All true, but given MS's current bloated size, its inability to make timely decisions, and with 10000 open job requisitions, me thinks Ballmer's whining about Google's growth is a bit disingenuous.
realclimate.org is the soapbox of Michael Mann (and others), proponent of the now discredited Hockey Stick. A better place for unbiased information can be found at climateaudit.org.
Seriously, I'm not a Marine, but I did serve with them while in the Navy as a submariner. You can call Marines a lot of things (Leatherneck, Jarhead, etc.), but you can't call them stupid.
I forgot -- the latest revision of the M-16 does have a burst limiter. During my time, an M-16 was either safe, semi-auto, or full-auto.
In any event, you can't aim well with a > 3 round burst. Wish I could find a way to pound that through the heads of the congresscritters who go on an "assault weapon" tirade...
Hmm... another comment that shows how little anybody here knows anything about security hard- and software.
And, of course, you're omniscient, so you know everything.
And those with validated key protection schemes (CC, FIPS, etc.) you will not get at at all.
Bullshit. Tamper resistance on these devices is a joke. Data can be sniffed, either on board or between devices. Biometrics are spoofable. PINs are simple. Keys can be found.
Worshiping at the altar of Common Criteria and FIPS does little more than assure you didn't do something really stupid. Those standards are not sufficient for real security.
But, of course, you're free to keep deluding yourself.
At the RSA conference three years ago, you could bring your smart card to many booths and they would extract the private key in less than 5 minutes. I have no reason to believe that the problem has become any harder.
True, a smart card (compared to a normal PC) sucks less, but it still sucks.
Any current operating system (yes, linux too) has too many built-in security holes (inadvertent or otherwise), which makes secure storage of anything, including private keys, a joke. At some point, the key must appear in the clear to be useful; for that time, the key is vulnerable to sniffing.
Just as some of the keys for HD DVDs have been found, given a determined adversary, your private key will be found.
We can talk about "less vulnerable" private key storage, but I don't think that's what you had in mind.
You're assuming a lot. As the old saying goes, those who are talking don't know; those who know aren't talking (if someone knows and is talking, he/she is standing by to make little rocks out of big rocks for a long time, or is a politician.) The talking heads who claim that the Chinese boat got inside of an American battle group undetected weren't on the scene, and really don't know what happened. What really happened is probably in a highly classified set of documents written by both sides.
Having played the game as a US submariner during the cold war, I won't speculate on what really happened, other than to say it is certainly more complicated that depicted by the news media.
Calling the recent Chicom actions a "show of force" is a bit strong. They've orbited a few rockets; their navy is mostly a coastal defense force. They certainly have higher aspirations, but for now their actions are more of a "look at me!" statement coming from a beginner in space and blue water navy operations.
I hate to burst your bubble, but if a diesel boat surfaces within view of a potential hostile ship it is an admission of defeat by the boat. No sane diesel CO would surface in such a situation unless he had no other option.
Sadly, it appears that Mark Russinovich has been fully assimilated, and is part of boneheaded Microsoft practice of treating every bad security decision or implementation as a PR problem.
The whole purpose of publishing patent applications was so that people could submit prior art to the examiner.
Umm, no (at least in the USA.) Publishing a patent app after 18 months thwarts the well-known tactic of constantly amending your app so that it stays below the radar for years -- the submarine patent. People would file a patent app, delay its prosecution until a market developed, then get it approved and demand infringement damages from all the legitimate companies that had been working on the problem for years.
What we have to realize is that there is no one model of global warming.
Ok, so which model do I believe? Is it a vote? With no agreement on what a model should look like, doesn't that indicate that this isn't a mature area of research? And if that is so, shouldn't we hold off on trillion dollar bets like Kyoto?
Complaining about the lack of accuracy in these models is like complaining about the fact that modern weather forecasting can't tell you exactly what hour a storm that is two weeks off will hit, and how much rain will fall.
So when do we get a prediction that can be validated? When do we know that the predictions of a model can be trusted? When will the models not need constant tweaking?
I don't pretend to be a climate scientist, but I do have an expertise in modeling the prices of securities. If I modeled the way the climate scientists do, the market would hand me my head on a platter. There are boatloads of security models (some probably in your spam email box right now) that work great when looking backward, but promptly blow up when used to predict future price moves.
