Congratulations on becoming your parents.
4573 posts • joined 26 Jul 2008
Congratulations on becoming your parents.
"Seconded. Self serving publicity whore who does not deserve any accolade such as this, the olympics or any media attention."
You could as easily apply the principle in the other direction and say Curiosity is a "publicity whore" for trying to ride on Will.i.am's publicity. Like it or not he is very successful and well-known. So this will increase publicity for Curiosity just as it increases publicity for Will.i.am. It's a synergy, objectively speaking. This will bring both Curiosity and Science the attention of many who would otherwise be only dimly aware of it. It's a goooood thing. Just because some people here are proud of not liking his music, that shouldn't mean they are against things that raise the profile of this amazing mission.
Whacha' gonna do with all that junk? All that junk inside that trunk?
Amma gonna get to, get to Mars. Get to Mars in the Gaa-le Crater..
People who don't understand the difference between streaming the application and whether you choose to store the working files locally or elsewhere should learn more about how things work. Discuss.
"So people get used to the idea of not having the software permanently on their system, but have loads of documents, then need to make a presentation or something, only to find there is no network availability of any kind at the location."
If it's your own PC, then I'd expect you to have Office installed if you plan to use it. The point with this is if you find yourself suddenly needing it, at a meeting you don't have your PC, the battery dies or whatever, you can just grab the nearest computer regardless of whose it is, and without having to worry about installs or licence keys, just log in and use a streamed version of office under your own licence.
"A lot of company's, their paying customers, use macro's for a lot of things. From simple letterheads to complex reports with graphs. We have at least 20 that I know of, so how would this fit in our (ISO) certified workfow?"
If I could just confirm your logic here, you're basically saying we had funcitonality X, we now have functionalty X+Y, and it's a "FAIL" because the functionality is not X, + Y + Z. You would not condemn the product is the functionality were only X, but you will if it is X+Y?
And incidentally, isn't 'Z' in your argument something that you'd expect to have the local Office install anyway? I mean, if you've installed all these macros for Office, presumably you already have Office as well?
Yep - Capitalism. You never got corrupt trials under the Soviets or in modern day China or Mussolini or...
I went to see "Brave" the other night and a dedication "in memory of Steve Jobs" came up. There was actual booing in the audience!
I think you are taking a biased position on this and I think this because you are repeatedly taking the position of dismissing good things that make the community more secure with reasons that are essentially: it doesn't solve everything 100%, which suggests to me that you are trying to dismiss this rather than evaluate it. Well no, it doesn't solve everything perfectly. But it certainly helps. In one small move, you have a situation where a new key must be obtained, paid for and a fake business created for every minor variation of a piece of malware if they want to avoid triggering warnings to users. And it's a system that relies on a very minor cost to legitimate producers.
"If one iteration nets you $4000 (so 100 marks at $40 each) and you've paid $59, I'd say that's still a pretty effective business model."
Take a look at this: Malware Definitions. Notice how many pieces of malware come out in a day. Nearly all small variants and iterations on previous ones. Look down the list and see how many of these are trojan types. These are ones that require the user to install them (normally).
Why are you a priori against this when there are significant demonstrated benefits and the cost is so low. I mean, what is next, are you going to start posting about how Debian and RedHat should remove the Hash signatures for all the packages you download and install on them?
"This way, if Microsoft catches an interesting program early on. It will use (copy) the concept right away and get its lawyers involved earlier on. I smell patent heaven."
You don't seem to know how the code-signing process works or what it is. If you buy a Cert from Verisign to sign a binary blob so that it can be authenticated when someone installs it, that is not the same as you sending your ideas to MS for approval.
"The Windows monthly updated Malicious Software tool, from Windows XP (as an option) forwards, has a licence that authorises Microsoft in perpetuity to delete files on your PC that in their opinion shouldn't be there. I assume that this includes Linux, or it will at their discretion. I mean they'll delete Linux."
You are the definition of Tin Foil Hat. You're actually suggesting that MS are going to classify Linux as malicious software and set Security Essentials to delete it? Have you any aware how paranoid you sound. I run Linux on Windows all the time. Many, many people do. We haven't had any problems. What possible evidence do you have that MS would do something so massively self-destructive to themselves as you propose.
