There are good "suits" and bad suits, just like there are good programmers and bad programmers.
Good programmers makes really good apps, good suits get those apps sold and are good at seeing what what services (and apps) people are willing to pay for.
Some people are good at both.
You won't make it very far with exellent code without marketing. Neither with exellent marketing of lousy software. (No M$ does not make lousy software. It is not the *best* but for most people it is good *enough*)
Suits follow demand. If they are leaving your area it is a tell tale sign that you will have serious trouble making a living there in a near future.
(That does not mean you should stop coding, just that you'll need a day job)
Off course you could get through any javascripting. That wouldn't change the fact that the site would give you either a) All graphics, ads and content b) No graphics.
An evil webmaster would make sure that the site really sucked in alternative b) and as I claimed: Big sites would get away with it, small sites would not.
OK, funny, but there is a grain of truth
on
Dreadling Released
·
· Score: 3
The whole point of a plam as opposed to a Pocket PC (sooner or later MS *will* make something that works) is simplicity.
If games above the level of solitaire becomes common, the handhelds will get caught in the same "upgrade every year, forget compatibility" spiral as the PC.
It will be all fun and games, but I'll miss the days, when you simply pressed the green button and made a note, instead of waiting for a reboot (checking sound card... done, checking 3D accellerator,... )
('xept by occasional geeks, that is) any commersial site depending on ads for income would place their regular graphics on a different site and add a script along with:
if (browser.allow_off_site_graphics) { document.write('Our site uses off-site graphics, which your browser does not support'); document.write('To turn on off-site graphics do: yada, yada, yada'); }
The result: Big sites with valuable content (Yahoo, online newspapers, slashdot taken over by the dark side) would still get ad money, whereas smaller sites and sites where you can choose an alternative with the same content (startups, slashdot as today etc) would not.
Webmasters can use countermeasures too, you know...
If a driver sees the stop sign coming and steps on the accelerator, yes we call that an accident. It is, however, an accident which results from a deliberate act of either negligence or maliciousness on the part of the driver.
There is another alternative: The driver noticed the stop sign too late, panicked and pressed the wrong pedal. Not too uncommon with newbie drivers.
The gun analogy would be "I was just loading my gun during shooting exercises, when my friend surprised me from behind. Unfortunately I automatically did the same turn-around-and-fire movement as I had been practicing..."
It is very easy to execute embedded code (assuming that the user hasn't just disabled it, like I have,) but that code is JScript or VBScript, which by its nature will not allow the code to do bad things.
Check again. Jscript and VBScript can create FileSystemObject, Javascript cannot.
(Course you get a warning, but people tend to klick "OK whatever")
Nobody wants to feel stupid (which is what you ought to do if you did not larn the lesson after Melissa)
So focus on the virus maker (or a scapegoat) instead of the (l)users who really mostly have themselves to blame.
This loveletter had "VIRUS" written all over it. Nevertheless people who *knew* what a VBscript can do fell for it. I'm not surprised that they want to nail someone.
Use anti-virus software, and be sure to regularly update the software from the vendor's Web site.
Don't open files sent to you via e-mail from unfamiliar sources. Check with colleagues and associates before opening files they send you without notification.
Be aware of how viruses operate, and watch for the telltale signs.
Don't download anything from unfamiliar Web sites.
Can't someone add the obvious: Don't give web pages and e-mail control over your computer! Nobody gives Joe User good instructions how to shut off scripting in LookOut and Internet Exploiter. All media focus on how much damage has been done without really telling how to protect oneself. C'mon journalists. Simply tell your readers what to shut off!
I want two levels of security for the software customer. One basic level, (guarded by trade law) that guarantees my right to a refund (perhaps including reasonable expenses) in case of a faulty product. One higher level where I, as a customer, can get insurance (for a premium)
The basic level should overrule any shrinkwrap licenses and be enough for most people. Shrinkwrap or click-through licences should only be allowed to *add* to basic rights, not remove them. (just like the GPL gives additional rights.)
The GCL might be a rather weak addition to basic rights, concerning things like support and so on.
...you would have to construct a more believable "message" A loveletter is a pretty decent idea (If you got it from your SO, you *might* have fallen for it) but I found the ILOVEYOU worm to be very suspicious even when I got the first one (and of course, I'm *not* using a scripting Outlook...)
How about a worm that looks for sent mail and sends another copy "Sorry, forget the attachment"?
Anyway I'm lucky. English is not my mother tongue and any personal mail in english is very suspicious.
If I use a GNU tool, I don't have to check the text of the GPL every time. I'd like to be able to do the same with commercial software: read up on the "standard license" once and then not bother.
