You cannot protect against root kits, all you can do is make it harder to get true root. How is this more effective than making key binaries immutable then removing the kernel ability to remove immutability during boot (performance cost 0%)?
Apparently windows offer update to pirates too, but that is not my point. My point is that i should be able to auto-install security updates without having to worry about other patches and software being downloaded with it. IIRC ie7 and/or ie8 were installed via automatic updates (and set themselves as default browsers), there are situations where that is not acceptable.
If you look at debian/fedora there is always the option of keeping an entirely stable (no new software/bugfixes*) except for security patches, this means admins can apply security patches automatically without worrying about other changes to the system.
*even simple bugfixes break stuff if I've already implemented a work around.
I'm not talking about pirates, there are many cases where legitimate users do not what to apply all patches to their system, but applying only security patches is acceptable.
For example a company that has ie6 only Intranet sites don't want to test against ie7/ie8 but still want security patches for ie6, without having to comb through all the updates and pick out the security ones.
e.g. the equivalent of using debian and having the security repo enabled but not backports.
Make exactly the same amount of money that they would make broadcasting the shows to the BBC with or without DRM.
I'm not saying the studios aren't stupid, but if the BBC can get a 10% discount for playing along then i approve!
The thing is, I don't want to use Windows and install the umpteenth file viewer for the next flavor of DRM. They are making it so that if I want to watch anything at all, it has to be pirated.
Try reading TFA article next time, this is to do with Digital Broadcast television, not with iplayer and it's ilk
Singled out is the coverage of Bob Geldof’s Live 8 concert and the Make Poverty History campaign. The report says there was no rounded debate of the issues.
Debate on what? I think the best line in an article attack the BBC was:
its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial
The wikipedia article is just a catalogue of criticisms from the daily mail and it's ilk.
It's much more effective to check facts than just be exposed to both sets of lies.
The consumer (nay, customer, or better yet, citizen) loses nothing but his chains by resisting and refusing to pay into DRM schemes
Nice rhetoric but, the consumers lose access to American* shows at reasonable prices. The BBC should consider using DRM for shows on a bid by bid basis, taking the option of the table is giving in to the extremists!
*The DRM is not intended for BBC produced shows, we own them entirely and unlikely for independent UK shows (most of the BBCs programming), it is only a serious option for imported shows (which are almost entirely US shows)
The cost of fraud is passed directly to the customer, it does not hurt Microsoft.
People keep repeating this claim, but the truth is, 90% of the time, cost is not proportional to price, it may eat into MegaCrops margins but they will not increase the price of a product in response if it looses them sales. Say you shoplift a TV from MegaCorp, they just lost $1000, that's bad, but if they pull away from the idea price point they may loose 10 sales, or if they drop the price 10% they will lose $1000 per 10 sales. The concept scales everywhere, prices are not set at cost*1.n, they are set at the point where num.sales*price is maximised irrespective of cost.
This way Bing can update your account balance within seconds of the purchase. Of course, the payback won't happen until they've gone back and checked Microsoft's records against the merchant's records and pulled out any differences. The differences go to the auditor and possibly to the police or FBI.
Only he's $0.06 was already avalible for withdrawl, i.e it had passed all the checks.
I hate this attitude out there that "if it isn't nailed down, I have every right to grab it and take it home, and if it is nailed down, I have every right to destroy it". I don't want a world (or even an Internet) where everything is nailed down and/or destroyed.
Actually i think the attitude is, if you are going to deploy software that deals with real money make it secure, the posting wasn't a "howto steal money from microsoft", it was just a blog post detailing a security flaw. There is a big difference between some blag with pictures of kittens and an online shopping system, implemented by a major IT company, If you can deface the homepage of a major IT company it shows incompetence, if you can steal money from them then dear god what are they doing?
I understand that you and others like you enjoy it; that's your perogative. But there are just as many, like me, who hate it.
Simply not true, sure there are people complaining (loudly) but given the size of the mozilla userbase those that dislike the change are in the minority and it is you who should be installing extensions (such as old location bar, which make use of the improved history storage) to customize the default that the majority are indifferent/prefer.
I take it you don't remember the slow downs that you would get opening history or searching your history, in fact it became pretty pointless having history because by the time you find the page you were looking for you could have found it through google. Before the database backend things were much worse for history! If somebody could be bothered to do something instead of just moaning, a simple url completion query would not be significantly slower than doing the same thing in a plane file.
