1817 posts • joined 19 Dec 2010
What components did Curiosity find in the atmosphere? Kinda missing out on the fact that this measurements also showed that the Martian atmosphere is approx. 95% carbon dioxide. Sure; we already "knew" (assumed" is a better term IMO) but now we're sure.
I'm also missing mentioning of the fact that boffins have compared the analysis results with measurements made on meteorites which contained "air bubbles". The current findings confirmed that those rocks were indeed from Mars as people have assumed so far.
Still, I think this is a really impressive achievement. Esp. the fact that they setup Curiosity so that it can measure so many things using the same hardware.
So what ?
From a sysadmin POV I think the changes are indeed quite exciting. That is; all except for the locked down boot process of course. MS Security Essentials is IMO quite a decent virus scanner. I've tried the lots, from Avira to AVG and even tried a commercial Avast license for a year (which I ended up throwing away because the firewall in their security suite sometimes actually gobbled up so much resources to check my traffic that it would bring my whole PC to a grinding halt, what a POS....). And eventually I ended up with security essentials too; it. just. works.
But here's the thing, and what triggers my "so what?" above: Do you really think the end users care? All they will see is a (IMO:) totally broken and unfamiliar interface. And when they don't feel comfortable with the interface and the way it works then it doesn't matter how much more secure Win8 allegedly is; chances are high that folks will start turning to other solutions. Like, you know, putting Win7 onto their new PC or maybe even XP....
Morale of the story...
Always make sure you have a geek amongst your friends, preferably someone you can trust, and ask him/her to copy the data for you instead of relying on what could be very crappy service.
Still, pretty sad behaviour of those Verizon dudes. What I'm missing in the story though is if these dorks got fired or not.
Why don't they cover all their bases?
When you check the TypeScript download page you'll notice that you can get it installed as a 'node.js' package, an extension for editors such as Emacs and Vim as well as a Visual Studio 2012 plugin.
But what about the people still using Visual Studio 2010? Or what about the hobby developers using the Express version(s) of Visual Studio, whether its 2010 or 2012?
The reason I mention VS 2010 Express is because this platform is still relevant; otherwise I doubt Microsoft would keep the option to download VS 2010 Express online.
It strikes me as odd that they only target well known open source editors and VS 2012 while leaving out all their other environments.
I'll just wait....
For Top Gear to give this car a decent test run and share all the juicy details with us. Something tells me that's not going to be pretty. Highly entertaining; not pretty ;-)
I'm quite excited to learn more about the new PowerShell features. And IMO one has to give MS credit here; they usually also take care to "backport" those new features for older versions of Windows (server). Which can really make your life easier.
For example; my 2 Win2k3 office servers also run the WinRM service (which is basically the core of PowerShell) which got backported a few years ago. This allows me to administrate those right from within PowerShell on my Windows 7 desktop. And believe me; its much easier to open a PowerShell and type "get-eventlog -computer macron -logname system -entrytype Error -newest 10" than having to logon using remote desktop, finding the Event viewer in the admin tools and then go over all this.
Granted; it takes getting used to. But in my experience *nix users shouldn't have too much problems to familiarize themselves with the environment. Out of all the "administrative developments" MS has done in the past I think PowerShell really is an impressive one. Its good to see that they push it forward on their servers in the way they do; IMO it really can make your life a whole lot easier.
I'm I the only one who's getting a bit tired of all those (IMO:) lame patent lawsuits?
Sure; I can see that if you copy a competitors product one on one and then start to sell it as if it were your own then someone has to put a stop to that because that's simply unfair business.
But to sue for allegedly having a button placed 12cm from the edge of a device instead of 8cm is IMVHO way overdoing it.
I know; if there's an option to make extra money companies will dive into that. Even so; IMVHO its getting out of hand.
Any risk of contamination?
I wonder; if those rodents carried strains of several diseases, died during the flood, how likely is it that those germs would start to spread through the water; possible even leaving the premises of the university ?
