Patch Tuesday has a reason, and that reason is: Because the guys who run corporate networks want it that way.
OOB patches for zero day exploits, for instance, mean that internal testing and compatibility assurance has to be done outside of the allotted time for such duties, which oddly enough is more than likely Wednesday morning. All of the patches required can be tested for compatibility with whatever custom or quirky features a particular corporate network may have, and rolled out at the same time, and it's out of the way. If there are patches which require downtime, then there is only one downtime per month, not several. That could be hundreds of thousands of dollars of business to some companies. Bear in mind that the patch is the last form of defense for most attacks to corporate networks; They have the upstream ISPs security services, their own in-house firewall and filtering / IDS, group policy restrictions, anti-malware software, and THEN the OS itself.
Cite? Ed Gibson, MS Ex-Chief of Cyber Secutiry at the Safer Internet Day conference Feb 2010.
How about we set up one side of the stand with vuvuzela-wielding South Africans, and the other half comprised entirely of Birmingham City and Millwall fans, with a crate of Stella under each seat. Beating the crap out of the opposition's supporters is part of English football tradition.
Two issues. Firstly, that copy of the program did not cost $20 to produce. No extra effort on the part of the programmer of publisher went in to making that copy of that program available to me than the effort made in making the copy available to you. If anything your copy of the software should now be $19.99, as the costs to the manufacturer did not increase with the production of that copy, but the value of the copies in existence (forced into a premium market by artificial scarcity) has decreased. Therefore, as the manufacturer's costs have not increased, they have not lost money by the copy being produced.
Now, when you give me the copy, you claim that it is a "lost sale" for the publisher. This is not the case for one simple reason: I would not buy the program for the price they sell it at. It is not worth that to me. Let's take Photoshop as an example. Many print houses use some extremely advanced features of that program, many of which I have difficulty pronouncing let alone understanding the use of. However, I just want to airbrush a blemish from a photograph of me to post on HotorNot. This program costs many hundreds of pounds, and I am not going to pay for it to perform this one task. I have no other means of performing this task than using this software (GIMP, Paint.NET etc don't achieve the same result). I cannot get that single feature any other way than by using the full program. Do I do without, or do I justify my decision to not pay $x00 for one feature (or music track, for that matter) with the artificial scarcity situation outlined above? Not an ideal analogy, but it illustrates my point.
FWIW, devil's advocate. I don't infringe on copyright anymore.
The article suggests in no way the facebook gave FBI special access to privileged data (and why would they?), and FBI use Internet scanning software, so it's almost certainly public.
It's good that you're so convinced of those facts. I will rest soundly at night now I know that FB is absolutely probably not giving up my private public details to the FBI!
If I take your car without your consent, I am stealing it. You are deprived of your car. I have your car, you do not. My having of your car is mutually exclusive to you having your car. If you put your car in a shared parking garage and I copy your car, you are left with the original car. You do not lose your car. I have a copy of your car. We both have your car, and both you and I having your car are not mutually exclusive. The original maker of the car got his money when you bought the car, or when the person you bought the car from bought the car. They did not get the money from the second hand sale of the car, if you bought it second hand, so they did not get the money from my copying of the car. No money changed hands. You have lost nothing as you still have your car. They have lost nothing as they would not have received remuneration from me buying your car from you. No loss has been incurred by any party in this transaction. In fact, you may not even realise that I have a copy of your car.
Now, go and recite 100 times "Piracy is not theft" and we'll forget this ever happened, ok?
You could evaporate the oceans and we'd still need more salt to believe Uwe Boll was capable of directing his own feet one in front of the other when walking, let alone a decent film.
But... but... They're so hard to catch! Can't we puh-leeeeeaase keep on harassing stoners and file sharers? They're such easy targets, and make the statistics look good!
People do not like the idea that you come to their most private place, their home, unasked and uninvited, and try to force them to buy your junk. Who would have tought that they do not like that idea?
This is one of my major points when someone argues with me regarding the use of adblocking software.
A door-to-door salesman comes to your hosue. Do you: a) Wait for him to finish his pitch and consider buying? b) Listen politely, tell him no thanks, be cordial? c) Slam the door in his face?
