Instead of posting anything anonymously yourself, just tell someone else to post it. There speling errors will not be the smae as your's and their sentence structure will be different.
Okay, they'll be able to group all of his posting as being posted by him... but they won't be able to tie it to him unless he also posts a lot of stuff non-anonymously.
The law says it's ok for me to sit on our mail server and start opening up people's mailboxes, reading the contents of all their email too. As an employee, would you really be ok with that, knowing I was doing that all the time at your business?
The law says that it is okay for a company to hire someone to do that. If the company wants to dedicate someone to that, fine.
If you're doing it without being told to do it, there may be a problem. But that's an HR issue, not necessarily a legal issue.
I understand that despite what the *law* says, people still feel like the company property assigned to them for their use during the workday is *generally* not subject to snooping.
Whatever. Here, all my users know that I can look through whatever they're doing. I will USUALLY call them and tell them that I'll be doing it, but if there is any problem I will handle the problem FIRST and worry about their feelings SECOND.
That's why we have logins with passwords on them, and email isn't just collectively sent out under a heading of the company's name.
No. The login/password combination are to establish some base that you are you and that the stuff you are doing can be tracked back to you. Either positive or negative.
(The Internet connection and mail servers might be owned by your employer, but they don't really own your thoughts, put into writing, in individual emails, right?)
Wrong. That depends upon the country you are in. If you put it in writing, on company time, using company resources, then the company MAY own it.
If you do NOT want the company involved, do NOT do it on company time. It's as simple as that.
You see the logs of some guy looking a kiddie porn and you report it to your HR department.
Where's the ethical dilemma?
If HR does nothing about it, you report it to the FBI.
Where's the ethical dilemma?
And ethical dilemma would be where there were two ethically valid choices with different consequences. If you have two kids and they're both drowning, which one do you save first?
The question is, should Microsoft then deny the victim any security updates? I can see turning the screen black and such. I have no problem with Microsoft denying the USER any functionality.
But denying security updates just means that OTHER people will suffer when that box is cracked.
Microsoft has some pretty smart people working there. I'm sure that they could come up with a way that would demonstrate to the user AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE whether their copy was legitimate or not AND REGISTER IT TO THAT USER.
Every gift would come with fine print, and everytime two humans exchanged *anything*, they'd have to thumbstamp a contract.
That's it. If you set up a website, does the viewer have a reasonable expectation that it is a business as opposed to a "gift" or some kind of "loss leader"?
If I buy a woman a drink, we all know what my goal is. And yet if that goal is not met, no one could say that she "stole" anything from me.
If you put up a website, we do NOT know what your goal is. Therefore, you don't even meet the standards of me buying a drink for a woman.
Demanding that I view all ads on all sites is just plain stupid. And calling it "theft" if I refuse is 100% wrong.
In the end, a few things are clear: Users of advertisement skipping technology are essentially engaged in theft of resources.
No. If you do not get the reaction you expected from me, then you have simply lost that portion of your investment. I have not stolen anything from you.
Next up on Slashdot, if she won't blow you after you buy her a drink, is she guilty of "theft of resources"?
Did the Germans find the plot BEFORE we got involved?
Did we find the plot BEFORE the Germans got involved?
Was this plot uncovered through basic German police work? or Was this plot uncovered through our massive surveillance program of all communications that we can get into?
I'm a little bit suspicious as to the TIMING of this announcement, too.
But less so than a year ago. sectarian killings are down. Anbar is quieting up. Baghdad is, yes, basically being ethnically cleansed, and right we're really more presiding over a partition of the country than its unification.. but it is what the people of Iraq really want...
The killings are "down" in that each section has pretty much killed everyone they didn't like in that section. Or the people that were being targeted have run away.
But warlordism is not a basis for a stable country. Which is why Iraq's "government" is completely ineffectual.
Ideologically, the BBC is absolutely an absurdly liberal institution but even their radio commentators on the BBC News Hour on NPR will tell you that the United States has an obligation to remain in Iraq.
