I've seen Vista on dozens of computers, and I've never seen it do that. It's IMPOSSIBLE that you, being a saint appointed by GOD HIMSELF, would ever have defective hardware!?
The issue of file sharing is already threatening software freedom - if they can help to make it clear that the RIAA are just jerks trying to abuse the legal system, the RIAA will have less power to try to outlaw software.
I'm sure I'll get modded down, but when it comes down to it, aren't these people actually breaking the law? I wouldn't consider any lawsuit against a person who's actually broken the law "abuse of the legal system." And if you truly think it is, then the correct strategy would be to change the law, not help lawbreakers get off. Right?
Of course, like they're going to say "man your system sounds like crap! Do you dip the speakers in mud every morning or something?" while you're there, and while you're obviously very interested in audio quality. That doesn't mean your speakers are great, that means the people who show them to aren't jackasses. (Which is definitely a good thing, but might not justify $10,000.)
But the Segway is an actual product that does exactly what it claims to do. Nobody ever said the Segway could cure cancer, or neutralize harmful EM rays.
Head On - Apply directly to forehead! Head On - Apply directly to forehead! Head On - Apply directly to forehead!
Surely the most famous example in the US in the last few years. All it was was a stick with some menthol in it; hell, I don't think the commercial even made any claims as to what applying it directly to your forehead was supposed to do (cure headaches perhaps?)
Probably because there are tons of applications that use that ability as a feature. Microsoft's big problem is that they trusted their developers not to be dicks-- obviously programs like RealPlayer and others betrayed that trust, so now Microsoft has to go back and remove access to all kinds of functions they had full access to before. For them it's a choice of, "do we increase security and break all these programs that require programmatic access to the desktop" or "do we allow these programs to run as normal?" They made the decision that straddles both options.
You know if they had broken the programs that rely on this, Slashdot would be fuming with "Vista broke my macro and screen recording programs!"
I don't know exactly how long Vista takes to boot up on my Core 2 Duo, but I can guarantee it's not 2 minutes. I think they measured from pressing the power button to getting around to finishing their coffee, then typo-ing their password three times, then looking the password up from the post-it under the keyboard, then typing in the correct password. There-- 2 minutes!
To be fair to Microsoft, most software that was "broken" by the update to Vista was actually broken in XP-- and Windows 2000 for that matter. The vast majority of "broken" programs run blithely assuming they have full administrative permission, and Vista basically says "uh, no." But these programs also would have failed in Windows XP, especially with Fast User Switching turned on, and Windows 2000 for users not running as Administrator.
In the old days, FTP was peer-to-peer. Email was instant. User interfaces were network transparent. How can you imagine that Microsoft had no part in the death of that reality?
I'm not saying Microsoft didn't, I'm saying that whatever company company popularized the Internet would have done the *exact same thing*. Hell, Apple did the exact same thing, so there you go. (Although I suppose they're moving away from that now with Bonjour.)
I mean, you can say it's Henry Ford's fault that cars run on gas instead of electricity, but that's not because Ford had some kind of dark plan, it's just because he chose the best technology to use at the time.
The grandparent is talking about a different permissions window than the UAC one.
The UAC window does pause all other applications to prevent programs from programatically pressing the "accept" button before the user has a change to press the "deny" button. This has been a problem in the past when XP warned users about unsigned code; the malware author would just write a small helper app that would look for the permissions dialog and press "accept" when it came up.
It's a security feature, and makes Vista more secure than XP.
The laptop didn't interrupt the presentation. Java tried to do something that was potentially a security hazard, so Vista put up a confirmation dialog and halted the execution of other processes to prevent some program from programatically pressing the "Accept" button. (And yes, that happens more than you'd think; I saw an unsigned printer driver in XP that programatically pressed the "Install Anyway" button when the unsigned driver warning came up.)
There are two main things here:
1) Don't install Java, Java's a piece of crap.
2) People are going to complain all day when Windows is insecure. When Windows is made secure, people are going to complain all day that it's less usable. If Microsoft fed the poor, people would complain that they only got rice and not a side of french fries. No matter what Microsoft does, people complain.
All technology aside, replacing the entire look'n'feel for our user base (office 2007 + Vista) would be a huge productivity killer for months, with no benefit whatsoever.
Sorry, but I can discern little in your post except pining for the "good old days", and saying the new days suck... but they don't.
Don't forget the rabid anti-Microsoft content which makes little logical sense.
(So if Microsoft never existed, and say Amiga became used by a billion people, that means that firewalls wouldn't exist and we'd all still be uniquely identified by our IP addresses? It's inconceivable that anybody would write malware for anything other than Windows!)
I never understood people who say they don't get spam on gmail.
They must be lying! Those bastards! It's inconcievable that they're telling the truth and that you're the minority.
