Until you start using IE, it doesn't create a vulnerability.
It's not just IE the browser, but any app that uses the IE DLLs to provide functionality that is at risk.
But I consider that a bug of IE rather than a bug in the OS, even if the OS is dependent on it.
That's just semantics. Any way you cut it, you have an unsecure app (and potentially many) on your machine, and you can't get rid of it. Not to mention that certain MS applications will invoke IE even if you've set up another browser as your default.
Ok, if you tell me how to install W2K without IE, I would even accept this argument.
Even if it is possible to remove it somehow, Microsoft considers it to be an integral part of the "base OS." They even testified to that effect under oath during the anti-trust trial.
What would be fair is to actually do a real study rather than simply add up the number of exploits, neglecting to note how many are remote, and how many are local, among other deficiencies. Then there is the issue of them not including the equivalent MS apps in the totals. The linux distros ship with databases, web servers, etc. Microsoft's equivalent applications were not included in the MS totals. The SecurityFocus article was just some mildly interesting numbers pulled from their database. The WinInformant article was just wildly unscientific, self-serving bullshit that used SecurityFocus as a reference to give it an air of respectability.
Yes, but roll the dice for a long enough period of time, and you will eventually roll snakeyes. The probability is the same for each roll, but you gotta figure in the time factor.
We've already had several close calls with asteroids, and those are just the ones we know about. I probably won't be very long before a really big one is right on target.
and possibly a safety threat if they think that the "vacuum" outside of the ISS is also fake.
That's easy enough to deal with. As soon as you get into orbit, put the guy outside the shuttle and tell him to take his helmet off if he doesn't believe that space is a vacuum. He'll either change his mind, or he'll be space debris. Either way he's not gonna cause any damage.
TrustE sold out quite a while back. This is no surprise at all. Their policies and assurances are innefective at best, and that's if you give them every possible benefit of the doubt. I don't see any reason why anyone should care in the slightest whether a site is TrustE certified. It's a meaningless label.
Recordable for the moment. Until adoption of technologies simliar to these gets to the point where the media corps decide to pull the plug on recording unless you pay extra fees and whatnot.
Well, if you're gonna slap 'em upside the head with an obvious forgery, what's the point of the site? They should make them at least competent. Those are the kinds of sites that you really need to watch out for.
Enron was too far gone for them to do much of anything. Except possibly keep quiet about the whole thing while the execs bailed out and the employees got shafted.
Outlook Express is the problem, not what this guy is doing. He's just highlighting the problem for OE users. If Outlook Express can't read a standards compliant message, who's fault is that?
Is Outlook Express doing something to the emails that is not covered under whatever spec governs email formatting? Shouldn't it be able to read what he sends? He says that he sometimes gets messages from OE users that are unreadable. Is that because they don't comply with standards, or is it some other reason?
I came to a similar conclusion, which is why I gave up beta testing the game. The idea simply isn't going to make a fun game. It seems to be designed to constantly suck money out of your pockets if you want to have any fun with it. Especially if you aren't willing to dedicate the vast majority of your spare (and perhaps not so spare) time to the game.
Ok, so it's not secure and not necessarily high bandwidth. So what is it good for? What will the latency be like? As bad as satellite broadband service? Is it just gonna end up being a metro-GPS service?
Corporations are considered INDIVIDUALS under the law
You might want to get a bit beyond high school before you start making such claims. In actuality, the courts are divided on the issue. The 3rd and 4th circuits hold that a corporation is an individual. The 2nd and 9th circuits hold that they are not individuals. It's hardly a completely settled issue. In the end I doubt that corporations will be considered individuals for every given situation. There will most likely be compromises and regulations.
I think it's quite clear now that corporations should implement strict data destruction policies. I think it's also quite clear that we need to have strict regulations in place regarding what sorts of data must be retained and for what length of time so that corporations like Enron cannot destroy the evidence of their crimes without facing dire consequences. I sincerely hope that the accounting industry in particular gets reformed and a non-accounting industry oversight group is appointed. If there's any justice in this world, those Enron execs and their Arthur Anderson accomplices will all be strung up for what they did. They should NOT be allowed to get away with their horde of cash while regular Enron employees get the shaft.