Try addressing their specific points rather than dismissing them because of a "ideology" that you ascribe to them.
Mostly, I'm basing my assesment on the military blogs and people that I know who are there.
Sure you are. Always the anonymous sources.
Petreaus is the general...
And when he fails, the next general will be the one "we should have had from the get go".
And when that one fails, the general after him will be the one.
Repeat until we, eventually, leave.
It seems like life is improving in Anbar, which was a difficult province for us.
Again, give one side enough time and it will settle down because it will have killed everyone it doesn't like.
It's called "warlordism" and it does not make for a stable government.
It's the shiite areas that are problematic now, but, even so, Kurdish + Sunni areas already give us a peaceful majority of Iraq, which is certainly an improvement.
The Kurds have been fairly peaceful ever since we established the "no fly zones" over their territory after Gulf War I. So don't go claiming that that is any improvement.
Now it is just over who controls the oil fields and who gets stuck with the worthless territory.
If you would have asked me about Iraq, pre-surge, I would have said, let's just leave and let them all kill each other.
That is what you are advocating right now.
That is what you are touting as the "success" here.
The other side of that is that lowering the power consumption means lowering the heat generated which means lowering the cooling requirements.
And cooling requires electricity also. So by reducing the power usage of one component, you can save money on your cooling costs, also. It's twice the savings.
We go through this every time this subject comes up.
It would be EASY for ISP's to block outgoing port 25 connections. Some of them already do.
That means that the worm would have to send through the ISP's mail servers.
Which means that the ISP can easily monitor the NUMBER of messages sent by any user. No need to dig into everyone's email. Just look for the senders who are X% higher than the average.
And watch for sudden increases in a user's mail usage. It should be easy to establish a baseline for each account.
I do that where I work to watch out for dueling vacation replies.
So, what is the problem with a blackboard? Be precise.
Then, look at whether the technology will solve that/those problem(s). We're talking math here. Is the technology going to allow you to better explain some difficult concepts or will the focus end up being on the technology?
Blackboards work because blackboards always work. They don't need to be rebooted.
So Vista isn't (formally) going counter to protocol, it's just going counter to a 15-year old custom.
And counter to Microsoft's last 4 operating systems.
They got it right back in 1995 (12 years ago)... and they're changing it now.
In summary: a tropical storm in a teacup.
Nope. Just another example of how Microsoft does not care about published standards. Their DHCP services can handle it so why should they spend any time understanding the standard that the rest of the world follows?
After all, everyone else will probably change to support Microsoft's weird implementation. Who cares about the problems that the users have in the meantime? If Microsoft is lucky, no one will be able to explain the problem in terms those users could understand and the rest of the world will be blamed for the problems when it is Microsoft who is not following the published standard.
What's wrong with providing a simple GUI for accomplishing the same thing?
Nothing is wrong with it.
The problem is with the people claiming that a GUI is NECESSARY.
Years ago we had DOS. And we ran WordPerfect. And we ran Lotus 123. A GUI is not necessary. It is nice. But it is not necessary.
Surely providing an option for people more used to GUIs can only help Linux adoption.
No one is saying that it would hurt Linux adoption. Just that the argument that a GUI is necessary is incorrect.
Not everyone cares to learn the Unix command set, or the ins and outs of package management, so why force them to work that way?
No one is forcing them. No one is saying that they should not have that option. Just that the argument that a GUI is necessary is incorrect.
Aren't they making enough of a commitment by trying Linux out?
And by "trying Linux out" you mean "complaining that it isn't exactly like Windows. Linux is NOT Windows and anyone who is honestly "trying Linux out" will try to learn the differences.
You cannot apply your experiences to everyone and expect them to jump through the hoops you're happy to jump through in order to get something simple done.
Of course I can. Since I went through the learning experience I am better suited to know what the differences are and what the minimum skills required are. Again, Linux is NOT Windows. People spent time learning Windows. Why do you expect a completely different system to exactly the same?
