The first time I saw that I knew I was not getting a blackberry.
Then you didnt do your research very well, because BIS is the ghetto "i cant afford a BES" experience. A proper BES is magnitudes more secure than anything SSL has to offer.
Thats probably because youre dealing with a single server running Windows in a very simple setup, which is notoriously easy to get away with having a part-time admin for.
The problem is, of course, when things arent working right. Despite what I said above about restarting sometimes being the answer, it USUALLY is not, and the other poster was right-- randomly rebooting DOES mask the issue most of the time. Examples:
Print spooler crashes once a day-- just reboot it, or troubleshoot and find that you actually have a corrupt driver which crashes things once a day when it attempts to do its awful auto-update mechanism?
Network seems slower than usual: ignore things and assume its in the user's head / reboot the switch, or investigate and find out someone created a switching loop on the network?
Same as above: Ignore things, or investigate and discover that users are storing live PST files on your network share, which not only brings the network to its knees but also runs a huge chance of corrupting the entire archive if not addressed?
Ive done consulting for many years, and you're right that a lot of the time you can get away with having an "off-admin"-- in fact, depending on budget it MAY be optimal. Just recognize that youre going to plaster over a LOT of issues, and that things may blow up / require a real admin to fix things one day, and depending on how much plaster it is, it may be an expensive fix.
Nothing says "I'm a noon and came from a Windows world" like rebooting a switch or router to fix a problem.
Sometimes that IS the answer: Boot up triggers POST, where it may plainly say "your flash is hosed". Or perhaps a voltage spike threw things into a "bad place", and the solution is to do a full power-cycle to bring everything back to where it was. Perhaps the issue only occurs on boot up, and you need to turn it off and on to see the problem happen (such as when someone left the router in 0x2142 mode).
Rebooting is usually not the answer but sometimes it is. You can stubbornly insist that the answer is in the logs all day, have fun troubleshooting a popped capacitor if that is your methodology.
It was because of people like you who would not stop whining about how important advertiser dollars are to keep the web alive that we even considered something like DNT.
Ads are why so much of the internet is free. I dont have to like it, you dont have to like it, but ads are why youtube is making a profit and why its still alive / free (remember the days when it was wondered, "when will google shutter this money sink?"). Ads are the very reason for Slashdot's current existence, why search engines exist, etc.
If adblockers were built into browsers by default, can you think of a single reason for yahoo and google to continue providing search engines? Or exist? Gee, there goes gmail, yahoo mail, yahoo news, youtube, hotmail, facebook, unpaid hulu, free news sites...
Im sure the internet will outlast the fall of ad-supported sites, I just think there will be a lot less of the free crap that everyone loves so much.
The vast majority of the content consumed on the net today is adsupported, and would either be paywalled or non-existent without ads. Youtube? Hulu? Facebook? Slashdot? Their reasons for existence are to make money, and they do that mostly through ads (hulu also has a paywall section).
All those news sites you read-- you think theyre there as a public service? For all the complaining that people do about NYTimes paywalls, they sure dont seem to want to even contemplate the possibility of ads; one wonders what is in this enterprise for the NYTimes if they cant paywall, and they cant advertise.
Go build your own website, stop demanding other people make content for you on your terms.
Then stop visiting those sites if you dont like the terms. This isnt rocket science. If you go to a supermarket and they insist on following you down the aisle making suggestions, the solution isnt to pass a law, its to stop going to that supermarket.
Stop trying to burden society with more rules just because u cant be arsed to change your browsing habits, or because you think you are entitled to a private website's content.
Tracking is done by the webmaster. The technical solution is to use a website whose webmaster isnt using tracking. Google Analytics doesnt accidentally find itself on a website; its placed there intentionally.
A webpage consists of multiple resources, often spread over multiple servers and delivered by multiple servers.
My browser is not obligated to do anything at all with the webpage your server sends it.
Thats true; you can filter the data with a large number of extensions, to strip out ads.
There is no implicit request;
Youre right-- its an explicit request. If you were to fire up wireshark, you would see zero requests coming from the website, and many coming from your machine to various web addresses-- including advertisers. That you dont understand the ramifications of your GET request isnt really relevant; thats how browsers work. If you want to write your own webbrowser that doesnt load third-party assets, go ahead, but be prepared for a lot of broken websites.
You put your work on the open web. You did not put it behind a paywall. You did not force me to view your ads before seeing your page.
I cant believe you are arguing this. There is no "open web" agreement; each website is its own dictatorship (if you've ever been on a forum you know this). Each site has its own terms, and on ad-supported sites the terms are advertising.
You seem to fundamentally not understand what the internet is-- its not some organization you join and have to pay dues for. Its a networked group of servers with their own rules and terms, and if you dont like the terms offered by one particular site thats no skin off of the operators back; you can hook your own server up and code your own site. Otherwise, stop pretending you get to mandate terms on work published on the internet, because you cant. And if you could, the end result would just be paywalls everywhere, or people deciding that its not worth their time creating content for no return.
