaneous synths over 64 main effect channels with eight effects each. If you want to do more than sampling on Linux, you're pretty much limited to a couple of synths.
Well, Pro Tools is mostly geared to multitrack recording, and FL Studio is mostly geared to original music (meaning, as a sequencer).
Of course you could do both things in both apps, but Pro Tools is an industry standard. Such "industry" apps stagnate and look arcane, but are used, because professionals are used to them and have ton of material in Pro Tools format. Such is life.
Correction: musicians use musical instruments (ie, guitars, drums, bass, cow bells...) to make music. People who think they are musicians use computers to emulate music.
Are you trying to be funny or something? All modern studios are digital. The recording is digital, the music is mastered with digital tools and filters. Even in a music that sounds totally acoustic, there are plenty of sampled material, digitally injected and corrected.
The voices of the majority of the singers are digitally corrected and edited.
The jingles of most commercials you see use electronic instruments. The cap music of the news you watch uses electronic instruments. Movie music uses electronic instruments. Experimental music uses electronic instruments.
Computers in music are everywhere. Analog instruments also. They work together, and produce music. There's no "fake music" and "real music". You're putting artificial boundaries and your snobbery where they don't belong. It wasn't long ago when people lamented how "artificial" CD-s sound like and hugged their "warm and real sounding" cassettes. You're just like them.
Why would the end user be responsible? That's just silly. With that outlook Linux is going nowhere .. A heard a loud "ouch" right there at the end of that quote.
In an ideal world, file formats would be designed to support this. An example of a good file format is the RCS format used by CVS. You have the current TOT stored as a complete copy, then every previous version as a reverse diff. I'd go one step farther, though. Add metarevisions that refer to arbitrary later revisions without branching. Revision 1.13 might incorporate changes, then 1.14 might revert to 1.12. Since 1.13 would now be defined as a diff from 1.12, the 1.12 revision diff from 1.13 would be cleared to reduce storage, and would be replaced by a metarevision that says "see 1.14". In this way, it becomes simple to have unlimited undo and redo without ever losing any of the states. If you undo ten revisions and make a new change, you could still back out that change, back out the undos, and you'd be back to effectively another branch.
The GP said that basically it should be simple and obvious, but reading what you're saying I guess you think otherwise.
If the stereotypical Mac users tries to read and understand the system you described, he'd just sigh and say "Phew, good thing on a Mac I just get that Time Machine with the stars, and spin back to the window I want."
Branches are lost. Most people won't understand branching and merging anyway. They're not supposed to.
I'll suggest (again) that every financial organization make a "catch a phisher" link on their page
right...
that provides a unique (so that phishers can't build a list of the trojans) account number / login information that the intelligent users can request from the bank.
right (which the phishers will also see)...
The users will provide this red flagged account information to the phisher, who upon logging in a few times with these flagged accounts causes the banks to silently freeze other transactions placed from the same source until they can determine who's account data has been compromised.
Did you see where the problem was though?
Circular logic. A very treacherous fallacy.
F-Secure's Mikko Hypponen proposes an elegant solution to the problem of bank account phishing in the latest Foreign Policy magazine.
Right.
That's about as elegant as this guy.
Danging.
On a thin ice frozen lake.
In the summer.
With sanded boots.