"So am I right in assuming that to get approval MS get to see all of your 'trade secrets' of your source code, quite possibly to copy (sorry, "influence") for new MS products, but you don't get to see theirs?"
No. For a start, you can use a certificate from any company you like that is recognized - e.g. VeriSign, StartCom or others. There's quite a bit of choice, just as you can buy a SSL certificate for your domain from a range of providers. Secondly, source code is not signed, compiled binary code is signed. If you think about it, signing source code would mean that you could only verify that source code and that you would then have to carry out the entire compilation process during each install.
So just to re-iterate, it's compiled code that you sign, not source code (unless you want to for some reason, but that's not what is talked about here), and it can be signed with a certificate purchased by a range of providers, not just MS.
"A nuisance yes, but considering the potential sums you can make from a good (I use that term loosely) piece of scareware, $59 a shot isn't bad."
Just to re-emphasize what I wrote, it's not $59 a shot for your malware. If you just made one version and only had to come up with a fake company or register with a fake passport once, then it's a nuisance, but not as bad. But a piece of malware goes through scores of iterations typically. Both because the writer needs to change how it works to deal with changing servers, etc. and because they're engaged in an ongoing war with those who detect and identify instances of malware. Combine that with the fact that you will need to do a separate business or fake individual for each version (unless you want to see everything taken down the moment one thing signed under that certificate is detected) and that every instance means a new payment that is a potential lead in tracking you down... It's a significant thing. It's not "$59 a shot".
"I'm sure they can, but what about the smaller and less well funded projects? What about derivative releases of a bigger project?"
Whilst I don't want to trivialise costs for anyone, a project has to become pretty small before getting your code signed becomes a relevant part of your costs. I looked up the cost with Startcom and they sell a certificate you can use to sign code for US$59. And just to be clear, you can sign as many programs and versions of programs as you like with that. Anyone releasing software that finds that significant will just have to accept the warnings, I would guess. It might be a shame, but digitally signing code is a good thing to have as an industry standard. So basically, my answer to your question about smaller and less well-funded projects, is that these will be fine too.
"but as others have said this system offers no real protection in that users will probably continue just to click 'yes'"
If signing software to be installed is the default (as it will become), then unsigned code really will stand out and will therefore more likely make users think.
"Those who release the nasties will find a way to sign their code, and the cycle of catch-up will continue."
Some will, but signatures will get revoked and revoked fast. Repeatedly. Not only that, but when a piece of malware has been signed, registered to a company, then you can quickly check all the other things that company has signed. You say "will find a way to sign their code", but if you're having to go through a whole new registration process as a new company / individual and require pay a new fee every single time Kapersky Labs or MS or whoever notice and report your latest malware, that rapidly becomes a real nuisance. Which would you rather?
" In fact, from where I'm sitting, the only one who stands to gain is MS by pushing more of the smaller devs towards the Metro store"
I think smaller Devs will already gravitate toward the Windows Store. They want the advertising, the security, the streamlined way of getting paid and handling licences and hopefully the reduced piracy. I don't think this will be a factor one way or another. I mean if you feel that Windows Store isn't the best fit for your business model, paying US$50 dollars is unlikely to tip the scales toward it, imo.
"And why can't this trafic be stopped using Windows or a third party Firewall? Firewall work in outbound as well as inbound traffic."
Of course it can be blocked. Though as you can turn this feature off, it would be simpler to merely do so. Is it actually a major concern that your PC checks software you install against an online database, though?
"If all you need to do is sign the code then the fake AV guys can afford a key. Are you saying their scam software will show up as good?"
Well firstly, if someone has to register and pay to get their malware signed, and typically you would expect a company to be doing this, then that is already a step toward catching people. Secondly, you forget that the moment it is identified as malware the key can be revoked.
"No meaningless warnings are a bad thing"
Are they meaningless? In this day and age, any commercial software should be signed. As has been pointed out below, the cost to do this is pretty low, apparently <£100. Which addresses the below comment:
"If your computer is always crying wolf, no one will notice a real wolf when it shows up."