That's just moronic. They either had REALLY shitty lawyers, or a REALLY shitty judge, in which case they should have won on appeal. If they didn't, then it must be due to shitty lawyers. That really has little to do with retaining documentation and a lot to do with lawyers who apparently don't know how to mount a defense or cite precedence.
The Constitution guarantees an individual's right to privacy. It makes no such guarantees regarding corporations, nor should it. I sincerely hope that we see increased scrutiny and regulation of the accounting industry after this mess is over. What Enron execs did was so incredibly wrong that it should not be allowed to go unpunished, and it certainly shouldn't be allowed to happen again.
As a programmer and IT professional, I have been following the anti-trust case against Microsoft quite closely. It is hard to believe, after all the evidence presented during the trial, that the currently proposed settlement is even being considered. I think Microsoft demonstrated very well after the last anti-trust suit against them that they will not abide by the spirit of an agreement, but only by the letter (and even that is arguable). Microsoft reduced the previous consent decree to a meaningless and inneffective piece of paper simply by changing their contracts with OEMs slightly. It had no significant effect whatsoever on their business practices. With that in mind, I believe that any settlement with Microsoft must be made air-tight. I like the idea of a committee to oversee Microsoft to ensure compliance with the eventual terms set either by a settlement, or by the court. I simply can't see any reason why Microsoft should be allowed to select any of the people that will make up the committee, though. Microsoft is utterly unrepentent and quite ruthless. It would be folly to give them any opportunity to set the committee up for failure.
As for the terms of the proposed settlement, I believe that they will not adequately address the situation in a manner that will allow competition and innovation to thrive in the industry. Specifically, there are 2 areas that concern me the most:
1) Microsoft's APIs, file formats, and protocols.
The complete documentation for these must be made public. Any future changes must also be made public in a timely manner. This should allow other companies to produce products that can compete with Microsoft's products by removing a major barrier to entry, namely that no company can afford to convert all of its existing documents into a new format in order to take advantage of a non-Microsoft office suite or other applications. Currently anyone using Microsoft products is effectively "locked in" to those products because they cannot be easily converted to another format. While some programs exist that can read and write documents in Microsoft's formats, they are not entirely compatible and often fail on complex documents due to a lack of complete documentation available from Microsoft. Network effects are a particularly difficult barrier for companies seeking to enter a market dominated by another. Anything that can be done to reduce this barrier can only help to create more opportunity in the market.
Microsoft has apparently inserted a clause in the current proposed settlement that would allow them to refuse to publish a format, protocol, or API if it would be a security risk. Since virtually all of Microsoft's formats, protocols, and APIs have some security component to them, I'm afraid they will use this clause to effectively nullify that portion of the settlement. Security features should work regardless of whether their mechanism is known or not. If this clause remains in the settlement, it should be modified to give the decision-making power to the oversight committee or to the court, and such decisions should be expedited so that Microsoft cannot introduce further delays to the application of remedies in this case.
2) Microsoft's business practices.
Microsoft must not be allowed to enter into deals with OEMs, ISPs, or other businesses that would create disincentives or prohibit those companies from offering non-Microsoft products or services to their customers. Since the vast majority of the desktop computing world currently uses Microsoft products, OEMs, ISPs, and others must be able to offer those products to consumers. To allow Microsoft to continue to take advantage of that situation by prohibiting those companies from offering alternatives, either by outright prohibition, or by economic disincentive, is to allow Microsoft to continue to hold the industry hostage.
If these concerns are addressed by the eventual settlement or court ruling, they should remove most of Microsoft's ability to abuse it's monopoly power to the detriment of the industry. I feel that a healthy IT industry should consist of competing products from a variety of companies, all able to interoperate with each other, with no single company able to leverage it's dominance in one area to bolster it's position in another.
Slashdot Mirror
Programming C#
Programming C#
Until you start using IE, it doesn't create a vulnerability.
It's not just IE the browser, but any app that uses the IE DLLs to provide functionality that is at risk.
But I consider that a bug of IE rather than a bug in the OS, even if the OS is dependent on it.
That's just semantics. Any way you cut it, you have an unsecure app (and potentially many) on your machine, and you can't get rid of it. Not to mention that certain MS applications will invoke IE even if you've set up another browser as your default.