With an effective GCL, I'd just check the box for the GCL sticker (Or the site for the icon). If it was lacking, I'd know that there might be something to watch out for.
That said, I think that the implications of allowing cusyomers to sue SW companies for millions in damages is scary, shrinkwrap license or not. A warranty is a separate item, if someone wants it they should pay for it too. If I don't want to pay for it, I get cheaper software, but at a greater risk. (or rather with lesser means to get any money if something goes wrong.)
Look, there are two ways to discuss this. Either we can discuss principles, i.e Privacy vs kiddie porn vs free speech vs vigilantism etc Or we can talk about what really happened, and reasonable consequences if this becomes common.
Discussing abstract principles is something I love to do, especially after a beer or two. However it seldom leads anywhere. I think (as a matter of principle) that speech should be free, anonymous access to information should be possible (or rather, not necesary) and that children (and adults) never should be forced to pose for porn pics. *I* have no trouble combining those views. Neither (I guess) have you. Unfortunately there are those who like to act out those liberties to the full extent, and they become uncompatible. 'tis called "real life"
Regarding the *actual* event, though, I have a serious problem with the wall of shame method. It goes against fundamental priniples of justice, like "innocent until proven guilty" and "right do defend yourself"
Yes if you trace down the IP number you might find a child molester, who gets scared off once he's out in the open. You might also find an average innocent Joe. Wether because (s)he downloaded the file "by accident" or was wrongfully pointed out by a forged IP adress, someone will never be able to clear his name. (to a large group of people, accused==guilty)
I could go on talking about how you could log anything, not just that dreaded kiddie porn, the same way, but it's too obvious and allready done.
If it was regular court records ie every convicted criminal and noone else, I would still be disgusted (since that is an exellent way to make sure that they never get a chance to straighten up) but at least it would be an accurate list.
A list compiled from newspapers would be a list of crimes with "news value". If Anonymous Coward gets a speeding ticket, he's off, but if some celebrity is involved (s)he not only gets a fine and headlines, but ges listed on this site.
Sort of like that Elian srory. A clear case until someone called the press.
There is a *huge* difference between "public record" as in "You have the right to check a persons criminal record" and "You get access to a database of every convicted offender"
I absolutely agree that court records should be public as in the first sense, but the second is scary.
Distributing coipies of copyrighted material *is* illegal (just about everywhere).
Wether or not you charge for it is totally irrelevant. "Personal use" "non-profit" etc are equally so.
What matters is if your hurisdiction has a "fair use" clause. ie You can make copies for backup, timeshift or spaceshift. (Taping a TV-show or copying a CD for use in your car)
Educational institutions usually have a deal that allows them to make limited copies (like 15% of a book or something) That is an *extention* of the general "no copying" rule not a right.
Defend Napster, if you like, but check your facts first.
One company for OS, one comapny for applications. > Perhaps a third for services (MSN etc), but I don't think that is neccesary, since that leg is standalone anyhow. Same goes for hardware.
There is no need to cripple MS, just to take away the "unfair" advantage. Once you have a real choice about what applications to put on a preinstalled PC it is no longer possible to pull an "internet explorer"
Tracking peoples affairs has been possible for a long time. Todays tecnology only makes it cheaper. Does it reallly matter so much wether I'm spied at by a camera or by my nosy neighbour (or by a guy in a black trench coat)?
If we want privacy we need laws (aka rights). Too much "privacy intrusive" information has fully legit use. Or do you really believe in privacy through obscurity?
Did you know that your face is easily recognizable when you are walking down the "public" street, or even through the window of your own "private" home? Did you know that your car has a unique licence no? Did you know that your DNA or evven crude fingerprints are tracable to you? Did you know that you are levaving fingerprints and DNA traces everywhere you go? And even your "anonymous" snail mail might be traced to where it was posted.
Let's all cover our faces, always use gloves, never use any product with serial no, communicate through secret spy style boxes. Then we might at last enjoy the privacy wich we have the right to...
The switch statement you make should be treated as part of the (G)UI.
I generally try to separate application logic from UI as much as possible, since it is a real pain to change code because of UI changes.
Let the core functionallity of the program have a well defined interface (use CORBA, EJB, ActiveX or whatever) and *then* build a UI shell around it. That way, the next person who touches your app has a fair chance to make UI adjustments without groking every detail of your code.
Fitting a GUI on top of a CLI is rather easy, the reverse can be almost impossible. Ergo: Never think just GUI.
One of the greatest gifts we can give to our children is the ability for them to actually *be* children.
Agreed Another one of the greatest gifts we can give to our children is to let them grow up. "Innocent" is just another word for unexperienced, or if you prefer, naive. A prefered quality in a child, but a major handicap as a grown up.