It wont because how much software would the overwhelming majority of users be installing that wasn't signed? If you stick Adobe PDF reader or the GIMP on there, you would expect it to be signed. So the computer will very far from be "always" crying wolf. Secondly, you are arguing in favour of a system whereby no cry is raised at a real wolf, which does not seem safer to me than a system with the occasional false positive.
"It's to frighten ordinary users off open source, every time they try to install the majority of OSS apps they will get a warning. Nothing else."
I'm sure that the Mozilla Foundation or Apache can spring for £100 to have their code signed. Doesn't even have to be signed by Microsoft. Signing your code is good practice. In what way would the OS flashing up a warning that you were about to install software that couldn't be verified be innaccurate?
If you want to digitally sign your code, a signature from an authority such as VeriSign will cost around US895 dollars per year. There might be others out there that are cheaper and if you're talking about selling through the Windows Store, then you don't have to do this, MS will certify your code, but charge you a commission for selling through their store. So depends on what business model you want to use. It's not complicated at any rate - anyone capable of the complexity of writing a saleable program will manage the code signing process. US$895 is a lot of an amateur to pay just so that people don't get warnings, it's a minor cost for even a small company though. Depends what situation you are in and how worth it is to get rid of that warning. But the warnings are a good thing. People should think about what they're doing when they install software.
"This effectively means that only Microsoft approved applications and applications from large companies can install without a warning message."
Definitely doesn't require a "large" company. Is an issue for the lone programmer working in their own time on small projects, but these might typically be able to live with their small userbase having to click a warning message. Note, once you are able to sign the code, you can sign new versions, etc. Your post suggests that this is a long process but it isn't an issue.
"So what happens if you install something while you are offline?"
You get a message telling you that your system is unable to verity the program with Microsoft and that they can't therefore tell you if the program is safe or not, and asks you whether you want to actually proceed or not. It's similar to the message you get if the program you are installing isn't known to Microsoft, with the exception that it explains the failure is due to being offline so that you can go online if you choose and check it.
This is one of the best articles on the Register I have ever read. Well written, supported and tragically relevant. I would love to see it taken up and reported on by more mainstream media. It's painfully insightful and I hope the people at Lego are made aware of it and read many of the intelligent comments here as well.
Thank you for writing this.
"if you want to spend your life coming up with fanciful reasons as to why we didn't go to moon, or how little grey men did crash at Roswell,"
1. Massive conspiracy involving huge numbers of people, decoy rockets and the ability to fake radio transmissions from numerous points around the Earth.
2. Cover up of crashed alien spaceship in America and recovery of little bipedal alien pilots.
3. US government willing to set up someone who has massively embarrassed them.
One of these is not like the others.
I'm not saying he is or isn't innocent of the charges in Sweden, but lets avoid classing the idea that the US government might lie with Space aliens and mocked up moon landings. If you really think they are the same, then I have some very sad things to tell you about US history.
First person on the moon. Showed us what we could achieve as a species when we put our minds to it. No greater achievement than to make us realize our potential. Thank you, Neil.
"But, grudges are grudges, and when apple victory strokes its way to burning Chinese competitors, it WILL learn that vengeance meted out by Chinese can be complicated, sophisticated, painful, and probably best left unstirred."
Samsung are Korean.
"Get some girlfriends and be quiet for once."
Downvote for presuming none of us might be hetero females commenting here.
"go, ggroupies go, let's hear your whining :)"
You're a short-sited idiot if you think this isn't bad for all of us who want a healthy, competitive market with a variety of products to choose from. Even in Europe where this ruling doesn't take effect, it means that Samsung may not (probably will not) make the products that they otherwise would for any of us.
"One of the reports from Best Buy showed many of the returns for Samsung's tablet were from people who had thought they bought an iPad."
We cannot build our legal system or society based around the most stupid members of it. At some point, blame for something has to lie with a person's stupidity rather than with a company for not being able to do their thinking for them.
"They _can_, but will they actually do so in the face of MS throwing money and advertising at Nokia and expecting the others to pay MS for the privilege ?"
Yes. HTC have licenced Windows Phone 8 and should be releasing a couple of WP8 devices in October or November (release date not confirmed). Other manufacturers will be releasing them also, I have no doubt of it.