Note, for example, that MSSE was a perfectly good antivirus until Microsoft baked it into Windows 8. Then, surprise surprise, it started failing every AV comparatives, because a every virus was compiled specifically to evade detection.
Lets put it another way. If every OSX box has the same anti-virus updated on the same schedule, why would anyone release a virus for OSX that didnt 1) evade current detections and 2) break the updating mechanism so that it cant be removed in the future?
Spam and website ads are basically polar opposites.
SPAM is unsolicited email sent on your dollar, consuming your resources. Ads are implicitly requested when you visit an ad-supported site, and are sent to pay for the resources YOU consume by visiting the site.
People making a big deal about this should perhaps rethink why they are entitled to someone else's work (the website) without respecting their terms (the ads).
The problem is that people want content, they dont want to pay for it, and they also dont want advertising. Unfortunately, you cant have all 3.
to determine whether or not advertisers respect the wishes of people who do not want their browsing habits tracked. The verdict is in, and to nobody's surprise advertisers have no respect for anyone.
And shopkeepers have no respect for people who want goods without paying. If you dont want the advertising, dont consume content from an ad-supported site. Make your own webpage, social network, whatever-- thats a lot of the strength of the internet.
It is now. Advertisers sound like they were willing to play along if W3C was up for some compromise. W3C tells them to go get stuffed, oh-and-will-you-please-respect-this-DNT-flag?
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, any bets on whether the advertisers just take their ball, go home, and ignore any DNT requests?
Fair enough on the monitoring aspect, but we demonstrably arent arresting people for political opnion blogs or tampering with web site queries for politically "hot" topics. Ie, you wont be arrested or detained or disconnected for googling "Google NSA PRISM". Try that sort of thing in China.
So theres a point to be made, but we're still a lot less "dangerous" as caretakers of the internet than folks like Russia or China.
Last time I checked it became basically worthless when Windows 8 was released, presumably because it is now on the "must evade detection" list of every virus maker out there.
Most worth things created in this world came from unprofessional people
And its sold by people who can act and communicate professionally.
"Professionalism" doesnt impact the quality of work you individually create, but it absolutely affects the quality of your communication and interaction with others.
Slashdot Mirror
The first time I saw that I knew I was not getting a blackberry.
Then you didnt do your research very well, because BIS is the ghetto "i cant afford a BES" experience. A proper BES is magnitudes more secure than anything SSL has to offer.
How, exactly, did you think BIS was doing all of these years? How do you think it performed push-email with POP / IMAP?
Thats probably because youre dealing with a single server running Windows in a very simple setup, which is notoriously easy to get away with having a part-time admin for.
The problem is, of course, when things arent working right. Despite what I said above about restarting sometimes being the answer, it USUALLY is not, and the other poster was right-- randomly rebooting DOES mask the issue most of the time. Examples:
Ive done consulting for many years, and you're right that a lot of the time you can get away with having an "off-admin"-- in fact, depending on budget it MAY be optimal. Just recognize that youre going to plaster over a LOT of issues, and that things may blow up / require a real admin to fix things one day, and depending on how much plaster it is, it may be an expensive fix.
Nothing says "I'm a noon and came from a Windows world" like rebooting a switch or router to fix a problem.
Sometimes that IS the answer: Boot up triggers POST, where it may plainly say "your flash is hosed". Or perhaps a voltage spike threw things into a "bad place", and the solution is to do a full power-cycle to bring everything back to where it was. Perhaps the issue only occurs on boot up, and you need to turn it off and on to see the problem happen (such as when someone left the router in 0x2142 mode).
Rebooting is usually not the answer but sometimes it is. You can stubbornly insist that the answer is in the logs all day, have fun troubleshooting a popped capacitor if that is your methodology.
Dozens dying over "several years" puts this disease on a much much lower scale than the cold or the flu.
This isnt the bubonic plague.
You can't break the updating mechanism.
Hosts file / DNS tampering. Oh look, it cant find the update server any more.
Once a virus gets root access, it can do pretty much what it wants unless the entire OS is a walled garden, which OSX isnt (quite yet).
It was because of people like you who would not stop whining about how important advertiser dollars are to keep the web alive that we even considered something like DNT.
Ads are why so much of the internet is free. I dont have to like it, you dont have to like it, but ads are why youtube is making a profit and why its still alive / free (remember the days when it was wondered, "when will google shutter this money sink?"). Ads are the very reason for Slashdot's current existence, why search engines exist, etc.
If adblockers were built into browsers by default, can you think of a single reason for yahoo and google to continue providing search engines? Or exist? Gee, there goes gmail, yahoo mail, yahoo news, youtube, hotmail, facebook, unpaid hulu, free news sites...
Im sure the internet will outlast the fall of ad-supported sites, I just think there will be a lot less of the free crap that everyone loves so much.
The vast majority of the content consumed on the net today is adsupported, and would either be paywalled or non-existent without ads. Youtube? Hulu? Facebook? Slashdot? Their reasons for existence are to make money, and they do that mostly through ads (hulu also has a paywall section).