Ok, if you tell me how to install W2K without IE, I would even accept this argument.
Even if it is possible to remove it somehow, Microsoft considers it to be an integral part of the "base OS." They even testified to that effect under oath during the anti-trust trial.
What would be fair is to actually do a real study rather than simply add up the number of exploits, neglecting to note how many are remote, and how many are local, among other deficiencies. Then there is the issue of them not including the equivalent MS apps in the totals. The linux distros ship with databases, web servers, etc. Microsoft's equivalent applications were not included in the MS totals. The SecurityFocus article was just some mildly interesting numbers pulled from their database. The WinInformant article was just wildly unscientific, self-serving bullshit that used SecurityFocus as a reference to give it an air of respectability.
It was the ability to watch pr0n at home that sold VCRs to Joe Sixpack too. Pr0n drives innovation in consumer video electronics.
Yes, but roll the dice for a long enough period of time, and you will eventually roll snakeyes. The probability is the same for each roll, but you gotta figure in the time factor.
We've already had several close calls with asteroids, and those are just the ones we know about. I probably won't be very long before a really big one is right on target.
If all we needed was a "hanging" beanstalk, however, why attach it to the Earth at all? Just let it blow around in the wind.
Probably because you'd want it to be stable when you're sending up 20 tons worth of space gizmos.
and possibly a safety threat if they think that the "vacuum" outside of the ISS is also fake.
That's easy enough to deal with. As soon as you get into orbit, put the guy outside the shuttle and tell him to take his helmet off if he doesn't believe that space is a vacuum. He'll either change his mind, or he'll be space debris. Either way he's not gonna cause any damage.
I never return the things anyway. Netscape asks me if I want to return them. I always say no. Wonder if Mozilla has a way to default it to no.
TrustE sold out quite a while back. This is no surprise at all. Their policies and assurances are innefective at best, and that's if you give them every possible benefit of the doubt. I don't see any reason why anyone should care in the slightest whether a site is TrustE certified. It's a meaningless label.
Recordable for the moment. Until adoption of technologies simliar to these gets to the point where the media corps decide to pull the plug on recording unless you pay extra fees and whatnot.
Well, if you're gonna slap 'em upside the head with an obvious forgery, what's the point of the site? They should make them at least competent. Those are the kinds of sites that you really need to watch out for.
Enron was too far gone for them to do much of anything. Except possibly keep quiet about the whole thing while the execs bailed out and the employees got shafted.
Outlook Express is the problem, not what this guy is doing. He's just highlighting the problem for OE users. If Outlook Express can't read a standards compliant message, who's fault is that?
Is Outlook Express doing something to the emails that is not covered under whatever spec governs email formatting? Shouldn't it be able to read what he sends? He says that he sometimes gets messages from OE users that are unreadable. Is that because they don't comply with standards, or is it some other reason?
Heh. The game will crash and burn. Most likely the end will involve lawsuits too. The whole idea behind the game seems half-baked.
I came to a similar conclusion, which is why I gave up beta testing the game. The idea simply isn't going to make a fun game. It seems to be designed to constantly suck money out of your pockets if you want to have any fun with it. Especially if you aren't willing to dedicate the vast majority of your spare (and perhaps not so spare) time to the game.
Ok, so it's not secure and not necessarily high bandwidth. So what is it good for? What will the latency be like? As bad as satellite broadband service? Is it just gonna end up being a metro-GPS service?
Corporations are considered INDIVIDUALS under the law
You might want to get a bit beyond high school before you start making such claims. In actuality, the courts are divided on the issue. The 3rd and 4th circuits hold that a corporation is an individual. The 2nd and 9th circuits hold that they are not individuals. It's hardly a completely settled issue. In the end I doubt that corporations will be considered individuals for every given situation. There will most likely be compromises and regulations.
I think it's quite clear now that corporations should implement strict data destruction policies. I think it's also quite clear that we need to have strict regulations in place regarding what sorts of data must be retained and for what length of time so that corporations like Enron cannot destroy the evidence of their crimes without facing dire consequences. I sincerely hope that the accounting industry in particular gets reformed and a non-accounting industry oversight group is appointed. If there's any justice in this world, those Enron execs and their Arthur Anderson accomplices will all be strung up for what they did. They should NOT be allowed to get away with their horde of cash while regular Enron employees get the shaft.