I prefer to assume that the person I am talking with is a reasonable and intelligent person.
".......don't call us, we'll call you."
On a WP8 device.
(or would that just be mean) ;)
I have the Lumia 710. I don't feel particularly bothered by the lack of upgrade. I bought my device SIM-free for £160 and it will still do all the same things after Win8 is released as it does now. The loudest people on how unfair it is not to have an upgrade on these forums have typically been those who are anti-MS in the first place.
I don't need anyone to be angry on my behalf, thanks. I grew up in a time when phones weren't upgradeable and I don't see it as some human right that after having bought it, someone should come along for free and magically grant it the hardware it needs to run a newer OS that was released long after it was designed. I get security updates, etc. Sure, it's nice with other phones if you can install a future OS on it (and that this doesn't cause your legacy hardware to run like a dog, which often seems to be the case), but I knew what I was buying and I still like it.
Other companies than Nokia are producing Windows Phone 8 devices. There's probably going to be quite a range of hardware to choose from.
Why would you celebrate the end of a company (which you've hardly shown will happen)? Competition is good. If you (I am presuming) have an iPhone or Android device, then the better Windows Phone devices are the happier you should be as it provides stimulus for the companies that make your device to keep pushing forward.
I don't know much about the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation, but Microsoft on the whole gave more money to the Obama's campaign than they did to John McCains (it was about 75% donations to Obama, from memory).
Left and Right are not particularly useful definitions since the US two party-system has polarized all sorts of thing as belonging to Left or Right on an entierly arbitrary basis. Anti-abortion apparently that's lumped in with believing in low taxes for some reason? Compulsory medical insurance? Left wing thing apparently (despite forcing people to pay for private health care via insurance seeming pretty non-socialist to me). They just become two camps that grow increasingly logically inconsistent.
But what's really interesting with "Left" and "Right" is how little they match up to many people's perceptions. Biggest political donations in the Obama vs. John McCain presidential fight? Goldman Sachs donated 75% to Obama and 25% of their donations to McCain. Microsoft donated 70% of their contributions to the Democrats. Time-Warner: another big Dem. backer. Ask most Left wing people and they'll insist that the Right is the corrupt big business end of the scale, better funded, and that the Left are the underdogs. But Obama got and spent around double what his rival did in the presidential campaign. I'm not ranting about the Left here, political contributions need reigning in massively all around. But the image most people have of the "Left" is seriously at odds with the reality.
I even saw someone on these forums rant about fascists as a right-wing idealogy. Uh, Mussolini - pretty much responsible for the modern term, was a socialist. The NAZIs were the National Socialism party and when they gained power, economically turned into a kind of state managed industrialism (hardly capitalist). But somehow some people want to cast these things as tendencies of "The Right".
The Tea Party - considered very Right-wing - were pretty much all against foreign wars whilst the Democrats were voting to fund them. Reality vs. Popular Depiction clashing once again.
They're not useful terms. They were back in the days of Pitt the Younger, but modern American politics has turned them as much into camps of allegiance, as based on consistent ideology. And hypocrisy is rampant.
"Probably not. But some people sleep better at night, because they did all they could."
Some people sleep better at night because their mattress is cushioned by millions of dollar bills.
Addressed the problem how, exactly? I can realize in advance that someone might shoot me, but I can't just decide to be immune to bullets.
"than the pub for men, or shopping trips for women"
I don't think it is a freedom of speech issue. I think it's a harrasment issue. The two don't have to go together. If there were a website rating guys and you're name appeared at the top saying: "dick like a worn out pencil - you'd have to be desperate"... Would that negatively impact your life? There will of course be people here who post: "No, because (insert reason)", but they don't speak for everyone. Particularly think how you would feel if you were a thirteen year old boy being mocked by the world.
It's not about freedom of speech, but it's still malicious and harmful.
...but it's better. Free Sofware (not quite identical to Open Source, incidentally), has positive beneficial effects even if we don't quite reach utopia. For one, it allows an escape route. Witness MySQL - when there were irreconcilable differences, developers forked it. Like a Hydra with a head cut off, two rise in its place. Fragmentation can be bad, but as an alternative to a company buying something out to kill it, for example, or a tyranical lead developer countenencing no breaking away from their vision, it is a positive result.