As such; aren't there any risks involved here which the article didn't cover?
I've been getting fed up with FF quite some time ago but didn't really want to miss out on some of my plugins. So I eventually moved onto SeaMonkey. Its the Mozilla engine we initially came to love & respect but without all the bloat. In fact; by default it looks like your standard Netscape browser, which quite frankly suits me just fine.
I don't care that much for the interface (of course it has to be usable) but more so for my "browsing experience". Well SeaMonkey has what it takes IMO. Since a few updates ago its even fully Aero compliant (so you see download progress in the program icon).
I never looked back.
What to call it?
Unix/Linux beat these idiots anyway....
"The company has just four patents, but one of them, filed in 2000 and granted in 2004, deals with a "system and method for simultaneous display of multiple information sources".
So filed in 2000 but IIRC the 'screen' commandline utility already existed before that. Combined with "tail -r" you get exactly the same situation as covered in this patent: a system capable of multiple information sources in a simultaneous way.
Quite a weak patent if you ask me...
Not good enough.
If you check the details on the offer you'll notice that you don't simply apply and pay $ 8,-. No, instead MS charges the regular fee of $100,- and will credit $91,- to your credit card.
Sorry but that really doesn't appeal to me at the very least. Why all the hassle? Why don't they get people to pay $8,- and be done with it? This looks really confusing and plain out stupid to me.
This boils down to: I pay MS $100,- and can then hope they'll actually credit the $91,-. And what happens if I don't get my refund? Where do I complain?
And for people outside of the US its even more obscure; because you pay in your local currency the amount credited will also end up in your local currency. I quote: "In an amount equal to 92% of your registration fee.".
As I said in my original article: they don't make it appealing enough. I'd be happy to apply for $8,- but that's not how it works.
They don't make it appealing enough...
They want developers; but they also want developers to cough up quite a few bucks before they can actually do some tinkering with their phones, and I think that's where MS is missing the point.
I own a WP7.5 device, I like to tinker and I also have a fair amount of experience with C#.NET and VB.NET. Needless to say but I picked up the previous SDK and was actually quite pleased with it. It gives you the well known Visual Studio look, gets you a graphical phone display where you can setup your visual components and it gets you the emulator.
But here's the thing; messing with my phone is a whole lot more fun than messing with some emulator. But I can't do that because my phone is "dev locked"; iow: you can't hook it up to your PC and try to gain access to it, won't work.
And to unlock it, you guessed it, I need to cough up some big bucks.
That really doesn't appeal to me. I want to learn the environment, check how stuff works using MY phone, and I really don't mind coughing up, say, E 10,- / E 20,- to cover administrative costs which is bound to be involved with getting me an unlock for my phone.
Instead my choice is: Either you jump in fully or you can forget about it.
Chicken and the Egg: before I can decide if I want to jump in fully I'd like to gain some hands on experience. But in order to gain some hands on experience I gotta jump in fully.
Guess what? I'll simply not jump in at all.
Microsoft needs to make it more appealing if they want to get the interest of developers... Sure, you'll always have plenty of fortune seekers; but they come and go. Something I'm sure MS is going to find out soon enough.
Maybe the whole CEO cycle works the same way as the "Windows cycle". You know: Good version, Bad version, Good version....
I think Gates wasn't all too bad as a CEO. Now we have Ballmer who likes throwing chairs; who knows... Maybe the next one will actually have a good feel for technology again.
What this whole thing /really/ shows us
Is that the "upper brass" (politics) have absolutely no idea - what so ever - how this "internet thing" actually works. And apparently some also don't seem capable of getting things explained to them in any way.
What baffles me is the stupidity of it all... The Internet is a public medium; anyone can access your website unless you make it so that they can't. Same applies for search engines. But if you don't want those search engines to "use" your material then there's nothing stopping you from blocking them (robots.txt).
I get the idea that they seem to be incapable to comprehend even the most common basics such as "public access", "search engine", etc...