Not quite. The original search bar did suggest results. But it suggested results based on URLs in your history in a left to right manner. Basically the way tab completion works. Disabling the awesome bar as above does not restore this original, useful, sane, and predictable functionality.
It disables the feature, thus removing "bloat". Preferring a simpler version to the current, doesn't make the current version "bloat" it just means you don't agree with the firefox developers (and the majority of users) current design. As the old method of history storage didn't scale very well I understand that the move to sqlite was done for more than just aesthetics, so I think dropping support for the old way is acceptable, ideally there would be a way to use "legacy mode", but i've not looked into it.
Can you really blame people if they stopped looking for a solution in that time frame?
Perhaps, but instead of complaining some people got of their arses and did something about it, hence the feature could be disabled in 3.5. Those that cared could have followed the progress of those who did something instead of just complaining endlessly.
Wow, does the elitism of dick heads on slashdot know any bounds? 1) I haven't used windows for a few years now. 2) Programs that are not running can't be exploited. 3) If an attacker is in a position to launch IE to run an exploit, either you aren't using MAC and you are screwed anyway or you are and it doesn't matter 4) Recent versions of IE are fairly good when it comes to security because they limit process and take process isolation seriously, not using windows is no excuse to spout FUD about it. 5) I never said it should be, but the fact is it is, so there is no point in wasting time removing it when you can just not use it. 6) Kde requires khtml for khelp, gnome must require webkit/gecko, requiring a rendering engine for a help file isn't that bad.
a) preferences, privacy>suggest results from:>Nothing
b) It's not a well-kept secret it's just some people prefer to bitch about stuff rather than bother looking
A lot of people put a lot of effort into figuring out how to remove IE from Windows. Basically it's impossible to completely remove it. I think any unbiased observer would agree that this is a bad thing.
No i think people that remove IE from windows are idiots, if you don't like some functionality don't use it, removing it from the OS to save 100MB on a 7GB install is a waste of time.
And I've no doubt that's exactly what they want--less technology, back to nature Ludditism and, especially, enabling a socialist reworking of human civilization.
God you americans are full of shit most of the time, WTF does energy production and technology have to do with capitalism and socialism? Oh right Socialists countries like France have 74.5% nuclear power (the rest is renewable)! If anything true socialism and even communism are more likely to succeed if there is better tech, if it makes manual jobs redundant the excessive labour that made life in the USSR hard would not be needed.
On/off loading is too hard/slow and train stations (at least here in the UK are often in a terrible location for car traffic). In theory it's a great idea but in practice it costs too much to set-up for businesses to bother. It has been done in France (probably subsidized, but hey i'm a dirty socialist and think government spending money to reduce CO2 emission is needed) but the cars are moved on separate trains so it's no good for everyday travel.
As we all should know by now, impenetrable security doesn't exist.
prove it, damn defeatists always claim that a perfect system is impossible. Hire competent workers, guarantee physical security (we are talking about power plants ffs) and audit the system from the bottom. Look at xscreensaver 10 years with 0 security holes, it allong with a host of other programs, show that you can make a system impenetrable!
The only option that can get universal support is Theora,
No one wants to hold multiple formats for the same video,
Many sites already hold 2/3 versions of a video at different qualities (they often also have an iphone version in a different format), so I don't think that is true at all. IMO the best option is a Theora baseline, browsers can buy patent licenses if they want more, but the baseline has to be patent free.
Slashdot Mirror
You cannot protect against root kits, all you can do is make it harder to get true root. How is this more effective than making key binaries immutable then removing the kernel ability to remove immutability during boot (performance cost 0%)?
Apparently windows offer update to pirates too, but that is not my point. My point is that i should be able to auto-install security updates without having to worry about other patches and software being downloaded with it. IIRC ie7 and/or ie8 were installed via automatic updates (and set themselves as default browsers), there are situations where that is not acceptable.
If you look at debian/fedora there is always the option of keeping an entirely stable (no new software/bugfixes*) except for security patches, this means admins can apply security patches automatically without worrying about other changes to the system.
*even simple bugfixes break stuff if I've already implemented a work around.
