Could you elaborate? I'm no encryption expert, but if you have a hardware token, which receives a new key every 30 seconds from an encrypted radio signal, hashes the key together with a unique GUID that is different for each physical token, and displayes part of the hash; the user can use the displayed hash to logon, (it would only work for him b/c the unique GUID would be unique to him); and then 30 seconds later the bank sends out a new key over radio that's encrypted partly with the 30-second-old key (so each key is encrypted partly with the one before it). How could such a thing be spoofed?
You should never be sending sensitive information over nonencrypted email in any case. Securing the hotmail login page and then sending your bank details by email would be rather like locking the barn door, then demolishing large parts of the other three walls of the barn, whilst keeping the lock intact. Utterly pointless. And that applies to any webmail system, not just hotmail.
Just hack the host file to point bankofamerica.bank to your IP Address. Phishing scheme done. If I've somehow obtained deep enough access to your box to edit your HOSTS file (i.e. admin/root privileges), why bother with phishing emails? I could just install a keylogger, wait for you to visit your bank in the normal course of business, and snag your details. Or just grab them from \My_Documents\misc\unimportantstuff\really_nothing here\FINANCIAL_PASSWORDS.txt. Much more reliable than mucking about with making mockup login pages.
This is a little different as the co.uk is a government determined domain, not a individually registerable domain I'm not sure what you mean by that. Individuals can definitely register.co.uk domains (in theory, they're obviously meant for UK companies, but there's nothing to enforce that, just like in America). Government domains are.gov.uk.
Huh? The forums of a UI blog shouldn't be the official place to give feedback on beta versions. I didn't beta-test Vista, but I'm sure there would have been an official way to submit feedback and bug reports.
Let's regurgitate what I keep telling my friendly Windows trolls. In a certain year, market share of Linux/Apache was 60%, Microsoft's IIS had 20%, 60-something worms spread that year, ALL of them for Microsoft's product. Nice linguistic twisting, there. All for "Microsoft's product", yes, but most for general Windows desktops -- i.e. aimed at clueless users who never run Windows update and are happy to double-click on Anna-Kournakova.exe if they think it means pr0n for them -- rather than IIS. Certainly, there have been some that affect IIS specifically (such as Blaster), but they're far outnumbered by the former type.
Given this, to some extent you're comparing the security records of a bunch of hopefully properly administered webservers (Apache) against a combination of a bunch of hopefully properly admistered webservers (IIS) combined with billions of clueless home users. In such a contest, the former will obviously always win.
If the situation were reversed (e.g. all the clueless users running Linspire, which to the best of my knowledge still, in pure Windows-pre-Vista style, has the user run as root by default), I suspect the numbers would be somewhat different. Hell, even if an Ubuntu sudo-based distro became mainstream, if an email can convince a user on their home computer they'll get pr0n if they type in their logon password to a brown box on the screen, there's no privilege system in the world that'll stop them.
A quick Google reveals that Vista Ultimate does ship with an Apache equivalent, IIS; as do Vista's Business, Enterprise, and Home (albeit artificially limited in the Home edition).
Believe it or not, the parent is actually pretty much spot on, according to Wikipedia -- Melinda French, "who at the time was Bill Gates' girlfriend" was project manager of Bob.
...So a single anecdotal data point is enough to convince you that Aero always uses up 30-50% of the CPU; and that taken as given, any posted counterexample must necessary be a Microsoft shill. Right, good logic there.
pushing out jailroots for legacy apps which want admin access was not done by Microsoft, probably due to ignorance, There's certainly ignorance here, but it's not Microsofts'. Go and read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_Account_Control; especially the paragraph about "File and registry virtualization".
Huh? Were you reading a different post to me? The patch worked fine except if a 5600 series HP printer driver (if one of the comments lower down was correct) is installed.
IE7 and Vista are two examples that were loaded with desirable features when they were vaporware. E.g., apart from WinFS? (WinFS is the only one anyone ever mentions when pushed, but "desirable feautures" implies plural. And no, Palladium doesn't pass the 'desirable' test...:-) ).