Here's the thing: if these very trivial aspects prove to be so hard for the (in this case French) politicians to understand, then how on earth can we expect them to comprehend the whole file sharing environments (BitTorrent)? Within this context I can clearly see why agencies such as the RIAA and BREIN (to name two coming to my mind) as so influential.
Isn't these something anyone can do about that? At least making sure that these politicians - know - what they're talking about?
What I consider somewhat funny...
Is that the amount of tablet sales seem to be somewhat decreasing, according to the financial section of a local newspaper. Now, I'm not suggesting that this will spell doom for Microsoft, but I can't help wonder if MS hasn't set their sales expectations a little too high.
Time will tell I suppose, but I still think they're jumping in head first while totally ignoring everything else. And in the case of Windows "everything else" is where a large amount of the revenue comes from.
There's even another huge advantage; if the pallet attack fails then we can sue that company for sending an asteroid to us. We already have all the visual evidence we'd need!
Now, I know I'm playing a bit of devils advocate here but even so....
Microsoft is all about creating extra revenue for itself. I can't help thinking that the current approach could also be bound to push some developers right into (paid) Microsoft support for getting their app "fixed". This guy obviously knew what he was doing, and sure of his cause.
But what about all the new(bie) developers this whole environment is bound to attract ?
Sorry if I missed the obvious...
"Will it be remembered as an XP or a Vista?"
Will what be remembered?
Very good read
I was pleasantly surprised to read about the authors experiences with remote desktop. I think that can be quite an issue, although we should also not forget that Microsoft has made it no secret that they put their money on PowerShell when it comes to windows administration.
As good as it is; nothing beats being able to look over the users 'shoulder'.
To me this is yet another conformation that Metro has been setup without proper preparations. I get the feeling that they started to setup and embed Metro and only after that was done started to look into the other aspects.. "somewhat". MS wants touch so now everything has to make way for touch support. And we'll also just have to like it most likely.
I think that unless something drastically changes in a future update or perhaps a possible upcoming Win9 MS may very well get into problems again.
Marketplace or in the open?
The article didn't make it very clear how these apps were distributed. If it was through the marketplace then I can't help wonder if this shouldn't have been caught by quality control.
Srry! I R too dumb to click on tah right fingerie....
Uhm, mixing things up?
I tend to agree with this guy but then again; that's only fuelled by my own dislike of Win8. However, I wonder if he isn't contradicting himself here:
"Instead, he said, customers are increasingly using smartphones and tablets as their primary computing devices, and that trend will only continue as the wireless networking technology improves."
But doesn't that talk right into Win8's "alley", considering how it is fully targeting mobile and touch platforms while even somewhat limiting the desktop experience?
I think Mr. Benioff has a good point that people have a choice these days, but how many people will use those alternatives? In popular believe moving to an alternative environment is "difficult", "time consuming", "error prone" and so on.
I don't think its all that likely that people will look into alternatives. Instead I think they'll just sit it out and wait for Win9 to appear. And when that also turns out to be a disappointment then I think we're on the highway to "doom" indeed....
wrt Psion: my thoughts exactly!
"You can see why Nokia execs would not be interested in Open Sourcing it, because they would see it as giving something to help the competition."
Considering the state Nokia is in right now I think their main motivation is a financial one: giving it away doesn't earn them any money. If they hang onto it and some interested parties offered to buy the licenses from them it would somewhat help them reduce the major damages to the company.
I agree that the odds are slim, but the alternative is a guarantee that they won't make any money at all.
Nokia; yes, but Winphone... I'm not so sure.
Other companies (Samsung, HTC) also run a line of Windows phones and they're not into huge problems so it seems. Of course; they're also not betting all their money on a single horse.
Which is IMO the very essence of the problem: if you want to promote a largely unknown product you'll have to invest. A LOT. Advertising, marketing, promotions, etc. I did see a Nokia commercial coming around every now and then; but nothing from the competition.