Since I don't use it except as a backup, I've never given my address to anyone save for my web host and yet, here is all this spam.
Probably because you don't have any actual emails in there, Google has no way of determining which are spam or not. If you used the email account, I'm sure it would do a much better job.
Oh this crap again. Spam only "ruins" email if you don't have any kind of anti-spam filter installed.
I use Gmail for email. I think I've gotten 2 pieces of spam in the last month. If my real-world mailbox was that clean, I'd be in heaven. I think most, or at least heading in that direction, email users use web-based email services, all of which do a good job of filtering spam. (Well, Hotmail might be too aggressive.) If they don't, they're using something like Thunderbird or Outlook or Windows Mail, which also does a good job of filtering spam.
If you ask around, both to experienced users and neophytes, I bet the vast majority would tell you they get less junk email than they get junk mail. I get less junk email then I get credit card applications alone! And that qualifies as "good enough."
So, no, having to mark 2 emails a month as "spam" doesn't "ruin email." If you're getting more spam than that, you need to figure out why your anti-spam filters aren't working. And if you want to email me, go for it: blakeyrat@gmail.com (GASP! I put my email address on Slashdot!!)
What if a service starts sending a pop-up ad along with the redirect. What if the masked target links to a page with an exploit instead of linking to the new photos of Jessica Alba. Are services like tinyurl, urltea etc. taking the WWW towards a single point of failure?
What if the tinyurls start coming to life and jumping out of our computer monitors and strangling us? And then they recruit the help of Terminator robots from the future? And then the entire planet explodes due to death ray?
More seriously: As long as they work fine, people will use them. When they start not working fine, people will stop using them. That's all there is to it.
If "Funny" gave karma, then all you'd have to do to get karma would be to post "In Soviet Russia..." jokes.
Seriously, the moderators who mod those as "funny" need a smack on the back of the head. That joke wasn't funny in the 80s when it was new, it's certainly not funny now. I'm fine with having a moderation for truly funny posts, but those jokes repeated until everybody (except some mods I guess) are sick of them should stay buried.
Falconwolf, obviously you're a fan, but you just typed:
If he enjoyed what he did there was no loss, only if he didn't enjoy it was there a loss. Of course some would say since he didn't use the money to feed the world it was wasted, and others would say because it wasn't used the way they wanted it was wasted, but really the money Tesla spent was wasted or lost only if he did not receive any satisfaction from spending the money. I bet you feel the same about your money.
He spent the last ten(?) years of his life by himself, penniless, in a filthy hotel, feeding pidgeons. Because he wouldn't drop his grand theory that he could power an ocean liner in Japan from a giant tower in New Jersey. Even at the time he was building it, there were dozens of electrical experimenters who could have told him it's not going to happen.
Look, I love Howard Hughes. Hell's Angels is one of my favorite movies, seriously. But the simple fact of the matter is that he went crazy, pure crazy. That doesn't diminish my respect of the man before he went crazy, but you gotta face reality.
Anyway, you got my first post modded "flamebait" so congrats for that I suppose. Saying someone who holes themselves up in a dingy room after wasting all their money on pie-in-the-sky ideas that could never work "wacko" is flamebait, who knew?
Ditto, I submitted an article about an article that was about a survey done of corporations which concluded that corporations would not quickly adopt Vista. (This was before it was released, which frankly is a 'duh'... do corporations quickly do anything IT related?) But anyway... I spent a lot of time and had someone else read over it, attempting to get the *perfect* Slashdot submissions. There were no grammar errors, no spelling errors, the link was directly over the right keywords, etc.
The Slashdot editor who posted it moved the link so it looked like I was linking to the original study, not the article about the study. It's like they felt compelled to make a change, so they made one even if the change didn't improve the quality of the article.
I will say that the rest of the text remained unchanged, and really the only problem with the submission is that people who thought they were going to a study were actually going to a newspaper article about a study, but the point is Slashdot editors *do* make changes all the time.
Everyone on Slashdot is a pedantic nit-picker. It's part of the geek personality, they have to show they're 'smarter' than you by missing the forest and hooking onto some minor mistake you made about a tree. Don't take it personally.
Slashdot Mirror
You. Have. Defective. Hardware.
I've seen Vista on dozens of computers, and I've never seen it do that. It's IMPOSSIBLE that you, being a saint appointed by GOD HIMSELF, would ever have defective hardware!?
The issue of file sharing is already threatening software freedom - if they can help to make it clear that the RIAA are just jerks trying to abuse the legal system, the RIAA will have less power to try to outlaw software.
I'm sure I'll get modded down, but when it comes down to it, aren't these people actually breaking the law? I wouldn't consider any lawsuit against a person who's actually broken the law "abuse of the legal system." And if you truly think it is, then the correct strategy would be to change the law, not help lawbreakers get off. Right?