I'm not talking about pirates, there are many cases where legitimate users do not what to apply all patches to their system, but applying only security patches is acceptable.
For example a company that has ie6 only Intranet sites don't want to test against ie7/ie8 but still want security patches for ie6, without having to comb through all the updates and pick out the security ones.
e.g. the equivalent of using debian and having the security repo enabled but not backports.
Too bad so many XP users don't opt-in to patching
This is Microsoft's fault for not offering a security only patch channel and pushing WGA ,etc through as windows updates.
I know this is probably comes across as trolling but it's not just Microsoft bashing for the sake of it.
If you make prank phone calls (even blocking caller ID), the phone company can be made to hand over your phone number & details
I don't think this should be the norm (you can't normally get somebody phoning you named), but i don't see why the internet should be any different.
or to meme it up for you:
Libellous comment is libellous
Threatening comment is threatening
Harassing comment is harassing
The BBC's goal is to get cheaper licenses, the fact it doesn't work doesn't matter (the scheme proposed was particularly weak)
Make exactly the same amount of money that they would make broadcasting the shows to the BBC with or without DRM.
I'm not saying the studios aren't stupid, but if the BBC can get a 10% discount for playing along then i approve!
The thing is, I don't want to use Windows and install the umpteenth file viewer for the next flavor of DRM. They are making it so that if I want to watch anything at all, it has to be pirated.
Try reading TFA article next time, this is to do with Digital Broadcast television, not with iplayer and it's ilk
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/ - bullshit ranting, including a post saying that saying "occupied east philistine" is biased.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-411846/We-biased-admit-stars-BBC-News.html - Daily mail, nuf said
the times article is not as bad but:
Singled out is the coverage of Bob Geldof’s Live 8 concert and the Make Poverty History campaign. The report says there was no rounded debate of the issues.
Debate on what?
I think the best line in an article attack the BBC was:
its coverage of conventional politics is judged to be fair and impartial
The wikipedia article is just a catalogue of criticisms from the daily mail and it's ilk.
It's much more effective to check facts than just be exposed to both sets of lies.
The consumer (nay, customer, or better yet, citizen) loses nothing but his chains by resisting and refusing to pay into DRM schemes
Nice rhetoric but, the consumers lose access to American* shows at reasonable prices. The BBC should consider using DRM for shows on a bid by bid basis, taking the option of the table is giving in to the extremists!
*The DRM is not intended for BBC produced shows, we own them entirely and unlikely for independent UK shows (most of the BBCs programming), it is only a serious option for imported shows (which are almost entirely US shows)
The cost of fraud is passed directly to the customer, it does not hurt Microsoft.
People keep repeating this claim, but the truth is, 90% of the time, cost is not proportional to price, it may eat into MegaCrops margins but they will not increase the price of a product in response if it looses them sales. Say you shoplift a TV from MegaCorp, they just lost $1000, that's bad, but if they pull away from the idea price point they may loose 10 sales, or if they drop the price 10% they will lose $1000 per 10 sales.
The concept scales everywhere, prices are not set at cost*1.n, they are set at the point where num.sales*price is maximised irrespective of cost.
This way Bing can update your account balance within seconds of the purchase. Of course, the payback won't happen until they've gone back and checked Microsoft's records against the merchant's records and pulled out any differences. The differences go to the auditor and possibly to the police or FBI.
Only he's $0.06 was already avalible for withdrawl, i.e it had passed all the checks.
I hate this attitude out there that "if it isn't nailed down, I have every right to grab it and take it home, and if it is nailed down, I have every right to destroy it". I don't want a world (or even an Internet) where everything is nailed down and/or destroyed.
Actually i think the attitude is, if you are going to deploy software that deals with real money make it secure, the posting wasn't a "howto steal money from microsoft", it was just a blog post detailing a security flaw. There is a big difference between some blag with pictures of kittens and an online shopping system, implemented by a major IT company, If you can deface the homepage of a major IT company it shows incompetence, if you can steal money from them then dear god what are they doing?
I understand that you and others like you enjoy it; that's your perogative. But there are just as many, like me, who hate it.
Simply not true, sure there are people complaining (loudly) but given the size of the mozilla userbase those that dislike the change are in the minority and it is you who should be installing extensions (such as old location bar, which make use of the improved history storage) to customize the default that the majority are indifferent/prefer.