The reason why I think this to be a big issue too? Because the Nokia phones have a very specific look to it; I guess you like it or you don't (I think they're ugly). So now what happens if you're interested in the WP7 environment, don't like the (advertised) Nokia's while you also don't know of other brands?
Then I think people turn to the competition again...
Ok, I thought it over...
And I'm gonna write it anyway.
This particular brand isn't available here (though the package looks somewhat familiar but then again....) so I decided to take a closer look to the ads myself. From the article and the commercials I found on YouTube (see here (YouTube link) for example) I can only come to one (maybe two) conclusions...
Either the complaining guy doesn't have a real gf or he's a self absorbed arrogant S.O.B. The reason I come to that conclusion is because IMO the ad makes it perfectly clear: This isn't about "us", its about "them" (no offense)...
Think about it; why is that girl walking around alone? Why is she going to a concert, trying to climb a construction, then wrestling her way into the subway only to end up trying to walk a marathon (sort off) ?
I see sooo many matches with the way my SO behaves when its 'that time of the month'. Easily changing her mind on a whim is one of those. Quite frankly I got the message very clearly; this isn't about me; its about her. If SHE feels like going to concert and also feels like dragging me along SHE can. I'll just have to shut up and like it ;-)
I can see it now...
But wait; there's even more. If you order now you'll even get Amazon's widely known, heavily discussed, user friendly, super duper search engine which doens't only allow you to search your desktop; it searches the Internet too. Everything you always wanted in one box!
If you order within the next 3 hours we'll even throw in our self proclaimed ultra violent firewall which will help you to keep your computer safe from anything nasty on the Internet AND improves your searching experience too. Ever saw someone use a browser where the website looked like a pile of uninteresting words?
Thats because they used programs such as AdBlock or NoScript. With our self proclaimed ultra violent security suite you don't need those any more. So we did you a huge favor and removed them from the repositories entirely!
Now you can be sure to always get the information which you want and require!
TIME IS RUNNING OUT... Please call the number on screen now and order YOUR copy of the highly popular Ubuntu desktop!
First; isn't going from version X ('10') to version 6.1 basically a downgrade? ;-)
But even so; I can understand why people get upset over Adobe certainly dropping support in its entirety but I also fail to see the problem. Its not as if the software suddenly stops working or anything; you will still be able to use it for which you intended to use it....
So what's the problem ?
Mixing up the facts...
"Microsoft takes great pains to ensure that each new version of Windows remains backward compatible with older applications. But if Internet Explorer is any indication, writing a modern application for Windows 8 that still runs on older platforms is a lot harder than it sounds."
But what does the MSIE situation got to do with backwards compatibility?
Nothing of course... Being backwards compatible only means that a new version can do everything the older version could. So Win8 being backwards compatible means that it can do / use everything which Windows 7 could.
Or put differently: Office 2010 being backwards compatible means that it can still open documents which date from the Office '97 or Office 2003 era. NOT that it can open documents produced by the upcoming Office 2012.
Commercializing has begun...
I think its safe to say that this marks a new era; where the Ubuntu distro itself has become a "business commodity".
Things which make me say that: the expensive sounding yet totally meaningless words of the CEO, the fact that they won't abandon the idea but merely make optional (does anyone know already if this option is opt-in or opt-out? Though I have a very good idea...), and of course the seemingly existing believe that they're actually doing a good thing.
The last is a matter of opinion IMO; without the company there would also be no Ubuntu (sort off), but even so; if this causes a major dip in Ubuntu's popularity then I'd say they eventually managed to do the exact opposite; then they hurt their own company.
Which brings me to my final question: what does this tell us about the Canonical company? The fact that they don't even seem to (or want to?) know their own userbase is also pretty disturbing IMO.
I think its more likely that's exactly what he did :-)
Either them or chickens. I can't help heavily associate the music with the sound of a chicken. Screaming out in horror :)
The real cost of Windows 8
Is the desktop.