All those news sites you read-- you think theyre there as a public service? For all the complaining that people do about NYTimes paywalls, they sure dont seem to want to even contemplate the possibility of ads; one wonders what is in this enterprise for the NYTimes if they cant paywall, and they cant advertise.
Go build your own website, stop demanding other people make content for you on your terms.
Then stop visiting those sites if you dont like the terms. This isnt rocket science. If you go to a supermarket and they insist on following you down the aisle making suggestions, the solution isnt to pass a law, its to stop going to that supermarket.
Stop trying to burden society with more rules just because u cant be arsed to change your browsing habits, or because you think you are entitled to a private website's content.
Tracking is done by the webmaster. The technical solution is to use a website whose webmaster isnt using tracking. Google Analytics doesnt accidentally find itself on a website; its placed there intentionally.
A webpage consists of multiple resources, often spread over multiple servers and delivered by multiple servers.
My browser is not obligated to do anything at all with the webpage your server sends it.
Thats true; you can filter the data with a large number of extensions, to strip out ads.
There is no implicit request;
Youre right-- its an explicit request. If you were to fire up wireshark, you would see zero requests coming from the website, and many coming from your machine to various web addresses-- including advertisers. That you dont understand the ramifications of your GET request isnt really relevant; thats how browsers work. If you want to write your own webbrowser that doesnt load third-party assets, go ahead, but be prepared for a lot of broken websites.
You put your work on the open web. You did not put it behind a paywall. You did not force me to view your ads before seeing your page.
I cant believe you are arguing this. There is no "open web" agreement; each website is its own dictatorship (if you've ever been on a forum you know this). Each site has its own terms, and on ad-supported sites the terms are advertising.
You seem to fundamentally not understand what the internet is-- its not some organization you join and have to pay dues for. Its a networked group of servers with their own rules and terms, and if you dont like the terms offered by one particular site thats no skin off of the operators back; you can hook your own server up and code your own site. Otherwise, stop pretending you get to mandate terms on work published on the internet, because you cant. And if you could, the end result would just be paywalls everywhere, or people deciding that its not worth their time creating content for no return.
The user does not have administrative credentials.
Ditto on all versions of windows released in the last 7 years.
XP is more than a decade old. Lets compare XP to a similar vintage of OSX-- what would that be, 10.3? 10.2?
A pre-installed antivirus is worse than useless.
Note, for example, that MSSE was a perfectly good antivirus until Microsoft baked it into Windows 8. Then, surprise surprise, it started failing every AV comparatives, because a every virus was compiled specifically to evade detection.
Lets put it another way. If every OSX box has the same anti-virus updated on the same schedule, why would anyone release a virus for OSX that didnt 1) evade current detections and 2) break the updating mechanism so that it cant be removed in the future?
Spam and website ads are basically polar opposites.
SPAM is unsolicited email sent on your dollar, consuming your resources.
Ads are implicitly requested when you visit an ad-supported site, and are sent to pay for the resources YOU consume by visiting the site.
People making a big deal about this should perhaps rethink why they are entitled to someone else's work (the website) without respecting their terms (the ads).
Stop consuming ad-supported content and roll your own website.
Seriously, the entitlement mentality has gotten old.
The problem is that people want content, they dont want to pay for it, and they also dont want advertising. Unfortunately, you cant have all 3.
to determine whether or not advertisers respect the wishes of people who do not want their browsing habits tracked. The verdict is in, and to nobody's surprise advertisers have no respect for anyone.
And shopkeepers have no respect for people who want goods without paying. If you dont want the advertising, dont consume content from an ad-supported site. Make your own webpage, social network, whatever-- thats a lot of the strength of the internet.
It is now. Advertisers sound like they were willing to play along if W3C was up for some compromise. W3C tells them to go get stuffed, oh-and-will-you-please-respect-this-DNT-flag?
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, any bets on whether the advertisers just take their ball, go home, and ignore any DNT requests?
I believe that its better to not have the need to carry than to carry just in case.
And I believe that its better to live in a world where you dont need a government enforcing the rule of law with the threat of violence.
Unfortunately, neither of those are relevant to the reality we live in.
It would be no security because noone vampire taps a fiber line. If youre going to intercept info, you do it at the ISP level, no matter who you are.
Fair enough on the monitoring aspect, but we demonstrably arent arresting people for political opnion blogs or tampering with web site queries for politically "hot" topics. Ie, you wont be arrested or detained or disconnected for googling "Google NSA PRISM". Try that sort of thing in China.
So theres a point to be made, but we're still a lot less "dangerous" as caretakers of the internet than folks like Russia or China.
Last time I checked it became basically worthless when Windows 8 was released, presumably because it is now on the "must evade detection" list of every virus maker out there.
But I assume on a project as large as linux you need to communicate and interact with others.
i think linux is a pretty cool guy. eh hacks the kernel and doesnt afraid of anything.
Most worth things created in this world came from unprofessional people
And its sold by people who can act and communicate professionally.
"Professionalism" doesnt impact the quality of work you individually create, but it absolutely affects the quality of your communication and interaction with others.