I've advised all the Suse users I know and support to do the same thing, right now. I will no longer be doing any updates to any of the Suse installations I support via Novell.
I'm actively seeking a replacement distro.
The poisoning of the well is under way, get out now while you still can.
Question: "How to manage a security breach". Answer: "Cover Your Ass".
That's the community spirit and responsibility I'm talking about, atta boy!
Now I ask you too: which is worse, that people ask how to handle a major security breakdown on slashdot, or that from over 100 posts, at the time of this posting, none is modded 5+ for anything...
That's a really wacky solution you know. Why a giant shade? Who comes up with those exotic solutions? And why not a giant fridge with a giant ice tea in it. This would at least be stylish, you know!
We're all tired of various "experts" and "specialists" attacking Wikipedia's accuracy.
If a "classic" encyclopedia was to be examined for accuracy, you can be sure you'll find multiple instances of brutal inaccuracy. We're friggin' human, nothing we create is perfect, and we're not perfect, and the world isn't perfect. Deal with it.
There's no Madonna and Britney in there. They filter out all the crap for no extra cost? Cool feature.
That's what a geek would think. In a cruel twist of fate, geeks have major difficulties reproducing, hence they always remain a minority in our society.
Hence the majority craves for Madonna and Britney.
Whether music labels, musicians, Peter Jenner, you or I like it or not, there's a fundamental problem that everybody seems to understand: as long as lossless copies of music (or movies or photos for that matter) can be made, paying for music is dead.
You're pretty wrong. It's not losslessness that caused piracy. It's the fact that pirated music has less restrictions, is more convenient, and is (sounds odd but) is cheaper.
Using pirated music costs you: you can be sued, and you gotta use questionable service full of porn, scam ads and trojans. Not every price has a dollar value.
If official labels would offer cheap legal downloads of unencumbered formats, people would flock to it, allofmp3 was a good example of this.
So perfect digital copies changes only one thing: no more articial scarcity. You either play with open cards, or piracy replaces you.
How is that an evolutionary hack? Your environment does not require you to hunt cows with a spear.
Humans created this environment without being genetically predisposed to, in a way a bird is genetically predisposed to create a nest.
Just few hundred years ago there was nothing like supermarkets around. Few thousand years ago there were no shops of any kind. Our genetic code has barely changed since then.
We didn't improve our lives by means of hardcoded genetical changes that occur during the cource of millions of years. We change it barely using communication and intelligence thousands of times faster.
We hack evolution every day. You could argue that it's evolution gave us brains, but that's the whole point: other creatures can't adapt so drastically without evolution like we do. So we have the advantage.
Wells Fargo isn't working with IE 7. I had a wonderful conversation with a buddy of mine that works at their online banking call center. She wants to kill Microsoft right now. There are plenty of problems all over the place.
THIS is the things savvy web devs were warning the rest of the world all these years: write bad code and it'll bite you in fuhture browser versions.
You know 90% of the problems are caused because of horrid coding that has become as some sort of established practice on intranet and even many internet sites. I have over a hundred sites created before I ever heard of IE7. When I got IE7 to test them, I was shocked to find it all operates just the same, despite all FUD spread left and right.
I didn't use "html>body" hacks or any of the sort that were obvious to break in future versions of IE, nor I used deprecated API's. I *do* use proper DTD which in makes IE7 use all its new features (vs its compatibility mode).
Even a full-blown AJAX shopping solution I wrote few years ago: it just works on IE7. What gives? Why am I not seeing terrible things happen to my code?
Now's the time good coding practices and bad coding practices really start to be apparent.
What is the stereotype that comes to mind when you think about having (biologically) 10 kids?
This is happening in the recent decades only. Where do you think the millions upon millions of people came in 'modern' countries. They are not all immigrants from Africa now, are they...
But, how many humans will die during the adaptation process?
You know the fact we're so many is the prime reason we affect our environment too much. Too much pollution, too much food, too much gas and oil.
I'm not some crazy environmentalist that says "humans suck, nature rocks" but it's the ultimate truth. Things will play out as they will play out.
There's only one thing certain: we WILL survive, nature WILL survive, and even if some species are lost, new will appear. It's part of the evolutionary cycle.
We will survive largely unchanged because our brain is basically a tool to "hack" evolution. All inventions and strategies we lay out: they can form by evolution (i.e. quasi random) processes too, but it may take millions of years. We could think of a plan and act it out, using our technology and previous knowledge, in a matter of few years or even few months.