You can buy Win8 for some money and your currently well functional desktop.
I did too, and you're right.
Though your comment also shows that you never bothered to click an article to read its contents. Because then the paywall shows up.
I think that Anonymous brings that reputation upon themselves and no one else.
Like the latest (Dutch) news; they are now threatening to launch an all out attack on several internet providers because they block the Piratebay. You can read the (Dutch) article here (link to "telegraaf.nl", a Dutch news website).
Apparently they don't (or refuse to) realize that most of those providers (XS4All and UPC to name two) have actually challenged the blockade in court several times, which has cost them plenty of money. They also seem to ignore the fact that these providers simply have no choice because they are being forced into this.
And here we are now; the providers are going to take the heat from these terrorists, thus most likely effectively hindering many end-users to gain access to the Internet tomorrow.
Does that sound like a sane protest or freedom fight to you? To me its plain out cyber terrorism and vandalism, nothing more and nothing else. The worst (and IMVHO retarded) part being that they actually plan to attack providers who actively protested and fought these rulings, some of them still are btw.
As such; they do it to themselves. Time and time again.
Although I agree with their criticism I can't help wonder if this is actually a good thing for Wikileaks. I mean; do you really want to be associated with a group holding a notorious reputation such as anonymous has?
Of course those drivers will continue to cause accidents when you take away their phone. Instead of phoning or texting they are now busy searching (for their phone) so they still have little attention for traffic.
OMG El Reg is a Bond villain!!
I knew it; it takes one to know one (El Reg link on Bond villains).
The why is easy; one of traits of those villains is showing off, often in a bit of an eccentric way. Goldfinger liked golden girls and cars, the head of SMERSH liked to keep electrified chairs around, and so on.
But you got to be a really evil organisation if you have a main office fully shaped in your own logo ;-)
Although I think some of the modern Bond movies lack the suspense which the old ones had, I also think some of their plots are pretty well carried out.
What to think of Elliot Carver in 'Tomorrow never dies' ? The idea of a media tycoon who creates his own news in order to cover and sell it is IMO a good one because it could be true to some extend.
Which is also where I think a possible next villain might be hiding: the government itself. Our governments aren't always acting on our (the peoples) behalf and in some cases have their own agendas to work out.
This could spell doom!
If Disney didn't lie about singing mice, then what will happen to us if Monty Python didn't lie about killer rabbits?
Could be the end of Ubuntu...
Now, I'm not saying this because it seems that Canonical is going straight against the whole philosophy of Ubuntu; but am I the only one who considers that donation screen to be extremely suggestive? To be quite honest I personally think its actually plain out misleading, at the very least heavily bordering this behaviour.
First; lets not forget the target audience shall we: end users who want to "Use Linux" without having to deal with all the hassle; hacking Xorg.conf is a big no no there.
So how hard is it to assume that "Make the desktop more amazing" could actually be picked up as "The more I donate, the more bling I'll get on my desktop, whoah, cool!" ?
Sure; I agree that such users should read more closely; especially the part of "Of course you don't have to pay" and the statement that this only shows Canonical what users care about the most. But even so; no where on that page does it clearly say that no matter how much you donate you'll always get the same product.
I agree that people should be smart enough to realize this is implied. But once again: the target audience are end users, and personally I think its only a matter of time before some won't read closely enough and may very well end up quite upset over all this.
IMVHO this is a disaster just waiting to happen.
Most likely this is the doomsday device which we'll accidentally activate in about 2 months or so, resulting in the end of the solar system as we know it.
Amazing that those Mayan's knew all this; I bet those bastards put this device on Mars themselves...
(how's that for a conspiracy theory?)
I'm missing an option...
"A warning should only interrupt a user if it is absolutely necessary to involve the user. "
So what about the situation where a user (admin in my case) wants to be interrupted? Sometimes such warnings can help you find bigger problems. And yes; most likely you could find those in the event logs, that's not my point since we're talking about interruptions here.
