Yesterday Microsoft released the Microsoft Standard User Analyzer, a tool designed to evaluate whether a given piece of software is able to run properly without administrative access. The awesome part of this is that it's put right out there as an integrated analysis, and not just a list of requirements or anything. This means that it can easily be included as a requirement in purchase policies (a department wishing to purchase software can fully test it where IT may not understand all features) and external RFPs ("must have no problems running as a standard user as evaluated by Microsoft Standard User Analyzer v1.0"). If all software can be pulled under the requirement, it'd be much harder to justify giving out admin access for people who shouldn't be installing software but need it to run some program. That means fewer computers to fix because junk was installed. It should be interesting to see how fast this is adopted. Hopefully it'll be seen by software companies as a required feature to list SUA compliance quickly.
While trying to get into the theater for M:I3 last night, there were lots of lines and stuff. I was surprised since I didn't remember anything interesting coming out. Turns out it was The Da Vinci Code, so I think I was still mostly right. Today I watched last night's Ebert & Roeper, and they had some interesting things to say about it. For the movie it's apparently a decent Thriller, and it's told better than the book. The story isn't any more believable than the book though, and isn't presented like it should be. You can read all of Ebert's review if you want. This whole thing sorta seems like Dogma round 2. Anyways, the quotes:
"It seems as if half the world is embroiled in a controversy over The Da Vinci Code, but I really can't imagine that it will offend the beliefs or shake the faith of anyone who's a true Christian." - Richard Roeper
"This is a complete fantasy. The people who take this stuff seriously, should really — they should devote their time to something more realistic like flying saucers." - Roger Ebert
I went to see Mission: Impossible III with some friends, and overall it was a good movie. Could have done without the kids behind us talking though. Anyways, it was good enough to keep me entertained throughout the movie. Not to say it's at all believable or anything (it's an action movie - you're not supposed to think), but it is entertaining. It was definitely Abrams style, although those who have only seen Lost probably wouldn't know it. The whole bomb in the head thing being in both Alias this spring and this movie seemed a bit overplayed. Effects were good, and it didn't seem completely dependent on them. It'll be interesting to watch again on DVD.
Then there's the apparently new watermarking, which served its purpose of distracting me during the action scenes well. I haven't seen anything in a theater for a few months, so this has maybe been around a while. I hadn't heard of any changes to film prints though, just all the proposed digital projection ideas. Anyways, I'm used to seeing the red or yellow dots that are rather big. On this I noticed an interesting pattern of black dots. The pattern was a similar size, but the dots were smaller, taller than wide, and more of them. Not enough to be a barcode or anything, maybe an extra column. There may have been a background of some sort, but it's only up for a short time and I was trying to ignore it and watch the movie, so I'm not sure. It seemed to be in more positions on the screen, and designed to fit around the content rather than overlay (maybe in an attempt to make it less noticeable?). So far a bit of searching hasn't turned up anything on it. Has anyone else seen this or have any links to info about it?
Jesper Johansson posted the entry Windows Firewall: the best new security feature in Vista? He explains in detail why host-based outbound firewalls are worthless for what people expect them to do (stop/slow malware) as admin access means it can just be bypassed anyways, and actually create more problems by desensitizing people to security dialogs. Anyone who still thinks they're a good idea for the average user's computer should read it. A couple good quotes:
"Putting protective measures on a compromised asset and asking it not to compromise any other assets simply does not work."
"A plethora of dialogs, particularly ones devoid of any information that helps an ordinary mortal make a security decision, are simply another fast clicking exercise. We need to reduce the number of meaningless dialogs, not increase them, and outbound filtering firewalls do not particularly help there."
The naked dancing pigs analogy is way too accurate too. The people who would benefit the most from it are the most likely to click to get around it.
He does somewhat explain where they help (in a general sense on limited non-admin accounts). Apparently it's being added in Vista because they're implementing sub-user SIDs so even two services running under the same user won't have access to the the data or resources of the other. Assuming they don't have admin access either, one could be limited from using the network.
Judge Harry T. Edwards called the FCC's arguments "gobbledygook". I'm slightly disappointed he didn't say "jibber-jabber" though. This is stuff I expect to see on Boston Legal, now we're seeing it in our real justice system.
The odd part is that it seemed to really thing it should stay that way. And it's not like it just had parts of the old map. The old app's items aren't necessarily in the original locations either.
So apparently someone reprogrammed signs on Toronto's transit system to display undesirable messages about the prime minister. Sorta humorous that someone figured out how to do that, since it was so over the top it's unlikely it changed anyones opinions. At least until I got to the part where it's offline "until password-protected technology is installed to protect them from computer hackers." So they implemented an electronic advertising system across the transit system, apparently networked since it's unlikely the perpetrators visited every sign, and didn't even use passwords?
I seem to remember someone doing something like this on the DMS system here a while back, but I don't think it stayed up very long. I can't find any info on it though - anyone remember anything about it?
This isn't the first time I've seen this vehicle park there, but this time I figured I'd take a picture. Last I heard MN Statute 169.34 hadn't been repealed...
Reuters explains a Microsoft European antitrust trial concept by using a Chinese restaurant menu analogy. Interesting way to get non-tech people to understand it.
Copyright ©2000-2008 Jeremy Mooney (jeremy-at-qux-dot-net)