This means unless other species out there appear which can adapt faster (i.e. be smarter), we have the biggest chances to survive.
Your point being what, exactly? That we shouldn't bother to change our fishing regulations, because "life will go on"?
Here's what's my point:
I don't fish, therefore regulations have no effect on me. But even further, it has little effect on fishing itself. When you regulate out fishing issues, poaching flourishes.
The only way fishing will stop, is when the fish in the see cease to be there. THEN fishers will go out of business, and regulations will be possible, by artificial farming and protected areas, and heavily regulated licensed fishing companies.
I'm not saying to not try and regulate the existing situation, but as someone who's a side observer, i'm rather "observing" how things will happen in my opinion.
Which is totally and utterly irrelevant to us humans. Seriously, what does it matter if in X many millenia the oceans will make a complete recovery?
Then why do we care at all? It's obvious that we'll find what to eat by "farming" certain species as we see fit. Sea food isn't particularly important, except in few countries like Japan.
The food net is more delicate than that, and species are heavily dependent on each other. Also, species survival depends on a certain population level--if you cut too far, individuals will have a harder time mating, and so on.
This again confirms his theory though. Destabilizing a stable ecosystem leads to spurs of evolution and new species. During the hardest times on Earth, biggest leaps of development happened. Death of dinosaurs led to mammals taking over.
The problem is the news outlets, which concentrate on novelties and what they can sensationalize. A family in car crashed in a tree, all 4 dead? Not fun. No novelty, this happens every day.
A soldier killed by accident by "friendly fire", well that's worthy of regurgitating for the months to come.
The media really believe they can't interest the public in actions that occur every day. Do they report every bombing in Israel or Iraq now? Well for Iraq they kinda mention it, but for all these years the Israel attacks were mostly ignored. They happen every day: just not that interesting, not a novelty.
If US would be bombed every second day by terrorist, you'd hit a point where each separate attack won't be reported anymore. It'll be something you live with, something you certainly don't ignore, but it kinda starts to move to your blind spot.
Re:What backwards compatibility has it broken?
on
PHP 5.2.0 Released
·
· Score: 1
Anybody who isn't coding with safe mode on...should be taken out and shot
Are you sure this is what you wanted to say? Safe mode was a terrible hack since day one, and it's considered to be removed from future editions of PHP
For years Sun and their adherents discounted the PC architecture saying "servers are not desktops," with very little more justification than that. Meanwhile they've watched PCs eat up most of the server market they once owned.
PCs eat their market since they are cheap and widely available. Specialized expensive solutions are not as competitive. Thus again confirming what I said:P
"Looks like FF2 is already outnumbering FF 1.5, while IE7 is having a hard time to find followers. Will today's release as a high-priority, force-fed update fix this issue?
Firefox 2.0 also popped up as update. IE7 is as force-fed as Firefox 2 was. IE7 won't install automatically, it'll first ask for you to agree to the install.
Five years is a very short period of time for computer hardware when you're talking the Windows world. If you buy entry-level today, your system won't be viable in about a year and a half.
Not to argue semantics, but what you just described makes five years a long period for the Windows world. If it was short, you'd not need upgrade.
What becomes short is the life of your hardware, not the years themselves.
You're quickly losing credibility claiming this. SP2 is the only service pack that added (somewhat significant) features to a Windows version, and Microsoft is under no obligation to churn out service packs in any manner.
You're welcome to review the list of new features Vista has and decide if this is a service pack:
I do agree Software Assurance clients were screwed, but they were screwed the moment they signed their contracts. Similar programs were initiated and failed for the same reasons in Macromedia, Autodesk, and I think Adobe.
Paying up like a fool and hoping that the company delivers in time before you subscription expires is a stupid model of licensing software which delivers rare and major upgrades (versus online services, which typically are updated almost daily).
Still I don't think many of our vocal Slashdot/blog/news site friends use that program for licensing Windows (if they have it legally at all).
Slashdot Mirror
I've advised all the Suse users I know and support to do the same thing, right now.
I will no longer be doing any updates to any of the Suse installations I support via Novell.
I'm actively seeking a replacement distro.
The poisoning of the well is under way, get out now while you still can.
You're a sorry picture, you know that?
Cover Your Ass
.. ok.
Cover his ass? Hmm
Question: "How to manage a security breach".
Answer: "Cover Your Ass".
That's the community spirit and responsibility I'm talking about, atta boy!
Now I ask you too: which is worse, that people ask how to handle a major security breakdown on slashdot, or that from over 100 posts, at the time of this posting, none is modded 5+ for anything...