Ever drive a manual transmission? It's different from an automatic. It requires a different skill set.
Making it simple and visual is a good thing for the rest of the population.
Which is why I get so many calls to fix broken Windows boxes.
What happens when the "click here to fix all the problems" GUI does not launch?
With Windows, you bring it to me.
With Ubuntu, you don't have to. You type "apt-get install --reinstall foo" and it works again.
Now, what is the problem with having a few basic commands written down on a 3x5 card and taped to the side of the box? When the GUI fails, a little thought and some very simple commands will bring your box back WITHOUT having to bring it to me.
I think you are misusing "easier" when you really mean "more powerful".
Nope. It's both. How difficult is typing "apt-get install --reinstall foo"? The only difficult part is finding that information when you're an average user who doesn't have access to a GUI web browser. But once you have it, it's simple.
If I can make the mistakes in GUI, I should be able to fix my mistakes in GUI also.
Why? That just limits the range of options.
This mentality that "users just need to get used to Linux, and drop their Windows attitude" will simply not fly.
Why? It's a fact. Linux is NOT Windows.
A parallel could be brought up about car design and interface; many concept vehicles completely redesign how a driver uses the vehicle, yet the mainstream isn't willing to change the old and understood for someone's idea of 'better'.
Nope. Bad analogy. While the majority of USER INTERACTIONS are the same between models of cars (and Ubuntu and Windows), they are NOT all the same.
Imagine the fun of a user refusing to change the way he puts fuel in a car. He learned that the fuel tank is on the driver's side and he'll be damned if he's going to put fuel in on any other side.
Would you consider that person an idiot? Yes, you would.
Cruise control belongs on the stick, not the steering wheel. I don't care if I crash into things.
<blockquote>Being able to get a console and edit xorg.conf will probably always be with us, but it should never be the primary means of configuration for a desktop machine.</blockquote> Unless you're in an office environment where you have many machines that are identical. Then you can just push out the default configuration and allow the user to change from there (<Ctrl><Alt><+> & <Ctrl><Alt><->).
Having the GUI is great for home users who will have every possible video card + monitor combination. Not to mention that they will be able to import the Windows.inf file for their monitor. That makes it even easier for them.
Linux is generally nice and stable, but when it does go wrong, to most people it's just far, far too hard to recover your installation back into a working state - much more so than, dare I say it, Windows.
I think that that is the case ONLY because those people are coming from a Windows background.
Personally, I find it far, Far, FAR, FAR easier to recover a damaged Linux box than a damaged Windows box. But that is primarily because the damaged Windows boxes that I get have major Registry issues.
As long as you can get an Ubuntu box to boot to the command line, it is "easy" to fix. "Easy" is in quotes because it takes a little bit of knowledge. But not much. I'm running Gutsy Gibbon at home and even with 2 problems (it is still alpha) I've been able to recover my system without rebooting in less than 5 minutes.
The magic is in APT and the repositories. As long as I can connect to the repositories and run APT, I can remove the problem or re-install over it.
As more people become familiar with Ubuntu (and Debian and Debian-based distributions) the "fear" of Linux will vanish. It's just so much EASIER than Windows. (unless your hardware isn't supported but that's a different issue)
http://www.firsttvdrama.com/enterprise/index.php3 Excellent reviews of Enterprise and WHY it sucked. Not really about the Star Trek universe. More about telling the stories in that universe. And isn't that what this is all about?
http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/trek/0.html I hope that guy's bandwidth can take the hit. He has GREAT ideas about how to "fix" the Star Trek universe itself. Why DOES a phaser heat rocks AND vaporize enemies? How does a trasporter work? "Logically" within the framework provided.
The problem that Star Trek had... well there were two problems. #1. It was episodic and the "technology" was altered from episode to episode to suit the writer of that episode.
