Apple Insider said:
Back, and to the left... back, and to the left...
Ladies and gentlemen, that must have been one magic Apple store!"
Discussions
-
-
Easy there, Morpheus! If you blow our minds too soon, how will we be able to swallow the right pill?Bass said:
Sure, for who knows it might be because Lenevo sold a total of two laptops, one to Bill Gates himself (the world's #1 Linux fan) and one to a poor sod who got it confused with a Windows machine. They couldn't justify the total of $3 billion dollars and thousands of man hours they spent on figuring out how to get wifi working on their laptops (actually that's a whole other story in itself!), and the $1 billion dollar license fee they had to pay to Richard Stallman (he also threw in the Brooklyn Bridge for only $5 million). That * didn't even buy one because it came with a properitary BIOS.Bas said:*snip*
But really, I am sure Bill Gates is personally devastated by this. He can't buy Lenovo Linux laptops for his buddies for Christmas like he planned to. Poor fella.
In other news, hell has frozen over, pigs can fly, and Dvorak has finally grown a brain cell. What a day, what a day.
What about me, will you say? I love the World, and all it's shiny things. Boom-de-yada, boom-de-yada. Before you think there is a point to any of this, there isn't. Points are for pencils. The truth is scary. The truth doesn't have a point. In fact the whole idea of truth is sort of like a big brick. It's very blunt. It's like a brick in the face. Realizing the truth is like sitting there and lingering in the pain of the strike. And that is why ignorance is bliss.
-
It had a great run, but the format wasn't adjusted to keep up with the times. By the time shows actually aired, poor Erica's news segment was already old news, and the distraction segments in the middle were mostly Xbox commercials towards the end. The tech sessions and interviews were good, but it would have been better if they'd been chopped up into separate files. I was surprised they didn't try to merge into Channel9 (even if only as a publishing channel, like Behind the Code), but like you said, it would be a natural move at this point (unless they're ready to try something else of course).jonm wrote:I was disappointed to learn that The .NET Show (formerly the MSDN Show) will no longer be made. The strange thing is that the show only got posted a few days ago (as far as I can tell) but the show and content were apparently recorded back in April. I noticed this nasty lag between the date recorded and the date posted in the last couple of years. I guess webcasts/podcasts like Channel9, Channel10, DotNetRocks, RunAsRadio, and SQLDownUnder sort of made the .NET Show redundant. Oh well, with a little luck maybe will we see Robert and Erica on Channel9! Thanks again guys for a great job you will be missed.
EDIT: After reading their last blog post, it sounds like at least one of them might show up on C9. -
That's a great book. Another one I've read it Natural Capitalism, which goes into a bit more detail on the various improvements that can be made in each sector. My only criticism is that a large part of their solution is emphasising leasing products rather than buying them to encourage companies to reuse materials. I'm not sure how I'd feel about a carpet with a EULA.Dr Herbie wrote:EDIT: If you want another interesting book, try Cradle to Cradle. An interesting take on environmentalism that is often non-intuitive (the book is printed on a paper-like plastic which they argue is more environmentally friendly than recycled paper).
EDIT: Also, I accidentaly hit the flag as spam button on Herbie's post when I meant to hit reply. Sorry Charles! Still groggy.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuNl8NgJ8q8blowdart wrote:
PaoloM wrote:
On behalf of all the residents of the US, I apologize for these antics.
Now apologise for Friends, Britney and sending us Madonna who now thinks she's upper class English.
And spell colour correctly.
Thank you.
On small step in reparations...
-
I'm not sure I like the idea of (blinking!) ads running while I'm trying to write a document. This could easily become the Son of Clippy:
"Hello. It's looks like you're writing an apology. Would you like to order flowers?" [6] -
++mVPstar wrote:The fact that it's called .NET.
It's such an awkward name. Ending a sentence with ".NET" (e.g., ".NET.") just looks weird.
-
I'm not sure what you're talking about. When a webpage tries to display both secure and non-secure content, I get a pop-up saying yes/no/more info. When the certificate doesn't match the server, IE7 displays an error page that I think communicates that the site may be dangerous without burderning users with terminology.DylanJ wrote:The dialog that appears saying yes no always , as regards the acceptance of the suspicious SSL cert is , i guess the security boudary .. one the user accepts they pass that boundary and are possibly compromised . what im saying is that it is this fact that is the problem ... users shouldnt be bothered with this sort of thing .. they are not , in general experienced enough ..
EDIT: Grammar, and here's a screenshot:
-
While I'm sure older versions did have weaknesses, it sounds like you're making a mountain out of a mole hill. SSL 1.0 was developed by Netscape, but never released. The first public version, SSL 2.0, was released in 1994, which was found to have substantial security flaws. In response, SSL 3.0 was developed and released in 1996 (over a decade ago). The IETF used this as the basis for TLS 1.0, which is similar but not compatible. TLS 1.1 and 1.2 (the later of which, AFIK, hasn't yet been ratified) are both relatively minor updates, though there are some security enhancements.RoyalSchrubber wrote:Well the fact that we've seen at least 6 versions (SSL 1, 2, 3; TSL 1.0, 1.1, 1.2) tells a lot. Also I've heard that only more recent incarnations use stronger cryptographic agorithms (AES).
In short, one major update (2.0 to 3.0) in 13 years of availability. That doesn't strike me as a broken technology.
Links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transport_Layer_Security...
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4346#page-5
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tls-rfc4346-bis-04.txt -
I don't think that's necessarily the direction we're looking at. The difference between keeping a history of file changes and a full blown change management system is that the former deals with the history of each file individually while the latter deals with the history of a collection of files. It shouldn't be too difficult to have a system in which you could delete all versions of a file.ScanIAm wrote:Likely, however, you won't be able to truly delete it.
Take everyone's poster-child for perfection in Source control, Subversion. The only way you can actually, truly, delete something from the repository is to delete the entire repository.
You can make it appear like the data is gone, but the act of saving everything for a 'just in case' or 'oops' situation, means that you can never, ever, ever get rid of that data.
