I don't think Google has a monopoly in any area, nor does this look like an instance of Google leveraging their success in search or advertising to gain an advantage for their browser. Google is simply paying Sony to install Chrome, as has been done with pre-installed software for many years.
Google has a monopoly in search (at least in the U.S. anyway). I don't see any leveraging either.
The problem is that when computers get to that point, they won't do what you want, they'll do what *they* (and the people who made them) want.
I think that is one of the big hurdles for Linux adaption in mainstream society. People don't want an O(1) scheduler. They don't want nifty commands. They don't to fiddle with things. They just want it to work with the least effort on their part.
I know everyone here hates it, but that's what Ubuntu is for.
Re:Most people simply don't think about security
on
The Myths of Security
·
· Score: 1
You cannot make hundreds of millions of users care about computer security. Until there is a direct, provable correlation between their actions and a loss they feel, people won't care. Until there is an exploit where they click on WebObjectX and money disappears from their bank account, people will not care.
It is, at least in theory, possible to make a program with no buffer overruns at all. Now in practice, the probability of such a thing is too low to consider.
Officers not on snoozewatch have been ordered to "WATCH OUT FOR THAT BLOODY ROCK THIS TIME (PLEASE) EXCLAMATION MARK EXCLAMATION MARK EXCLAMATION MARK" since the RN has yet to upgrade from its ZX81-powered navigation system.
That involves security audits of things like MS Office for OS X. How, exactly, will Apple convince MS to allow such a thing, especially given current legal circumstances (i4i v. Microsoft). Furthermore, that involves a lot of security audits of a lot of things, and right now we're in the middle of the great recession, so...
You explicitly used the term "requests for permission", which, while not a ridiculous term for modal dialog boxes, sounds a lot like UAC prompts (commas inserted for clarity, not because they're needed).
How about this: As the number of developers approaches infinity, the number of nontrivial bugs approaches zero, but the total number of bugs approaches infinity (not necessarily at the same rate as the developers).
Essentially, it's because any security flaw is the result of a bug. It's just a bug that can be exploited. So, if the code is maintained properly, then bug fixes will be continuous and as such, reduce the number of exploitable bugs.
It depends on your scope of consideration. Design flaws are not 'bugs' in the traditional sense of the word (i.e., implementation-related). However, if you expand your scope to include design specs then your statement is true. There do exist though exploits of perfectly-implemented but imperfectly-designed code.
Isn't it obvious what should happen now? We are the lords of cyberspace, and this is a call to action. This is a call to arms.
It's about time for those of us with the technical skills and social engineering talents to step up and "harass" this woman. I'm willing to bet/. won't step up, but I'm pretty sure I know a few other gathering points for web minions that will.
Maybe someone should get on lexus-nexus and post all her info to 4chan and fark and all the rest of the shady underbelly of the net. Someone somewhere will have the time to truly make this woman suffer for her actions.
Sorry, 4chan is busy outing the "Church" of Scientology right now; can I take a message?
The bug report should be provided in a clear coherent easily understood format by the reporter [despite the fact that the "nerds" are the ones who fucked up, assuming the report is real].
Case in point: Articles on the SCO appeal are often ill-informed about the viability of SCO's claims, since they spend no time talking to open-source dev's and all time listening to SCO upper-management bitch.
That said, the 'vital services' shouldn't be on the internet. Seems like this is trying to mitigate the risks created by a bunch of industries building these services on the internet. Basically, it's too late to keep the power companies from having an insecure internet-connected grid, so our next best option is to have the federal government step in to protect them in event of attack. Of course, we should set a deadline to remove all these systems from the internet so this is no longer necessary, but you can't have everything.
What are you talking about?! The government is far to incompetent to do something like that!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think Google has a monopoly in any area, nor does this look like an instance of Google leveraging their success in search or advertising to gain an advantage for their browser. Google is simply paying Sony to install Chrome, as has been done with pre-installed software for many years.
Google has a monopoly in search (at least in the U.S. anyway). I don't see any leveraging either.
The problem is that when computers get to that point, they won't do what you want, they'll do what *they* (and the people who made them) want.
I think that is one of the big hurdles for Linux adaption in mainstream society. People don't want an O(1) scheduler. They don't want nifty commands. They don't to fiddle with things. They just want it to work with the least effort on their part.
I know everyone here hates it, but that's what Ubuntu is for.