Secondly, whilst a company can take GPL'd code in house and keep their refinements to themselves, if they want to sell or work with others, they have to give back. (Yes, you can tip-toe around the edges with binary blobs and other fudging, but often this isn't feasible). So the GPL forces the production of a kind of coding Commons. Which is a good thing.
Thirdly, it reduces the barrier to entry. If you have to write a web-server from scratch to underly your product, or you have to licence one from a company that would be your natural rival, then as a small player you may just give up and go home. But if you could, say, just create it as an Apache module, maybe you can get into the market. And competition is good.
Yes, sometimes GPL has a downside for the self-interested. Maybe that Apache module has to be Open Source and others would try selling support for the module in competition with you (though you would have the edge). But it's optional - you can choose to participate in the Commons reaping the benefits as well as paying the costs, or you can go your own way and do everything from scratch. Point is, without GPL, there is only the latter and lack of choice is bad.
Finally, it lowers the barrier to entry for all those individuals which are the future of programming. They can grab Python or PHP or the GCC compiler, and get stuck in. Can you imagine a world where all programming language implementations were proprietary? It wouldn't be a complete disaster because companies would compete with each other with free versions because they wanted people to learn theirs, but it would certainly be worse than it is.
Could the Free Software world be better and are there abuses? Yes. Is it still a great positive force in the world of IT? Yes. I got into Open Source over a decade ago and I am not disillusioned yet.
Running an x86 OS on an ARM platform...?
The computer says 'No.'
"you can always buy a Wacom tablet that also supports multitouch gestures"
Can you recommend one? I might be interested in this. I normally spend most of my time on the keyboard (shortcuts for everything), but it's good to try new things.
"Is there any way you know of making it not take-over the entire screen with new metro[whatever...] app? ie if I wanted to look at a webpage and my email in the same screen?"
Not with the Metro apps other than the 2/3rds and 1/3rd snapping of Metro apps.That would let you,e.g. look at a webpage whilst you had your email in a sidebar. It's okay for some things, like I've had the Financial app on 1/3rd of the screen (the left-most monitor) and had Desktop (which is technically a Metro app in its way) filling up the remaining 2/3rds of the left monitor and all of the right. That way the Metro app functions as a kind of live side bar showing emails, Social Networking feeds or whatever you want whilst not actually taking over the whole screen. It's handy sometimes, but not a fits-all solution. Normally, when I want to multi-task, I just use the Desktop programs and not Metro-apps which I see as more useful for tablets and RT users than if I'm using a Desktop with two monitors. After all, if I have Thunderbird or Outlook running on the Desktop, there's no big reason to use the Metro mail app. (Though as a side-bar, it does the job of letting me work whilst just ticking along on the edge of my vision).
"Or what about having settings open in one monitor and trying to open a webpage/email/whatever in the other monitor - does the dev release still hide the settings screen just to open the other?"
If I'm reading you right, then Settings (as in the side-bar) will close when you start doing something else, but the reverse isn't true. So if you were copying VPN settings from an email or something, that wouldn't be hidden just because you brought up the settings in a side-bar. Not sure if I got your meaning, but that might answer the question. You can still use Control Panel in its own window on Desktop if you want also.
"Oh yeah - and having internet explorer open differently to the metro internet explorer - is just plain weird!?"
Yeah - that's fucked up. I actually prefer the Metro version normally because you get more screen estate. But I switch back to the Desktop one when I want to work with my bookmarks, copy from Browser to emails, etc. That needs work.
"Some stuff seems hardwired into the system. Well, that is; maybe you can configure it but I haven't found that yet. So; insert an audio CD and the Metro cd player will pop up."
Right click on the file, pick "Open With-> Choose default program."
Low values of 'hardwired,' then? ;)
They remove all the disturbing new stuff and let you sit there pretending everything is as it always was.But you'll feel pretty silly when all those around you are able to manage Win8 perfectly well without additional tools.
"But the Start menu is better," you'll say.
"Why?" will come the reply straight back.