#2. Roddenberry was fixated on the current (at the time) social issues and how to portray them in his series. That's why you have the first inter-racial kiss and a Russian working with a Chinese on a "USS" ship. Where's the gay captain today? The Islamic first officer?
Star Trek sucks now because the stories suck. And the stories suck because they aren't challenging. And the stories aren't challenging because Hollywood doesn't want the RISK of challenging stories.
If they want to bring back Star Trek they need to completely change the WRITING. Get the best writers and give them 4 hours to fill. With the only limitations being that all the techno-babble needed to be vetted by a real Star Trek geek and they couldn't alter the established time lines.
Each month you'd get an entirely new, but still coherent, Star Trek. Some would suck. Some would not. And the ones that didn't suck could be expanded.
Back then, I was executive producing the TV series, "The Crow: Stairway to Heaven" and...
Have you seen any of that? They have him getting a JOB. That is beyond stupid. He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a script or camera or editing room.
Yep, they worked well together and gave that series most of its charm.
But they aren't required for a "Star Trek" episode or movie or series.
There is so much material out there. Why don't any of the "writers" use it? Look at what most people consider the "best" Star Trek movie. You know which it was. And it was written with the restriction of being based off of a single episode.
Why does it always come back to getting the original cast into the "new" material? I'm sure that people here can come up with ten different, decent concepts that do NOT involve any of the established characters or contravene established canon. Why can't the writers do that?
That's quite the glib statement, considering that worm requires so much user action (or inaction, depending on how you look at it) to infect a Windows box, it's not even funny.
Here are the steps to infect a Windows box.
#1. Receive email with link to infection site. #2. Click on link to infection site. #3. There is no step #3. You're probably infected already.
Sure, in some circumstances they'll have to download a.exe to actually get infected. If they've maintained their patches. But the people who would be doing that probably wouldn't run an unknown.exe, would they?
This is EXACTLY the kind of exploit that was brought up back during the Netscape trial where Microsoft claimed it was a good idea to merge the browser with the OS.
Slashdot Mirror
Instead of posting anything anonymously yourself, just tell someone else to post it. There speling errors will not be the smae as your's and their sentence structure will be different.
... but they won't be able to tie it to him unless he also posts a lot of stuff non-anonymously.
Okay, they'll be able to group all of his posting as being posted by him
The law says that it is okay for a company to hire someone to do that. If the company wants to dedicate someone to that, fine.
If you're doing it without being told to do it, there may be a problem. But that's an HR issue, not necessarily a legal issue.
Whatever. Here, all my users know that I can look through whatever they're doing. I will USUALLY call them and tell them that I'll be doing it, but if there is any problem I will handle the problem FIRST and worry about their feelings SECOND.
No. The login/password combination are to establish some base that you are you and that the stuff you are doing can be tracked back to you. Either positive or negative.
Wrong. That depends upon the country you are in. If you put it in writing, on company time, using company resources, then the company MAY own it.
If you do NOT want the company involved, do NOT do it on company time. It's as simple as that.
You see the logs of some guy looking a kiddie porn and you report it to your HR department.
Where's the ethical dilemma?
If HR does nothing about it, you report it to the FBI.
Where's the ethical dilemma?
And ethical dilemma would be where there were two ethically valid choices with different consequences. If you have two kids and they're both drowning, which one do you save first?
Actually, it's "copyright infringement".
The question is, should Microsoft then deny the victim any security updates? I can see turning the screen black and such. I have no problem with Microsoft denying the USER any functionality.
But denying security updates just means that OTHER people will suffer when that box is cracked.
Microsoft has some pretty smart people working there. I'm sure that they could come up with a way that would demonstrate to the user AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE whether their copy was legitimate or not AND REGISTER IT TO THAT USER.
That's it. If you set up a website, does the viewer have a reasonable expectation that it is a business as opposed to a "gift" or some kind of "loss leader"?
If I buy a woman a drink, we all know what my goal is. And yet if that goal is not met, no one could say that she "stole" anything from me.