Some people (e.g. you) don't like its *default* UI. But the whole point about Opera is that it's SO much more easily customizable than any of the other major browsers. You can make it look and work like Firefox, or IE, or Lynx (!), or any other broswer you like if you really want. Every single UI element is drag and drop to anywhere else, out of the box (you'd need a ton of FF extensions (or like editing wierd config files) to replicate the same customizability in FF).
From my post, which you apparently didn't read all the way through:
all the old keyboard shortcuts work exactly the same as they did before (yes, even the alt+x+y accelerators) Alt-I, B, N, Enter does exactly the same as it did in Word 2003 (Next Page Section Breaks).
For those of use that like to keep our hands on the keyboard (efficient [although not always accurate] typists) running to the mouse is a pain. You're not making any sense. You favour keyboard shortcuts and don't like using the mouse, but you complain that the mouse-driven part of the interface has changed? If you don't like using the mouse, then don't use the mouse and stick to the keyboard -- all the old keyboard shortcuts work exactly the same as they did before (yes, even the alt+x+y accelerators).
I hate the way it formats stuff whether I want it or not. I hate that it automatically changes URLs and e-mail addresses into links, even though I'm creating print documents. I REALLY hate that copied text from elsewhere is pasted in with whatever format it had elsewhere, not with the format of the text on the page that I'm editing.
And I hate that it is invariably difficult or impossible to turn this crap off. For hyperlinks: If it does it, click the tag next to the hyperlink and press "stop automatically creating hyperlinks", and it'll stop. Not difficult. For pasted text, click the tag next to the pasted text, and click "match destination formatting". Then click "set as default". Again, if you find that "difficult or impossible", MS did once create an interface with you in mind...
"classic mode", "Basic Mode", "advanced mode", and "everything mode". Problem with that is that although 80% of people only use 20% of the features, all 80% use a *different* 20%, which is the problem that makers of 'light' word processors as opposed to projects like OOo always run into. I can't remember where I read this (Joel on Software, maybe), but someone commented that the process usually goes like: Someone makes a 'light' word processor, and doesn't include word count since only 5% of people ever use it. Journalist reviews word processor. Journalists are the one segment of people that *do* use word count. Journalist slags off word processor because it "doesn't even have word count". Word processor dies a quiet death.
Plus, (entirely contradicting my last paragraph), I think Microsoft actually has tried to do this with Word 2007: your "Basic Mode" being the 'Home' tab, wherin resides the 20% of the features that are all 80% of people need.
I get even more cranky when the UI is trying to guess what I want and gets it wrong [...] Many UI "innovations" (particularly context sensitive stuff like clippy and ribbons) make for an annoying experience rather than an easy flow. [...] Rather than change the main menu to be context sensitive, it would likely be far better to keep the main menu structure solid so you always have consistency But the main menu isn't context-sensitive. The Home, Insert, Page layout, References, Mailings, Review, and View tabs are permanent and unchanging, no matter what you're doing. The only thing I can think of that's context-sensitive is that when you've selected a table or something, a 'table' tab appears to let you change table-specific options if you want to, but you're free to click on it or not as you wish. Hardly "the UI trying to guess what you want".
Now the 'intelligent menu' crap that came in in Office 2000 (and, IIRC, disappeared again in XP or 2003) -- that was pretty fucked up, mainly because it *did* change itself and try to 'anticipate' your needs; but as far as I can tell, 2007 hasn't got any of that.
Ask anyone who has worked in an office environment (not geeks) and they'll tell you that most people use very basic functions like bold/font/size, bullets, formatting and mail merge. Looking at the only concrete examples you actually include in your post: bold, font/size, bullets, and all the rest of the formatting options are in exactly the same place as they always were, and all the old keyboard shortcuts to them still work. The only one out of your list that's changed is Mail merge, which is now in "mailings" rather than the old, generic "tools" -- much, much more obvious than before. And the old keyboard accelerator for it still works.