That's a really wacky solution you know. Why a giant shade? Who comes up with those exotic solutions? And why not a giant fridge with a giant ice tea in it. This would at least be stylish, you know!
After its introduction with much noise I've never heard anything about that anymore.
There was no much noise in the introduction of live.com.
Still you can expect them to start eating over 30-40% of the market after IE7 and/or Vista spread wide enough.
We're all tired of various "experts" and "specialists" attacking Wikipedia's accuracy.
If a "classic" encyclopedia was to be examined for accuracy, you can be sure you'll find multiple instances of brutal inaccuracy. We're friggin' human, nothing we create is perfect, and we're not perfect, and the world isn't perfect. Deal with it.
There's no Madonna and Britney in there.
They filter out all the crap for no extra cost? Cool feature.
That's what a geek would think. In a cruel twist of fate, geeks have major difficulties reproducing, hence they always remain a minority in our society.
Hence the majority craves for Madonna and Britney.
It truly is a terrible price to pay, having all that free porn available right next to all that free music.
If you like to see flapping sex organs in the mouth of someone next to all your music, many people considerate it inappropriate and it offends them.
Cheap legal downloads with no DRM, MP3 files with VBR: emusic.com, bleep.com. There's a lot more, you search for them.
You're missing something. They are independent labels. There's no Madonna and Britney in there.
That's like offering me a car when I'm looking for a boat, on the premise that if it's cheap and cool enough, I suddenly don't need a boat anymore.
Amusingly there's probably more independent tracks bought from iTunes, around the big names, than on eMusic.
Whether music labels, musicians, Peter Jenner, you or I like it or not, there's a fundamental problem that everybody seems to understand: as long as lossless copies of music (or movies or photos for that matter) can be made, paying for music is dead.
You're pretty wrong. It's not losslessness that caused piracy. It's the fact that pirated music has less restrictions, is more convenient, and is (sounds odd but) is cheaper.
Using pirated music costs you: you can be sued, and you gotta use questionable service full of porn, scam ads and trojans. Not every price has a dollar value.
If official labels would offer cheap legal downloads of unencumbered formats, people would flock to it, allofmp3 was a good example of this.
So perfect digital copies changes only one thing: no more articial scarcity. You either play with open cards, or piracy replaces you.
Close shot of the four legged dolphin can be seen here.
On this article. You can't. You can be funny or informative. Let the challenge begin NOW...
How is that an evolutionary hack? Your environment does not require you to hunt cows with a spear.
Humans created this environment without being genetically predisposed to, in a way a bird is genetically predisposed to create a nest.
Just few hundred years ago there was nothing like supermarkets around. Few thousand years ago there were no shops of any kind. Our genetic code has barely changed since then.
We didn't improve our lives by means of hardcoded genetical changes that occur during the cource of millions of years. We change it barely using communication and intelligence thousands of times faster.
We hack evolution every day. You could argue that it's evolution gave us brains, but that's the whole point: other creatures can't adapt so drastically without evolution like we do. So we have the advantage.
Wells Fargo isn't working with IE 7. I had a wonderful conversation with a buddy of mine that works at their online banking call center. She wants to kill Microsoft right now. There are plenty of problems all over the place.
THIS is the things savvy web devs were warning the rest of the world all these years: write bad code and it'll bite you in fuhture browser versions.
You know 90% of the problems are caused because of horrid coding that has become as some sort of established practice on intranet and even many internet sites. I have over a hundred sites created before I ever heard of IE7. When I got IE7 to test them, I was shocked to find it all operates just the same, despite all FUD spread left and right.
I didn't use "html>body" hacks or any of the sort that were obvious to break in future versions of IE, nor I used deprecated API's. I *do* use proper DTD which in makes IE7 use all its new features (vs its compatibility mode).
Even a full-blown AJAX shopping solution I wrote few years ago: it just works on IE7. What gives? Why am I not seeing terrible things happen to my code?
Now's the time good coding practices and bad coding practices really start to be apparent.
When was the last time you "hacked" evolution?
Just a minute ago, when I went shopping using little papers, versus hunting beef in the wild.
What is the stereotype that comes to mind when you think about having (biologically) 10 kids?
This is happening in the recent decades only. Where do you think the millions upon millions of people came in 'modern' countries. They are not all immigrants from Africa now, are they...
But, how many humans will die during the adaptation process?
You know the fact we're so many is the prime reason we affect our environment too much. Too much pollution, too much food, too much gas and oil.