Microsoft is part of the problem too...
Now, before I continue let me stress out that this isn't a black/white kind of situation and I'm not 'attacking' Microsoft over this because I can fully understand why they're doing what they do.
Microsoft fights software pirates and I can respect that. I don't always agree with it but in the end I do think one can only respect if a company tries to protect its income. However; there's one thing which I think doesn't do them much credit and only puts the Net as a whole at risk.
Because Microsoft has a tendency to block off pirated (illegal) computers from receiving (security) updates. I can understand that MS doesn't want "freeloaders" to usurp their services, ones which regular customers pay for (keep well in mind that keeping an OS updated for years isn't an easy nor cheap task). However; the other side of the medal is that many of these illegal users simply decide to turn off security updates and leave it at that, thus forming a potential risk for others. After all; who knows what could be happening on those boxes?
Its the one policy I think Microsoft should change. Supply global security updates, no matter the state of the OS ((il)legal or not), so that at the very least you don't risk a large dose of infected Window PC's. Apart from that MS should do everything in their power to block these illegal copies. For example by blocking them as they do now (at one time I even had a customer coming in to ask "how to get rid of that weird black background....", well; duh!).
But please make sure that even these illegal copies are up to date where security is concerned before you had a chance to lock them out! I'm pretty sure it could reduce quite a bit of problems.
Not very convincing.
When looking at the articles you get a bunch of charts and numbers which indicate that Bing is more poisoned than Google. But no where do they share how they got those numbers, all they're sharing is that they merely based the numbers on blocked redirects on their own web appliance.
Not very convincing.
In fact, the author of the article himself also seems to be aware of this: "Of course, this breakdown takes no account of the search engine being used by these customers. Nonetheless, we would expect Google to be the dominant search engine in use, as supported by recent data released by comScore.".
I'd be more impressed with the article if they could actually show us real examples. Search string "x" entered in Google vs. the same string entered in Bing and tten comparing those results. But that's not what this article is about.
In fact; the conclusion of the article isn't even "Bing is less secure than Google", a conclusion they could have easily made if their findings were correct (and provable). Instead they only conclude that: "The bottom line is that we are all guilty of trusting the results we get back, and clicking through without necessarily scrutinizing the URL as closely as we might.".
So; nothing to see here...
The server(s) on which this bot runs will now be moved back to running Windows 7, until the first win8 service pack has been released.
All jokes aside; I wonder if you could hold MS liable for false accusations when they take down your website based on these fake allegations.
Re: Switching away from magnetism
I too was a little surprised to see tape out of all media still being developed. But I think it makes a lot of sense; not merely for (large) capacity but also for reliability.
Optical is neat and all, but not always as reliable as it can be. For example; I have several 5.25" floppies dating from the C64 era and I can read all of 'm. I also have several older CD's from the 286 / 386 era and guess what? Some of them are already completely unusable.
Well, I think there's a lot to be questioned here in my opinion. The theory of a Dyson sphere isn't that illogical, but the amount of resources you'd need to get there are enormous..
Which brings me to another idea... Why do we assume that these Alien species harvest energy in the way we would? Why couldn't they have totally different means of collecting and using energy instead?
Its a bit far fetched, and probably stupid, but a few months ago scientists discovered a huge cloud of gas surrounding our galaxy. The gas is said to be of high temperature thus it contains lots of energy. How certain are we that this was a natural phenomenon? To my knowledge (but I don't keep up with these developments) such clouds weren't discovered before, not even when observing other galaxies.
Now, I'm not insinuating that such a cloud was actually created by Aliens. But why couldn't such a cloud be used by such a species as a source of energy?
Even more assumptions.
-We- can't do anything with "low grade heat" but how does that proof that 'they' can't either?
Which is all I'm saying; its foolish to start with assuming that we know how things work for them.
Good idea, the only risk we'd take is when they ever become self aware we'd have created our own worst enemies (according to Stargate SG-1 that is).