If you put up a website, we do NOT know what your goal is. Therefore, you don't even meet the standards of me buying a drink for a woman.
Demanding that I view all ads on all sites is just plain stupid. And calling it "theft" if I refuse is 100% wrong.
No. If you do not get the reaction you expected from me, then you have simply lost that portion of your investment. I have not stolen anything from you.
Next up on Slashdot, if she won't blow you after you buy her a drink, is she guilty of "theft of resources"?
How would a SMART terrorist get around that?
Then, how would that SMART terrorist implement it? And disseminate the information?
Spies have been doing it for years. Radios, encrypted transmissions, letter drops, etc.
Wouldn't the FIRST less of terrorist school be: "Americans listen to everything. Do NOT use your cell phone or email."
Not very many Americans are killed by nuclear bombs.
Some Americans are killed by terrorists. But the number is just slightly higher than the number of Americans killed by nuclear bombs.
Far, FAR, FAR more likely, you'll die of something related to eating too much junk food.
Well DUH! Our military being in Iraq might have been a subtle clue, eh?
The question is: SHOULD we be at war?
No. We should treat terrorism the same as we treat any other organized criminal enterprise.
Yes and yes. Otherwise you people wouldn't still be crying about the "threat" from "terrorists".
Did the Germans find the plot BEFORE we got involved?
Did we find the plot BEFORE the Germans got involved?
Was this plot uncovered through basic German police work?
or
Was this plot uncovered through our massive surveillance program of all communications that we can get into?
I'm a little bit suspicious as to the TIMING of this announcement, too.
Can it be verified that it really was him posting that?
The killings are "down" in that each section has pretty much killed everyone they didn't like in that section. Or the people that were being targeted have run away.
But warlordism is not a basis for a stable country. Which is why Iraq's "government" is completely ineffectual.
Try addressing their specific points rather than dismissing them because of a "ideology" that you ascribe to them.
Sure you are. Always the anonymous sources.
And when he fails, the next general will be the one "we should have had from the get go".
And when that one fails, the general after him will be the one.
Repeat until we, eventually, leave.
Again, give one side enough time and it will settle down because it will have killed everyone it doesn't like.
It's called "warlordism" and it does not make for a stable government.
The Kurds have been fairly peaceful ever since we established the "no fly zones" over their territory after Gulf War I. So don't go claiming that that is any improvement.
Now it is just over who controls the oil fields and who gets stuck with the worthless territory.
That is what you are advocating right now.
That is what you are touting as the "success" here.
Gotta love that kind of insightful commentary.
The other side of that is that lowering the power consumption means lowering the heat generated which means lowering the cooling requirements.
And cooling requires electricity also. So by reducing the power usage of one component, you can save money on your cooling costs, also. It's twice the savings.
We go through this every time this subject comes up.
It would be EASY for ISP's to block outgoing port 25 connections. Some of them already do.
That means that the worm would have to send through the ISP's mail servers.
Which means that the ISP can easily monitor the NUMBER of messages sent by any user. No need to dig into everyone's email. Just look for the senders who are X% higher than the average.
And watch for sudden increases in a user's mail usage. It should be easy to establish a baseline for each account.
I do that where I work to watch out for dueling vacation replies.
So, there won't be duplicates.
Which means that in order to attract people to YOUR news site, you'll have to ADD something. Either background research, interviews, commentary, etc.
Sure, the commentary might not be "better". It will probably still be biased. But the facts should appear more consistently now.
So, what is the problem with a blackboard? Be precise.
Then, look at whether the technology will solve that/those problem(s). We're talking math here. Is the technology going to allow you to better explain some difficult concepts or will the focus end up being on the technology?
Blackboards work because blackboards always work. They don't need to be rebooted.
And counter to Microsoft's last 4 operating systems.
They got it right back in 1995 (12 years ago)
Nope. Just another example of how Microsoft does not care about published standards. Their DHCP services can handle it so why should they spend any time understanding the standard that the rest of the world follows?