What makes you think that the "innocent" child would be the least interested in porn? The sight of a naked body would have no sexual effect on me as a child. In my "innocence" I had not yet "leared" that I should feel anything special about naked women. If your kid thinks porn is interesting, I'd say it's either because you act like its something "special" or because he/she is no longer that "innocent" child, in which case you should explain *why* porn is wrong rather than making it even more interesting.
The net is a medium where *anyone* can express their opinion and write/display whatever they want. That means *someone* will put something there that someone else (you) won't like.
If you have a problem with an unmoderated medium, stick to "safe" pages.
If your kids are not mature enough for such an environment, keep them out.
And if I was in the board of a school with guts enough to teach about controversial issues, I couldn't care less about those who think "ignotant is better"
Slashdot Mirror
Good programmers makes really good apps, good suits get those apps sold and are good at seeing what what services (and apps) people are willing to pay for.
Some people are good at both.
You won't make it very far with exellent code without marketing. Neither with exellent marketing of lousy software. (No M$ does not make lousy software. It is not the *best* but for most people it is good *enough*)
Suits follow demand. If they are leaving your area it is a tell tale sign that you will have serious trouble making a living there in a near future.
(That does not mean you should stop coding, just that you'll need a day job)
a) All graphics, ads and content
b) No graphics.
An evil webmaster would make sure that the site really sucked in alternative b) and as I claimed: Big sites would get away with it, small sites would not.
If games above the level of solitaire becomes common, the handhelds will get caught in the same "upgrade every year, forget compatibility" spiral as the PC.
It will be all fun and games, but I'll miss the days, when you simply pressed the green button and made a note, instead of waiting for a reboot (checking sound card... done, checking 3D accellerator,... )
if (browser.allow_off_site_graphics)
{
document.write('Our site uses off-site graphics, which your browser does not support');
document.write('To turn on off-site graphics do: yada, yada, yada');
}
The result: Big sites with valuable content (Yahoo, online newspapers, slashdot taken over by the dark side) would still get ad money, whereas smaller sites and sites where you can choose an alternative with the same content (startups, slashdot as today etc) would not.
Webmasters can use countermeasures too, you know...
If I could moderate articles, Jamie would be in karma heaven.
(Then again I'd like to give Katz a *plus* one-Troll :-)
There is another alternative:
The driver noticed the stop sign too late, panicked and pressed the wrong pedal. Not too uncommon with newbie drivers.
The gun analogy would be "I was just loading my gun during shooting exercises, when my friend surprised me from behind. Unfortunately I automatically did the same turn-around-and-fire movement as I had been practicing..."
Check again. Jscript and VBScript can create FileSystemObject, Javascript cannot.
(Course you get a warning, but people tend to klick "OK whatever")
100% agreed.
I run NT so I have decent security. Win9X in any multi user environment is simply a very expensive joke.
So focus on the virus maker (or a scapegoat) instead of the (l)users who really mostly have themselves to blame.
This loveletter had "VIRUS" written all over it. Nevertheless people who *knew* what a VBscript can do fell for it. I'm not surprised that they want to nail someone.
- Use anti-virus software, and be sure to regularly update the software from the vendor's Web site.
- Don't open files sent to you via e-mail from unfamiliar sources. Check with colleagues and associates before opening files they send you without notification.
- Be aware of how viruses operate, and watch for the telltale signs.
- Don't download anything from unfamiliar Web sites.
Can't someone add the obvious:Don't give web pages and e-mail control over your computer!
Nobody gives Joe User good instructions how to shut off scripting in LookOut and Internet Exploiter. All media focus on how much damage has been done without really telling how to protect oneself. C'mon journalists. Simply tell your readers what to shut off!
Unfortunately the story is correct. More details are allready posted here
I want two levels of security for the software customer. One basic level, (guarded by trade law) that guarantees my right to a refund (perhaps including reasonable expenses) in case of a faulty product. One higher level where I, as a customer, can get insurance (for a premium)
The basic level should overrule any shrinkwrap licenses and be enough for most people. Shrinkwrap or click-through licences should only be allowed to *add* to basic rights, not remove them. (just like the GPL gives additional rights.)
The GCL might be a rather weak addition to basic rights, concerning things like support and so on.
How about a worm that looks for sent mail and sends another copy "Sorry, forget the attachment"?
Anyway I'm lucky. English is not my mother tongue and any personal mail in english is very suspicious.
If I use a GNU tool, I don't have to check the text of the GPL every time. I'd like to be able to do the same with commercial software: read up on the "standard license" once and then not bother.
With an effective GCL, I'd just check the box for the GCL sticker (Or the site for the icon). If it was lacking, I'd know that there might be something to watch out for.