You cannot make hundreds of millions of users care about computer security. Until there is a direct, provable correlation between their actions and a loss they feel, people won't care. Until there is an exploit where they click on WebObjectX and money disappears from their bank account, people will not care.
But such exploits do exist! (Keyloggers)
It is, at least in theory, possible to make a program with no buffer overruns at all. Now in practice, the probability of such a thing is too low to consider.
Also, see Quantum cryptography.
A little digging found a copy of her dismissal letter:
---
Uz F1RED!!!11!!!
LOL!!11!! C YA L8R N0T!!!111!!!
---
She might be better off working elsewhere anyway.
No, she worked in NZ not mainland China.
Officers not on snoozewatch have been ordered to "WATCH OUT FOR THAT BLOODY ROCK THIS TIME (PLEASE) EXCLAMATION MARK EXCLAMATION MARK EXCLAMATION MARK" since the RN has yet to upgrade from its ZX81-powered navigation system.
They have parens but not bangs?
Incidentally, what's with the stupid broken CSS in Idle? Have we all suddenly switched to reading /. on digital watches?
You have to use deprecated HTML b/c CSS is too dangerous or something...?
BUT EVRY1 LIEKS B1FF'S PO$TS!
(filter food)
There, fixed that for you.
That involves security audits of things like MS Office for OS X. How, exactly, will Apple convince MS to allow such a thing, especially given current legal circumstances (i4i v. Microsoft). Furthermore, that involves a lot of security audits of a lot of things, and right now we're in the middle of the great recession, so...
You explicitly used the term "requests for permission", which, while not a ridiculous term for modal dialog boxes, sounds a lot like UAC prompts (commas inserted for clarity, not because they're needed).
How about this: As the number of developers approaches infinity, the number of nontrivial bugs approaches zero, but the total number of bugs approaches infinity (not necessarily at the same rate as the developers).
Essentially, it's because any security flaw is the result of a bug. It's just a bug that can be exploited. So, if the code is maintained properly, then bug fixes will be continuous and as such, reduce the number of exploitable bugs.
It depends on your scope of consideration. Design flaws are not 'bugs' in the traditional sense of the word (i.e., implementation-related). However, if you expand your scope to include design specs then your statement is true. There do exist though exploits of perfectly-implemented but imperfectly-designed code.
Bug == Something that bugzilla tracks and is not:
Isn't it obvious what should happen now? We are the lords of cyberspace, and this is a call to action. This is a call to arms.
It's about time for those of us with the technical skills and social engineering talents to step up and "harass" this woman. I'm willing to bet /. won't step up, but I'm pretty sure I know a few other gathering points for web minions that will.
Maybe someone should get on lexus-nexus and post all her info to 4chan and fark and all the rest of the shady underbelly of the net. Someone somewhere will have the time to truly make this woman suffer for her actions.
Sorry, 4chan is busy outing the "Church" of Scientology right now; can I take a message?
Then i4i sues and wins (it's eastern texas. And no, I won't capitalize "texas" until the judges stop acting like twats.).
He means us young people weren't around pre-1990 or so, and thus have less reason to hate MS.
Nonetheless, the "education" probably is intended to make the kids dependent on Microsoft products forever...
The bug report should be provided in a clear coherent easily understood format by the reporter [despite the fact that the "nerds" are the ones who fucked up, assuming the report is real].
There, fixed that for you.
(Why doesn't Slashdot support the "strike" tag?!?)
Said tags (there are in fact two such tags) are deprecated. But apparently /. doesn't like CSS either. So you're screwed. Oh well.
That won't fly if you put a picture of RMS in the paper -- he's visibly not the lawyer type.
Case in point: Articles on the SCO appeal are often ill-informed about the viability of SCO's claims, since they spend no time talking to open-source dev's and all time listening to SCO upper-management bitch.
Wield the banhammer judiciously and direct banned people to Ubuntu.
[snip] and that the previous admin.
You accidentally the verb.
Obviously slavery was a Bad Thing. But it's a shame that, in getting rid of it, they had to trample states' rights.
Obviously, Jefferson was lying at the time. But what else is new?
[snip]
That said, the 'vital services' shouldn't be on the internet. Seems like this is trying to mitigate the risks created by a bunch of industries building these services on the internet. Basically, it's too late to keep the power companies from having an insecure internet-connected grid, so our next best option is to have the federal government step in to protect them in event of attack. Of course, we should set a deadline to remove all these systems from the internet so this is no longer necessary, but you can't have everything.
What are you talking about?! The government is far to incompetent to do something like that!