The discipline of the market is a cruel taskmaster. My fear is that the climate scientists haven't been held to a similar discipline. Only when they have do we have real confidence in their models.
5. Given that the climate scientist's models aren't predicting very well right now (by the climate scientist's own admission), why is so much faith put in the predictive ability of the models further down the road?
I'll be the first to admit that adding CO2 to a closed system can raise the temperature; the real question is "how much?" and "what other factors are involved?". Constant curve-fitting of the climate models (euphemistically called "calibrating" and "tweaking") to make CO2 the primary driver of temperature may not be the right approach.
Perpetual ownership? Absolutely not. The Constitution says in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Sadly, copyright extensions are passed early and often -- due to the influence of the movie and music companies.
In my original response, I questioned oohshiny's claim that Star Wars (or any other work) belongs to everyone. These works will pass to the public when the copyright period expires. oohshiny seems to think that it belongs to everyone right now.
alleged security features, some that have already been broken ("most secure o/s ever", my ass)
a virgin ip stack
DRM silliness
kernel restrictions that keep third party security systems out -- said systems having done a much better job than Microsquish at keeping the bad guys out. You can, of course, pay extra for windows "defender" -- somewhat like buying an antidote from the people that poisoned you in the first place
As Ren and Stimpy might say to Ballmer, "you eeeediot!"
The problems you describe (I've seen them too) are related to Windows file sharing -- incorrect or unobvious permissions on the shares. These _shouldn't_ be related to the IP stack, but with Microsoft's penchant for complexity, you never know...
Slashdot Mirror
All true, but given MS's current bloated size, its inability to make timely decisions, and with 10000 open job requisitions, me thinks Ballmer's whining about Google's growth is a bit disingenuous.
realclimate.org is the soapbox of Michael Mann (and others), proponent of the now discredited Hockey Stick. A better place for unbiased information can be found at climateaudit.org.
OK. You're a fucking idiot. ;-)
Seriously, I'm not a Marine, but I did serve with them while in the Navy as a submariner. You can call Marines a lot of things (Leatherneck, Jarhead, etc.), but you can't call them stupid.
I forgot -- the latest revision of the M-16 does have a burst limiter. During my time, an M-16 was either safe, semi-auto, or full-auto.
...
In any event, you can't aim well with a > 3 round burst. Wish I could find a way to pound that through the heads of the congresscritters who go on an "assault weapon" tirade
Son, you are cruising for an ass-kicking.
Not to mention that the barrel would have melted after 800 rounds in a minute.
...
There's a reason that the Marines teach three round bursts
Hmm... another comment that shows how little anybody here knows anything about security hard- and software.
And, of course, you're omniscient, so you know everything.
And those with validated key protection schemes (CC, FIPS, etc.) you will not get at at all.
Bullshit. Tamper resistance on these devices is a joke. Data can be sniffed, either on board or between devices. Biometrics are spoofable. PINs are simple. Keys can be found.
Worshiping at the altar of Common Criteria and FIPS does little more than assure you didn't do something really stupid. Those standards are not sufficient for real security.
But, of course, you're free to keep deluding yourself.
At the RSA conference three years ago, you could bring your smart card to many booths and they would extract the private key in less than 5 minutes. I have no reason to believe that the problem has become any harder.
True, a smart card (compared to a normal PC) sucks less, but it still sucks.
Any current operating system (yes, linux too) has too many built-in security holes (inadvertent or otherwise), which makes secure storage of anything, including private keys, a joke. At some point, the key must appear in the clear to be useful; for that time, the key is vulnerable to sniffing.
Just as some of the keys for HD DVDs have been found, given a determined adversary, your private key will be found.
We can talk about "less vulnerable" private key storage, but I don't think that's what you had in mind.
You're assuming a lot. As the old saying goes, those who are talking don't know; those who know aren't talking (if someone knows and is talking, he/she is standing by to make little rocks out of big rocks for a long time, or is a politician.) The talking heads who claim that the Chinese boat got inside of an American battle group undetected weren't on the scene, and really don't know what happened. What really happened is probably in a highly classified set of documents written by both sides.
Having played the game as a US submariner during the cold war, I won't speculate on what really happened, other than to say it is certainly more complicated that depicted by the news media.
Calling the recent Chicom actions a "show of force" is a bit strong. They've orbited a few rockets; their navy is mostly a coastal defense force. They certainly have higher aspirations, but for now their actions are more of a "look at me!" statement coming from a beginner in space and blue water navy operations.