That said, I think that the implications of allowing cusyomers to sue SW companies for millions in damages is scary, shrinkwrap license or not. A warranty is a separate item, if someone wants it they should pay for it too. If I don't want to pay for it, I get cheaper software, but at a greater risk. (or rather with lesser means to get any money if something goes wrong.)
Or we can talk about what really happened, and reasonable consequences if this becomes common.
Discussing abstract principles is something I love to do, especially after a beer or two. However it seldom leads anywhere. I think (as a matter of principle) that speech should be free, anonymous access to information should be possible (or rather, not necesary) and that children (and adults) never should be forced to pose for porn pics.
*I* have no trouble combining those views. Neither (I guess) have you. Unfortunately there are those who like to act out those liberties to the full extent, and they become uncompatible. 'tis called "real life"
Regarding the *actual* event, though, I have a serious problem with the wall of shame method.
It goes against fundamental priniples of justice, like "innocent until proven guilty" and "right do defend yourself"
Yes if you trace down the IP number you might find a child molester, who gets scared off once he's out in the open. You might also find an average innocent Joe. Wether because (s)he downloaded the file "by accident" or was wrongfully pointed out by a forged IP adress, someone will never be able to clear his name. (to a large group of people, accused==guilty)
I could go on talking about how you could log anything, not just that dreaded kiddie porn, the same way, but it's too obvious and allready done.
A list compiled from newspapers would be a list of crimes with "news value". If Anonymous Coward gets a speeding ticket, he's off, but if some celebrity is involved (s)he not only gets a fine and headlines, but ges listed on this site.
Sort of like that Elian srory. A clear case until someone called the press.
I absolutely agree that court records should be public as in the first sense, but the second is scary.
Wether or not you charge for it is totally irrelevant. "Personal use" "non-profit" etc are equally so.
What matters is if your hurisdiction has a "fair use" clause. ie You can make copies for backup, timeshift or spaceshift. (Taping a TV-show or copying a CD for use in your car)
Educational institutions usually have a deal that allows them to make limited copies (like 15% of a book or something) That is an *extention* of the general "no copying" rule not a right.
Defend Napster, if you like, but check your facts first.
> Perhaps a third for services (MSN etc), but I don't think that is neccesary, since that leg is standalone anyhow. Same goes for hardware.
There is no need to cripple MS, just to take away the "unfair" advantage. Once you have a real choice about what applications to put on a preinstalled PC it is no longer possible to pull an "internet explorer"
If we want privacy we need laws (aka rights). Too much "privacy intrusive" information has fully legit use. Or do you really believe in privacy through obscurity?
Did you know that your car has a unique licence no?
Did you know that your DNA or evven crude fingerprints are tracable to you?
Did you know that you are levaving fingerprints and DNA traces everywhere you go?
And even your "anonymous" snail mail might be traced to where it was posted.
Let's all cover our faces, always use gloves, never use any product with serial no, communicate through secret spy style boxes. Then we might at last enjoy the privacy wich we have the right to...
I generally try to separate application logic from UI as much as possible, since it is a real pain to change code because of UI changes.
Let the core functionallity of the program have a well defined interface (use CORBA, EJB, ActiveX or whatever) and *then* build a UI shell around it. That way, the next person who touches your app has a fair chance to make UI adjustments without groking every detail of your code.
Fitting a GUI on top of a CLI is rather easy, the reverse can be almost impossible. Ergo: Never think just GUI.
Spam == Unsolicited COMMERCIAL email
College information would hardly qualify as commercial (even though it might qualify as trash)
</NITPICK>
And if you get your mail adress from the college (or your employer) *they* are fully justified in sending group mail. (Terms of use etc etc)
Agreed
Another one of the greatest gifts we can give to our children is to let them grow up.
"Innocent" is just another word for unexperienced, or if you prefer, naive. A prefered quality in a child, but a major handicap as a grown up.
What makes you think that the "innocent" child would be the least interested in porn? The sight of a naked body would have no sexual effect on me as a child. In my "innocence" I had not yet "leared" that I should feel anything special about naked women. If your kid thinks porn is interesting, I'd say it's either because you act like its something "special" or because he/she is no longer that "innocent" child, in which case you should explain *why* porn is wrong rather than making it even more interesting.
The net is a medium where *anyone* can express their opinion and write/display whatever they want. That means *someone* will put something there that someone else (you) won't like.
If you have a problem with an unmoderated medium, stick to "safe" pages.
If your kids are not mature enough for such an environment, keep them out.
And if I was in the board of a school with guts enough to teach about controversial issues, I couldn't care less about those who think "ignotant is better"