If you answered other than c), now imagine that when you opened the door to let in a friend, the salesman walked in too. He is now walking around your living room looking at your furnishings, which cleaning products you use, inspecting your rubbish, and going through your underwear drawer reading all the labels. He's reading all of your receipts, checking out how often you buy sanitary products, and of which brand. In 3 days time, he'll come back with a truck full of flyers for products related to what he found out about you, and put them over every window, through your letterbox, in your mail (because he's affiliated with the post office) and your newspaper will now be 200 pages thick, 150 of them being adverts.
Now, how about we install a peephole in your door so you know not to open it up when the salesman comes around? That's Adblock.
Apple is trying to become a primary conduit for digital media; if they succeed, then we are stuck with their censorship rules.
No we're not. We stop buying their watered down crud, and they'll quickly relax the rules.
Yes, this is some far-off fantasy where the populace are informed and educated, but it's no less improbable than the Competition Commission / FCC allowing a single distributor of digital media.
Penn and Teller taught an average person to fool a lie detector in about thirty minutes on their show, "Bullshit" which was staged in a tv studio and not at all in the stressful environment of a job interview where the outcome could be fundamental to considering if you are hired or not.
Just over 50 years ago a pioneer of computer science and fundamental actor in Allied victory in World War II was offered prison or chemical castration for homosexuality. Consider that we are still, now, paying in some way for slavery. We have a long way to go before there is no stigma whatsoever attached to being homosexual, no matter how idiotic that stigma may be.
Slashdot Mirror
Patch Tuesday has a reason, and that reason is: Because the guys who run corporate networks want it that way.
OOB patches for zero day exploits, for instance, mean that internal testing and compatibility assurance has to be done outside of the allotted time for such duties, which oddly enough is more than likely Wednesday morning. All of the patches required can be tested for compatibility with whatever custom or quirky features a particular corporate network may have, and rolled out at the same time, and it's out of the way. If there are patches which require downtime, then there is only one downtime per month, not several. That could be hundreds of thousands of dollars of business to some companies. Bear in mind that the patch is the last form of defense for most attacks to corporate networks; They have the upstream ISPs security services, their own in-house firewall and filtering / IDS, group policy restrictions, anti-malware software, and THEN the OS itself.
Cite? Ed Gibson, MS Ex-Chief of Cyber Secutiry at the Safer Internet Day conference Feb 2010.
Yeah, but they're all in the South African end.
That's not part of football culture, I'm afraid.
How about we set up one side of the stand with vuvuzela-wielding South Africans, and the other half comprised entirely of Birmingham City and Millwall fans, with a crate of Stella under each seat. Beating the crap out of the opposition's supporters is part of English football tradition.
Two issues. Firstly, that copy of the program did not cost $20 to produce. No extra effort on the part of the programmer of publisher went in to making that copy of that program available to me than the effort made in making the copy available to you. If anything your copy of the software should now be $19.99, as the costs to the manufacturer did not increase with the production of that copy, but the value of the copies in existence (forced into a premium market by artificial scarcity) has decreased. Therefore, as the manufacturer's costs have not increased, they have not lost money by the copy being produced.
Now, when you give me the copy, you claim that it is a "lost sale" for the publisher. This is not the case for one simple reason: I would not buy the program for the price they sell it at. It is not worth that to me. Let's take Photoshop as an example. Many print houses use some extremely advanced features of that program, many of which I have difficulty pronouncing let alone understanding the use of. However, I just want to airbrush a blemish from a photograph of me to post on HotorNot. This program costs many hundreds of pounds, and I am not going to pay for it to perform this one task. I have no other means of performing this task than using this software (GIMP, Paint.NET etc don't achieve the same result). I cannot get that single feature any other way than by using the full program. Do I do without, or do I justify my decision to not pay $x00 for one feature (or music track, for that matter) with the artificial scarcity situation outlined above? Not an ideal analogy, but it illustrates my point.
FWIW, devil's advocate. I don't infringe on copyright anymore.
The article suggests in no way the facebook gave FBI special access to privileged data (and why would they?), and FBI use Internet scanning software, so it's almost certainly public.
It's good that you're so convinced of those facts. I will rest soundly at night now I know that FB is absolutely probably not giving up my private public details to the FBI!