I'm not some crazy environmentalist that says "humans suck, nature rocks" but it's the ultimate truth. Things will play out as they will play out.
There's only one thing certain: we WILL survive, nature WILL survive, and even if some species are lost, new will appear. It's part of the evolutionary cycle.
We will survive largely unchanged because our brain is basically a tool to "hack" evolution. All inventions and strategies we lay out: they can form by evolution (i.e. quasi random) processes too, but it may take millions of years. We could think of a plan and act it out, using our technology and previous knowledge, in a matter of few years or even few months.
This means unless other species out there appear which can adapt faster (i.e. be smarter), we have the biggest chances to survive.
Your point being what, exactly? That we shouldn't bother to change our fishing regulations, because "life will go on"?
Here's what's my point:
I don't fish, therefore regulations have no effect on me. But even further, it has little effect on fishing itself. When you regulate out fishing issues, poaching flourishes.
The only way fishing will stop, is when the fish in the see cease to be there. THEN fishers will go out of business, and regulations will be possible, by artificial farming and protected areas, and heavily regulated licensed fishing companies.
I'm not saying to not try and regulate the existing situation, but as someone who's a side observer, i'm rather "observing" how things will happen in my opinion.
Which is totally and utterly irrelevant to us humans. Seriously, what does it matter if in X many millenia the oceans will make a complete recovery?
Then why do we care at all? It's obvious that we'll find what to eat by "farming" certain species as we see fit. Sea food isn't particularly important, except in few countries like Japan.
The food net is more delicate than that, and species are heavily dependent on each other. Also, species survival depends on a certain population level--if you cut too far, individuals will have a harder time mating, and so on.
This again confirms his theory though. Destabilizing a stable ecosystem leads to spurs of evolution and new species. During the hardest times on Earth, biggest leaps of development happened. Death of dinosaurs led to mammals taking over.
The problem isn't accident versus action.
The problem is the news outlets, which concentrate on novelties and what they can sensationalize.
A family in car crashed in a tree, all 4 dead? Not fun. No novelty, this happens every day.
A soldier killed by accident by "friendly fire", well that's worthy of regurgitating for the months to come.
The media really believe they can't interest the public in actions that occur every day.
Do they report every bombing in Israel or Iraq now? Well for Iraq they kinda mention it, but for all these years the Israel attacks were mostly ignored. They happen every day: just not that interesting, not a novelty.
If US would be bombed every second day by terrorist, you'd hit a point where each separate attack won't be reported anymore. It'll be something you live with, something you certainly don't ignore, but it kinda starts to move to your blind spot.
Anybody who isn't coding with safe mode on...should be taken out and shot
Are you sure this is what you wanted to say? Safe mode was a terrible hack since day one, and it's considered to be removed from future editions of PHP
For years Sun and their adherents discounted the PC architecture saying "servers are not desktops," with very little more justification than that. Meanwhile they've watched PCs eat up most of the server market they once owned.
:P
PCs eat their market since they are cheap and widely available. Specialized expensive solutions are not as competitive. Thus again confirming what I said
"Looks like FF2 is already outnumbering FF 1.5, while IE7 is having a hard time to find followers. Will today's release as a high-priority, force-fed update fix this issue?
Firefox 2.0 also popped up as update. IE7 is as force-fed as Firefox 2 was. IE7 won't install automatically, it'll first ask for you to agree to the install.
Five years is a very short period of time for computer hardware when you're talking the Windows world. If you buy entry-level today, your system won't be viable in about a year and a half.
Not to argue semantics, but what you just described makes five years a long period for the Windows world. If it was short, you'd not need upgrade.
What becomes short is the life of your hardware, not the years themselves.
for what amounts to Windows XP Service Pack 3
You're quickly losing credibility claiming this. SP2 is the only service pack that added (somewhat significant) features to a Windows version, and Microsoft is under no obligation to churn out service packs in any manner.
You're welcome to review the list of new features Vista has and decide if this is a service pack:
Windows vista
I do agree Software Assurance clients were screwed, but they were screwed the moment they signed their contracts. Similar programs were initiated and failed for the same reasons in Macromedia, Autodesk, and I think Adobe.
Paying up like a fool and hoping that the company delivers in time before you subscription expires is a stupid model of licensing software which delivers rare and major upgrades (versus online services, which typically are updated almost daily).
Still I don't think many of our vocal Slashdot/blog/news site friends use that program for licensing Windows (if they have it legally at all).