"Well, hierarchical menu lets me access more programs than I can fit on the Start Screen"
"I can comfortably fit twenty programs on the main screen on my laptop. Fifty on my Desktop monitory! How many programs do you regularly use, gramps" they will ask incredulously?
You'll count the programs you use regularly. It will come to about twenty if you're a power user.
"Well, it's quicker" you'll say in irritation.
At this point, the yoof will tap the Windows key and type 'wo' bringing up Word.
"That's not what I'm talking about!" you'll say angrily. "I can do the same thing in Windows 7"
"Well, if it's the same in both, then it's not a disadvantage, is it?" will say the increasingly irritating yob who probably has an asbo, you're sure of it.
"Yes, but maybe I want to use the mouse. Have you thought about that? There's no Start button in Windows 8"
"Well, it still works the same," says the brat as he moves the mouse pointer to the lower left and clicks.
"But without a button, how would you know how to do that? Huh? Huh? Explain to me that!"
"Well I just remember," says the yoof. "If you can remember where something is in the hierarchical Start menu, it's got to be even easier to just remember which of four corners does what, right?"
"That's not the point," you snap, wondering if you can catch offguard with your stick.
"Well, you'll like this," says the yoof trying to be helpful, "you know how when you have multiple monitors you have to move your mouse all the way to one end in order to click on the Start button? Well in Win 8 the corners are active on every screen and it also has this nice little mouse capture so that you don't overshoot onto the other screen like you might if you had the Win7 Start Button there. Isn't that nice?"
"No! No it isn't! WHERE ARE MY WERTHERS ORIGINALS!"
"And the Start Screen!" you continue. "It takes up the whole page!"
"So? Did you ever keep staring at the Desktop whilst you navigated the Start menu in Win7?"
"And what if I want to change a setting? Eh? Eh?!?!"
"Bottom right. Or Win+C if you don't want to leave the keyboard"
"But that's only got the commonly used settings that I would typically need! What if I want to do something obscure like manage hardware once every couple of months?"
"Windows key and type 'co'. Bang - control panel!"
"But it doesn't give me anything extra! I don't need it! Steve Ballmer is forcing it down our throats! Why don't you hate what I hate you stupid kid!"
"Nothing extra apart from many common tasks requiring less clicks or keypresses...?" The yoof screws up his face in puzzlement. "Well," he says after a moment, "there's this..." At which point he pulls the screen from the keyboard, and happily does everything he did before again, but this time without a keyboard.
"NURSE!" you cry. "Bring me my XP discs. Hurry! The youth of today! They don't hate Microsoft anymore! What's wrong with them???"
Thanks. That lead into the article could do with some clean-up if that's what they meant.
Also - gah: more Amy Pond. Liked her at first, but she got really boring about half way through her first season for me. She was great in The Girl Who Waited, though. One of the few good episodes of Season Six, imo.
I am confused if Amy is going to exit in this episode. Whilst it seems possible, the trailer for the series shows her in several other episodes - one with dinosaurs and one (seemingly) set in the Wild West. It seems doubtful that either or both of these are the Asylum of the Daleks episode this one (apparently) is. So either she carries on after her exit or we're being misinformed about her leaving in this episode.
Perhaps a sensible approach is only to give up the names if there is a sincere intent to challenge what is said as libel. That means if Anonymous Person says: "The CEO is a thief who steals from the pension fund", then you only pursue getting the names if you actually want to examine the allegation in court. Thus you don't ask the courts to unmask someone just so you can find out who says it, they only get unmasked as part of the full littigation process. Isn't that was is happening here anyway?
Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you. Strike Soon your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
"That's not what the release candidate currently shows us."
There are three different modes in Server 2012. There's the "Server Core" mode which lacks the full GUI, there's a full GUI version and there's a completely stripped down mode which you manage with Server Manager and use Microsoft Management Console plug-ins. This last one runs on a normal Desktop and lets you manage lots of GUI-less servers from it. MS have said that Server Core is the preferred mode. Your preview is the one with the GUI apparently, but it is definitely not the recommended approach. Possibly you even selected to have a GUI when installing it?
At any rate, it would have been very easy for you to fact check this before suggesting that the AC above is wrong (they aren't). There's an article that covers the GUI-less aspects of Server 2012 here.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2018