Of course, they bear watching.
I hate to burst your bubble, but if a diesel boat surfaces within view of a potential hostile ship it is an admission of defeat by the boat. No sane diesel CO would surface in such a situation unless he had no other option.
Sadly, it appears that Mark Russinovich has been fully assimilated, and is part of boneheaded Microsoft practice of treating every bad security decision or implementation as a PR problem.
How far the mighty have fallen.
The whole purpose of publishing patent applications was so that people could submit prior art to the examiner.
Umm, no (at least in the USA.) Publishing a patent app after 18 months thwarts the well-known tactic of constantly amending your app so that it stays below the radar for years -- the submarine patent. People would file a patent app, delay its prosecution until a market developed, then get it approved and demand infringement damages from all the legitimate companies that had been working on the problem for years.
Unfortunately, every one of the spam scams I've seen address stocks below $5/share. Every brokerage I've seen won't let you short them.
...
But, damn, I'd like to
A bit of muff-diving on the wife, followed by some serious mutual aerobics.
Cost-free, cholesterol-free, calorie-free, and a damn fine way to wake up. Try it sometime.
It works in the afternoon and evening as well.
What we have to realize is that there is no one model of global warming.
Ok, so which model do I believe? Is it a vote? With no agreement on what a model should look like, doesn't that indicate that this isn't a mature area of research? And if that is so, shouldn't we hold off on trillion dollar bets like Kyoto?
Complaining about the lack of accuracy in these models is like complaining about the fact that modern weather forecasting can't tell you exactly what hour a storm that is two weeks off will hit, and how much rain will fall.
So when do we get a prediction that can be validated? When do we know that the predictions of a model can be trusted? When will the models not need constant tweaking?
I don't pretend to be a climate scientist, but I do have an expertise in modeling the prices of securities. If I modeled the way the climate scientists do, the market would hand me my head on a platter. There are boatloads of security models (some probably in your spam email box right now) that work great when looking backward, but promptly blow up when used to predict future price moves.
The discipline of the market is a cruel taskmaster. My fear is that the climate scientists haven't been held to a similar discipline. Only when they have do we have real confidence in their models.
5. Given that the climate scientist's models aren't predicting very well right now (by the climate scientist's own admission), why is so much faith put in the predictive ability of the models further down the road?
I'll be the first to admit that adding CO2 to a closed system can raise the temperature; the real question is "how much?" and "what other factors are involved?". Constant curve-fitting of the climate models (euphemistically called "calibrating" and "tweaking") to make CO2 the primary driver of temperature may not be the right approach.
... with MS Word bugs -- just after MS made the almost-forced upgrade to IE7 (with all its alleged security improvements).
Methinks someone is off-message in Redmond, and is about to catch a chair with his/her head.
Perpetual ownership? Absolutely not. The Constitution says in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
Sadly, copyright extensions are passed early and often -- due to the influence of the movie and music companies.
In my original response, I questioned oohshiny's claim that Star Wars (or any other work) belongs to everyone. These works will pass to the public when the copyright period expires. oohshiny seems to think that it belongs to everyone right now.
oohshiney says: "All your bases/content/culture belong to us".
I suggest that oohshiney will change his or her tune when he actually owns or creates something.
You've got to be kidding. Take a look at the count of critical updates for XP this year.
Windows "security", such as it is, blows dead goats.
Take the points in the parent posting, and add:
50+ millions lines of code bloat
lots of stupid, unnecessary eye candy
alleged security features, some that have already been broken ("most secure o/s ever", my ass)
a virgin ip stack
DRM silliness
kernel restrictions that keep third party security systems out -- said systems having done a much better job than Microsquish at keeping the bad guys out. You can, of course, pay extra for windows "defender" -- somewhat like buying an antidote from the people that poisoned you in the first place
As Ren and Stimpy might say to Ballmer, "you eeeediot!"
... "Put down your rifle! You have 10 seconds to comply" ... "I am now authorized to use deadly force".
Poetic justice, indeed.
The problems you describe (I've seen them too) are related to Windows file sharing -- incorrect or unobvious permissions on the shares. These _shouldn't_ be related to the IP stack, but with Microsoft's penchant for complexity, you never know ...
"support and connectivity aren't free". Film at 11.