I take it you don't remember the slow downs that you would get opening history or searching your history, in fact it became pretty pointless having history because by the time you find the page you were looking for you could have found it through google. Before the database backend things were much worse for history! If somebody could be bothered to do something instead of just moaning, a simple url completion query would not be significantly slower than doing the same thing in a plane file.
Not quite. The original search bar did suggest results. But it suggested results based on URLs in your history in a left to right manner. Basically the way tab completion works. Disabling the awesome bar as above does not restore this original, useful, sane, and predictable functionality.
It disables the feature, thus removing "bloat". Preferring a simpler version to the current, doesn't make the current version "bloat" it just means you don't agree with the firefox developers (and the majority of users) current design. As the old method of history storage didn't scale very well I understand that the move to sqlite was done for more than just aesthetics, so I think dropping support for the old way is acceptable, ideally there would be a way to use "legacy mode", but i've not looked into it.
Can you really blame people if they stopped looking for a solution in that time frame?
Perhaps, but instead of complaining some people got of their arses and did something about it, hence the feature could be disabled in 3.5. Those that cared could have followed the progress of those who did something instead of just complaining endlessly.
Wow, does the elitism of dick heads on slashdot know any bounds?
1) I haven't used windows for a few years now.
2) Programs that are not running can't be exploited.
3) If an attacker is in a position to launch IE to run an exploit, either you aren't using MAC and you are screwed anyway or you are and it doesn't matter
4) Recent versions of IE are fairly good when it comes to security because they limit process and take process isolation seriously, not using windows is no excuse to spout FUD about it.
5) I never said it should be, but the fact is it is, so there is no point in wasting time removing it when you can just not use it.
6) Kde requires khtml for khelp, gnome must require webkit/gecko, requiring a rendering engine for a help file isn't that bad.
Will these new drugs, help me keep my buzz going for longer? If so will somebody please think of the children!
a) preferences, privacy>suggest results from:>Nothing
b) It's not a well-kept secret it's just some people prefer to bitch about stuff rather than bother looking
A lot of people put a lot of effort into figuring out how to remove IE from Windows. Basically it's impossible to completely remove it. I think any unbiased observer would agree that this is a bad thing.
No i think people that remove IE from windows are idiots, if you don't like some functionality don't use it, removing it from the OS to save 100MB on a 7GB install is a waste of time.
Why should I need to install an addon to enable it, when all you can install an addon to disable it?
preferences, privacy>suggest results from:>Nothing, that completely disables the awesome bar.
If you want to get the old bar then you need an extension or an about:config hack (browser.urlbar.maxRichResults=0, IRRC)
And I've no doubt that's exactly what they want--less technology, back to nature Ludditism and, especially, enabling a socialist reworking of human civilization.
God you americans are full of shit most of the time, WTF does energy production and technology have to do with capitalism and socialism? Oh right Socialists countries like France have 74.5% nuclear power (the rest is renewable)! If anything true socialism and even communism are more likely to succeed if there is better tech, if it makes manual jobs redundant the excessive labour that made life in the USSR hard would not be needed.
On/off loading is too hard/slow and train stations (at least here in the UK are often in a terrible location for car traffic). In theory it's a great idea but in practice it costs too much to set-up for businesses to bother. It has been done in France (probably subsidized, but hey i'm a dirty socialist and think government spending money to reduce CO2 emission is needed) but the cars are moved on separate trains so it's no good for everyday travel.
You can disable it entirely (the functionality not just the look) in FF3.5, so what exactly is your problem with me using it?
As we all should know by now, impenetrable security doesn't exist.
prove it, damn defeatists always claim that a perfect system is impossible. Hire competent workers, guarantee physical security (we are talking about power plants ffs) and audit the system from the bottom. Look at xscreensaver 10 years with 0 security holes, it allong with a host of other programs, show that you can make a system impenetrable!
The only option that can get universal support is Theora,
No one wants to hold multiple formats for the same video,
Many sites already hold 2/3 versions of a video at different qualities (they often also have an iphone version in a different format), so I don't think that is true at all. IMO the best option is a Theora baseline, browsers can buy patent licenses if they want more, but the baseline has to be patent free.
Worst of both worlds, All browsers must implement an inferior standard AND pay royalties.