That's just moronic. They either had REALLY shitty lawyers, or a REALLY shitty judge, in which case they should have won on appeal. If they didn't, then it must be due to shitty lawyers. That really has little to do with retaining documentation and a lot to do with lawyers who apparently don't know how to mount a defense or cite precedence.
The Constitution guarantees an individual's right to privacy. It makes no such guarantees regarding corporations, nor should it. I sincerely hope that we see increased scrutiny and regulation of the accounting industry after this mess is over. What Enron execs did was so incredibly wrong that it should not be allowed to go unpunished, and it certainly shouldn't be allowed to happen again.
To Whom It May Concern:
As a programmer and IT professional, I have been following the anti-trust case against Microsoft quite closely. It is hard to believe, after all the evidence presented during the trial, that the currently proposed settlement is even being considered. I think Microsoft demonstrated very well after the last anti-trust suit against them that they will not abide by the spirit of an agreement, but only by the letter (and even that is arguable). Microsoft reduced the previous consent decree to a meaningless and inneffective piece of paper simply by changing their contracts with OEMs slightly. It had no significant effect whatsoever on their business practices. With that in mind, I believe that any settlement with Microsoft must be made air-tight. I like the idea of a committee to oversee Microsoft to ensure compliance with the eventual terms set either by a settlement, or by the court. I simply can't see any reason why Microsoft should be allowed to select any of the people that will make up the committee, though. Microsoft is utterly unrepentent and quite ruthless. It would be folly to give them any opportunity to set the committee up for failure.
As for the terms of the proposed settlement, I believe that they will not adequately address the situation in a manner that will allow competition and innovation to thrive in the industry. Specifically, there are 2 areas that concern me the most:
1) Microsoft's APIs, file formats, and protocols.
The complete documentation for these must be made public. Any future changes must also be made public in a timely manner. This should allow other companies to produce products that can compete with Microsoft's products by removing a major barrier to entry, namely that no company can afford to convert all of its existing documents into a new format in order to take advantage of a non-Microsoft office suite or other applications. Currently anyone using Microsoft products is effectively "locked in" to those products because they cannot be easily converted to another format. While some programs exist that can read and write documents in Microsoft's formats, they are not entirely compatible and often fail on complex documents due to a lack of complete documentation available from Microsoft. Network effects are a particularly difficult barrier for companies seeking to enter a market dominated by another. Anything that can be done to reduce this barrier can only help to create more opportunity in the market.
Microsoft has apparently inserted a clause in the current proposed settlement that would allow them to refuse to publish a format, protocol, or API if it would be a security risk. Since virtually all of Microsoft's formats, protocols, and APIs have some security component to them, I'm afraid they will use this clause to effectively nullify that portion of the settlement. Security features should work regardless of whether their mechanism is known or not. If this clause remains in the settlement, it should be modified to give the decision-making power to the oversight committee or to the court, and such decisions should be expedited so that Microsoft cannot introduce further delays to the application of remedies in this case.
2) Microsoft's business practices.
Microsoft must not be allowed to enter into deals with OEMs, ISPs, or other businesses that would create disincentives or prohibit those companies from offering non-Microsoft products or services to their customers. Since the vast majority of the desktop computing world currently uses Microsoft products, OEMs, ISPs, and others must be able to offer those products to consumers. To allow Microsoft to continue to take advantage of that situation by prohibiting those companies from offering alternatives, either by outright prohibition, or by economic disincentive, is to allow Microsoft to continue to hold the industry hostage.
If these concerns are addressed by the eventual settlement or court ruling, they should remove most of Microsoft's ability to abuse it's monopoly power to the detriment of the industry. I feel that a healthy IT industry should consist of competing products from a variety of companies, all able to interoperate with each other, with no single company able to leverage it's dominance in one area to bolster it's position in another.
Respectfully,
(my name and address)
Nice. You cleverly managed to avoid rebutting any of my arguments. You should go work PR for one of these corps.