Of course, like they're going to say "man your system sounds like crap! Do you dip the speakers in mud every morning or something?" while you're there, and while you're obviously very interested in audio quality. That doesn't mean your speakers are great, that means the people who show them to aren't jackasses. (Which is definitely a good thing, but might not justify $10,000.)
But the Segway is an actual product that does exactly what it claims to do. Nobody ever said the Segway could cure cancer, or neutralize harmful EM rays.
Head On - Apply directly to forehead! Head On - Apply directly to forehead! Head On - Apply directly to forehead!
Surely the most famous example in the US in the last few years. All it was was a stick with some menthol in it; hell, I don't think the commercial even made any claims as to what applying it directly to your forehead was supposed to do (cure headaches perhaps?)
Surprised it wasn't on Wired's list.
Probably because there are tons of applications that use that ability as a feature. Microsoft's big problem is that they trusted their developers not to be dicks-- obviously programs like RealPlayer and others betrayed that trust, so now Microsoft has to go back and remove access to all kinds of functions they had full access to before. For them it's a choice of, "do we increase security and break all these programs that require programmatic access to the desktop" or "do we allow these programs to run as normal?" They made the decision that straddles both options.
You know if they had broken the programs that rely on this, Slashdot would be fuming with "Vista broke my macro and screen recording programs!"
I'm sure the kids in your life will enjoy your gift of... what... planking? A rock you found in your yard?
Could be worse, we're not as pussified as Europe is. Yet.
I don't know exactly how long Vista takes to boot up on my Core 2 Duo, but I can guarantee it's not 2 minutes. I think they measured from pressing the power button to getting around to finishing their coffee, then typo-ing their password three times, then looking the password up from the post-it under the keyboard, then typing in the correct password. There-- 2 minutes!
To be fair to Microsoft, most software that was "broken" by the update to Vista was actually broken in XP-- and Windows 2000 for that matter. The vast majority of "broken" programs run blithely assuming they have full administrative permission, and Vista basically says "uh, no." But these programs also would have failed in Windows XP, especially with Fast User Switching turned on, and Windows 2000 for users not running as Administrator.
In the old days, FTP was peer-to-peer. Email was instant. User interfaces were network transparent. How can you imagine that Microsoft had no part in the death of that reality?
I'm not saying Microsoft didn't, I'm saying that whatever company company popularized the Internet would have done the *exact same thing*. Hell, Apple did the exact same thing, so there you go. (Although I suppose they're moving away from that now with Bonjour.)
I mean, you can say it's Henry Ford's fault that cars run on gas instead of electricity, but that's not because Ford had some kind of dark plan, it's just because he chose the best technology to use at the time.
The grandparent is talking about a different permissions window than the UAC one.
The UAC window does pause all other applications to prevent programs from programatically pressing the "accept" button before the user has a change to press the "deny" button. This has been a problem in the past when XP warned users about unsigned code; the malware author would just write a small helper app that would look for the permissions dialog and press "accept" when it came up.
It's a security feature, and makes Vista more secure than XP.
The laptop didn't interrupt the presentation. Java tried to do something that was potentially a security hazard, so Vista put up a confirmation dialog and halted the execution of other processes to prevent some program from programatically pressing the "Accept" button. (And yes, that happens more than you'd think; I saw an unsigned printer driver in XP that programatically pressed the "Install Anyway" button when the unsigned driver warning came up.)
There are two main things here:
1) Don't install Java, Java's a piece of crap.
2) People are going to complain all day when Windows is insecure. When Windows is made secure, people are going to complain all day that it's less usable. If Microsoft fed the poor, people would complain that they only got rice and not a side of french fries. No matter what Microsoft does, people complain.
All technology aside, replacing the entire look'n'feel for our user base (office 2007 + Vista) would be a huge productivity killer for months, with no benefit whatsoever.
Can you back that up with data?
I mean, Microsoft has done real world studies with actual users, and shown that the learning curve is quite managable, and productivity goes up when it's over: http://blogs.msdn.com/jensenh/archive/2006/07/05/655119.aspx
Unless you can prove what you're saying in some fashion, I'd be more inclined to believe Microsoft's study.
Vista kills productivity, yet offers no real value in return.
Wow, not only do you not provide any data, you don't even provide an anecdote to back that up.
In what way does Vista kill productivity? Are you talking about end-user productivity, or IT productivity? Or something else altogether?
Sorry, but I can discern little in your post except pining for the "good old days", and saying the new days suck... but they don't.
Don't forget the rabid anti-Microsoft content which makes little logical sense.