Slashdot Mirror
Could you elaborate? I'm no encryption expert, but if you have a hardware token, which receives a new key every 30 seconds from an encrypted radio signal, hashes the key together with a unique GUID that is different for each physical token, and displayes part of the hash; the user can use the displayed hash to logon, (it would only work for him b/c the unique GUID would be unique to him); and then 30 seconds later the bank sends out a new key over radio that's encrypted partly with the 30-second-old key (so each key is encrypted partly with the one before it). How could such a thing be spoofed?
...Since when has hotmail been a bank?
You should never be sending sensitive information over nonencrypted email in any case. Securing the hotmail login page and then sending your bank details by email would be rather like locking the barn door, then demolishing large parts of the other three walls of the barn, whilst keeping the lock intact. Utterly pointless. And that applies to any webmail system, not just hotmail.
If a program crashes, it asks you if you want to send an error report to Microsoft. Press 'send' to send one. If it's a known problem, it'll tell you.
d efault.mspx as a feedback form. I imagine other beta products have their own feedback ways (e.g. Office 2007 had Send a Smile / Send a Frown).
If you're beta-testing Windows, a quick Google gives http://www.microsoft.com/windowsvista/sentiments/
Otherwise... it seems to vary from product to product. Windows Home Server has a dedicated suggestion forum; and pretty much every product has a developer blog.
If that's not direct enough, I can personally recommend another OS with more direct feedback methods...
Huh? The forums of a UI blog shouldn't be the official place to give feedback on beta versions. I didn't beta-test Vista, but I'm sure there would have been an official way to submit feedback and bug reports.
Given this, to some extent you're comparing the security records of a bunch of hopefully properly administered webservers (Apache) against a combination of a bunch of hopefully properly admistered webservers (IIS) combined with billions of clueless home users. In such a contest, the former will obviously always win.
If the situation were reversed (e.g. all the clueless users running Linspire, which to the best of my knowledge still, in pure Windows-pre-Vista style, has the user run as root by default), I suspect the numbers would be somewhat different. Hell, even if an Ubuntu sudo-based distro became mainstream, if an email can convince a user on their home computer they'll get pr0n if they type in their logon password to a brown box on the screen, there's no privilege system in the world that'll stop them.
A quick Google reveals that Vista Ultimate does ship with an Apache equivalent, IIS; as do Vista's Business, Enterprise, and Home (albeit artificially limited in the Home edition).
Believe it or not, the parent is actually pretty much spot on, according to Wikipedia -- Melinda French, "who at the time was Bill Gates' girlfriend" was project manager of Bob.
...So a single anecdotal data point is enough to convince you that Aero always uses up 30-50% of the CPU; and that taken as given, any posted counterexample must necessary be a Microsoft shill. Right, good logic there.
Then please explain how it works on my laptop; which has a bog-standard Intel GMA chip that shares some trivially small amount of RAM?
Huh? Were you reading a different post to me? The patch worked fine except if a 5600 series HP printer driver (if one of the comments lower down was correct) is installed.
You don't need to use the workaround any more; MS did patch the patch about a few days after it was first released, about a year ago...
Some people (e.g. you) don't like its *default* UI. But the whole point about Opera is that it's SO much more easily customizable than any of the other major browsers. You can make it look and work like Firefox, or IE, or Lynx (!), or any other broswer you like if you really want. Every single UI element is drag and drop to anywhere else, out of the box (you'd need a ton of FF extensions (or like editing wierd config files) to replicate the same customizability in FF).
Alt+I+B+Enter still works fine for inserting a page break -- though, as I_M_Noman said, ctrl-enter is still quicker and still works as well.
Just tried it; still works fine.
...If you think all user interface design is is color choices and gradients, I can show you a neat way to make cmd.exe a very pretty blue...
Plus, (entirely contradicting my last paragraph), I think Microsoft actually has tried to do this with Word 2007: your "Basic Mode" being the 'Home' tab, wherin resides the 20% of the features that are all 80% of people need.
Now the 'intelligent menu' crap that came in in Office 2000 (and, IIRC, disappeared again in XP or 2003) -- that was pretty fucked up, mainly because it *did* change itself and try to 'anticipate' your needs; but as far as I can tell, 2007 hasn't got any of that.