You cannot go around making fake threats against peoples lives on the Internet and just go along with your life like nothing happened.
I'll kill you for saying that!
There's no conversation to be had. If you're listening to a salesman trying to sell you a TV, you're probably not ready to buy one.
It looks sucky, by the way, and gives people without focusing issues a headache as well.
I see what you saw I was seeing you do there.
Got fuel injection? That's controlled by a computer.
Hey, you even dropped all of the punctuation from your sig! That's dedicated...
Hey, at least I don't spend my spare time driving around in circles!
I work in octal, and I certainly won't accept anything that isn't at least 12 times faster.
For the n'th time...
If I take your car without your consent, I am stealing it. You are deprived of your car. I have your car, you do not. My having of your car is mutually exclusive to you having your car.
If you put your car in a shared parking garage and I copy your car, you are left with the original car. You do not lose your car. I have a copy of your car. We both have your car, and both you and I having your car are not mutually exclusive. The original maker of the car got his money when you bought the car, or when the person you bought the car from bought the car. They did not get the money from the second hand sale of the car, if you bought it second hand, so they did not get the money from my copying of the car. No money changed hands. You have lost nothing as you still have your car. They have lost nothing as they would not have received remuneration from me buying your car from you. No loss has been incurred by any party in this transaction. In fact, you may not even realise that I have a copy of your car.
Now, go and recite 100 times "Piracy is not theft" and we'll forget this ever happened, ok?
You could evaporate the oceans and we'd still need more salt to believe Uwe Boll was capable of directing his own feet one in front of the other when walking, let alone a decent film.
But... but... They're so hard to catch! Can't we puh-leeeeeaase keep on harassing stoners and file sharers? They're such easy targets, and make the statistics look good!
"You're write."
You really are terrible at this, aren't you...
So does this make darkness a clear indication of the absence of Chuck Norris?
Because seriously, I'm considering putting my hands over my eyes right now!
http://www.givemebackmygoogle.com/
Google, without affiliate links. (Also skims a lot of aggregator sites)
People do not like the idea that you come to their most private place, their home, unasked and uninvited, and try to force them to buy your junk. Who would have tought that they do not like that idea?
This is one of my major points when someone argues with me regarding the use of adblocking software.
A door-to-door salesman comes to your hosue. Do you:
a) Wait for him to finish his pitch and consider buying?
b) Listen politely, tell him no thanks, be cordial?
c) Slam the door in his face?
If you answered other than c), now imagine that when you opened the door to let in a friend, the salesman walked in too. He is now walking around your living room looking at your furnishings, which cleaning products you use, inspecting your rubbish, and going through your underwear drawer reading all the labels. He's reading all of your receipts, checking out how often you buy sanitary products, and of which brand. In 3 days time, he'll come back with a truck full of flyers for products related to what he found out about you, and put them over every window, through your letterbox, in your mail (because he's affiliated with the post office) and your newspaper will now be 200 pages thick, 150 of them being adverts.
Now, how about we install a peephole in your door so you know not to open it up when the salesman comes around? That's Adblock.
Other people who use AdBlock are also interested in:
-
-
-
-
-
Apple is trying to become a primary conduit for digital media; if they succeed, then we are stuck with their censorship rules.
No we're not. We stop buying their watered down crud, and they'll quickly relax the rules.
Yes, this is some far-off fantasy where the populace are informed and educated, but it's no less improbable than the Competition Commission / FCC allowing a single distributor of digital media.
It makes a good bumper sticker... Peace through Superior Firepower
Penn and Teller taught an average person to fool a lie detector in about thirty minutes on their show, "Bullshit" which was staged in a tv studio and not at all in the stressful environment of a job interview where the outcome could be fundamental to considering if you are hired or not.
FTFY.
Just over 50 years ago a pioneer of computer science and fundamental actor in Allied victory in World War II was offered prison or chemical castration for homosexuality. Consider that we are still, now, paying in some way for slavery. We have a long way to go before there is no stigma whatsoever attached to being homosexual, no matter how idiotic that stigma may be.
"Where to elect there is but one,
'Tis Hobson's choice—take that, or none."
- Samuel Fisher, 1660