(So if Microsoft never existed, and say Amiga became used by a billion people, that means that firewalls wouldn't exist and we'd all still be uniquely identified by our IP addresses? It's inconceivable that anybody would write malware for anything other than Windows!)
I never understood people who say they don't get spam on gmail.
They must be lying! Those bastards! It's inconcievable that they're telling the truth and that you're the minority.
Since I don't use it except as a backup, I've never given my address to anyone save for my web host and yet, here is all this spam.
Probably because you don't have any actual emails in there, Google has no way of determining which are spam or not. If you used the email account, I'm sure it would do a much better job.
Oh this crap again. Spam only "ruins" email if you don't have any kind of anti-spam filter installed.
I use Gmail for email. I think I've gotten 2 pieces of spam in the last month. If my real-world mailbox was that clean, I'd be in heaven. I think most, or at least heading in that direction, email users use web-based email services, all of which do a good job of filtering spam. (Well, Hotmail might be too aggressive.) If they don't, they're using something like Thunderbird or Outlook or Windows Mail, which also does a good job of filtering spam.
If you ask around, both to experienced users and neophytes, I bet the vast majority would tell you they get less junk email than they get junk mail. I get less junk email then I get credit card applications alone! And that qualifies as "good enough."
So, no, having to mark 2 emails a month as "spam" doesn't "ruin email." If you're getting more spam than that, you need to figure out why your anti-spam filters aren't working. And if you want to email me, go for it: blakeyrat@gmail.com (GASP! I put my email address on Slashdot!!)
What if a service starts sending a pop-up ad along with the redirect. What if the masked target links to a page with an exploit instead of linking to the new photos of Jessica Alba. Are services like tinyurl, urltea etc. taking the WWW towards a single point of failure?
What if the tinyurls start coming to life and jumping out of our computer monitors and strangling us? And then they recruit the help of Terminator robots from the future? And then the entire planet explodes due to death ray?
More seriously: As long as they work fine, people will use them. When they start not working fine, people will stop using them. That's all there is to it.
Gasp! A Slashdot poster who doesn't like Vista!? Tell me it ain't so!
Seriously though, mods, can we get some interesting new discussion going here instead of modding up stuff like this? Thank you.
You utterly missed my point.
But good luck with... whatever.
If "Funny" gave karma, then all you'd have to do to get karma would be to post "In Soviet Russia..." jokes.
Seriously, the moderators who mod those as "funny" need a smack on the back of the head. That joke wasn't funny in the 80s when it was new, it's certainly not funny now. I'm fine with having a moderation for truly funny posts, but those jokes repeated until everybody (except some mods I guess) are sick of them should stay buried.
Ok I've been following this whole conversation.
Falconwolf, obviously you're a fan, but you just typed:
If he enjoyed what he did there was no loss, only if he didn't enjoy it was there a loss. Of course some would say since he didn't use the money to feed the world it was wasted, and others would say because it wasn't used the way they wanted it was wasted, but really the money Tesla spent was wasted or lost only if he did not receive any satisfaction from spending the money. I bet you feel the same about your money.
He spent the last ten(?) years of his life by himself, penniless, in a filthy hotel, feeding pidgeons. Because he wouldn't drop his grand theory that he could power an ocean liner in Japan from a giant tower in New Jersey. Even at the time he was building it, there were dozens of electrical experimenters who could have told him it's not going to happen.
Look, I love Howard Hughes. Hell's Angels is one of my favorite movies, seriously. But the simple fact of the matter is that he went crazy, pure crazy. That doesn't diminish my respect of the man before he went crazy, but you gotta face reality.
Anyway, you got my first post modded "flamebait" so congrats for that I suppose. Saying someone who holes themselves up in a dingy room after wasting all their money on pie-in-the-sky ideas that could never work "wacko" is flamebait, who knew?
Ditto, I submitted an article about an article that was about a survey done of corporations which concluded that corporations would not quickly adopt Vista. (This was before it was released, which frankly is a 'duh'... do corporations quickly do anything IT related?) But anyway... I spent a lot of time and had someone else read over it, attempting to get the *perfect* Slashdot submissions. There were no grammar errors, no spelling errors, the link was directly over the right keywords, etc.
The Slashdot editor who posted it moved the link so it looked like I was linking to the original study, not the article about the study. It's like they felt compelled to make a change, so they made one even if the change didn't improve the quality of the article.
I will say that the rest of the text remained unchanged, and really the only problem with the submission is that people who thought they were going to a study were actually going to a newspaper article about a study, but the point is Slashdot editors *do* make changes all the time.
Everyone on Slashdot is a pedantic nit-picker. It's part of the geek personality, they have to show they're 'smarter' than you by missing the forest and hooking onto some minor mistake you made about a tree. Don't take it personally.