After all, everyone else will probably change to support Microsoft's weird implementation. Who cares about the problems that the users have in the meantime? If Microsoft is lucky, no one will be able to explain the problem in terms those users could understand and the rest of the world will be blamed for the problems when it is Microsoft who is not following the published standard.
Nothing is wrong with it.
The problem is with the people claiming that a GUI is NECESSARY.
Years ago we had DOS. And we ran WordPerfect. And we ran Lotus 123. A GUI is not necessary. It is nice. But it is not necessary.
No one is saying that it would hurt Linux adoption. Just that the argument that a GUI is necessary is incorrect.
No one is forcing them. No one is saying that they should not have that option. Just that the argument that a GUI is necessary is incorrect.
And by "trying Linux out" you mean "complaining that it isn't exactly like Windows. Linux is NOT Windows and anyone who is honestly "trying Linux out" will try to learn the differences.
Of course I can. Since I went through the learning experience I am better suited to know what the differences are and what the minimum skills required are. Again, Linux is NOT Windows. People spent time learning Windows. Why do you expect a completely different system to exactly the same?
Ever drive a manual transmission? It's different from an automatic. It requires a different skill set.
Which is why I get so many calls to fix broken Windows boxes.
What happens when the "click here to fix all the problems" GUI does not launch?
With Windows, you bring it to me.
With Ubuntu, you don't have to. You type "apt-get install --reinstall foo" and it works again.
Now, what is the problem with having a few basic commands written down on a 3x5 card and taped to the side of the box? When the GUI fails, a little thought and some very simple commands will bring your box back WITHOUT having to bring it to me.
Nope. It's both. How difficult is typing "apt-get install --reinstall foo"? The only difficult part is finding that information when you're an average user who doesn't have access to a GUI web browser. But once you have it, it's simple.
Why? That just limits the range of options.
Why? It's a fact. Linux is NOT Windows.
Nope. Bad analogy. While the majority of USER INTERACTIONS are the same between models of cars (and Ubuntu and Windows), they are NOT all the same.
Imagine the fun of a user refusing to change the way he puts fuel in a car. He learned that the fuel tank is on the driver's side and he'll be damned if he's going to put fuel in on any other side.
Would you consider that person an idiot? Yes, you would.
Cruise control belongs on the stick, not the steering wheel. I don't care if I crash into things.
And manual vs automatic?
Linux is NOT Windows. Don't treat it like it is.
<blockquote>Being able to get a console and edit xorg.conf will probably always be with us, but it should never be the primary means of configuration for a desktop machine.</blockquote>
.inf file for their monitor. That makes it even easier for them.
Unless you're in an office environment where you have many machines that are identical. Then you can just push out the default configuration and allow the user to change from there (<Ctrl><Alt><+> & <Ctrl><Alt><->).
Having the GUI is great for home users who will have every possible video card + monitor combination. Not to mention that they will be able to import the Windows
I think that that is the case ONLY because those people are coming from a Windows background.
Personally, I find it far, Far, FAR, FAR easier to recover a damaged Linux box than a damaged Windows box. But that is primarily because the damaged Windows boxes that I get have major Registry issues.
As long as you can get an Ubuntu box to boot to the command line, it is "easy" to fix. "Easy" is in quotes because it takes a little bit of knowledge. But not much. I'm running Gutsy Gibbon at home and even with 2 problems (it is still alpha) I've been able to recover my system without rebooting in less than 5 minutes.
The magic is in APT and the repositories. As long as I can connect to the repositories and run APT, I can remove the problem or re-install over it.
As more people become familiar with Ubuntu (and Debian and Debian-based distributions) the "fear" of Linux will vanish. It's just so much EASIER than Windows. (unless your hardware isn't supported but that's a different issue)
Linux has always had "safe mode". You boot single user from the command line.
..... I guess you could consider it "safe mode" for X.org. But not for "Linux".
This is more "easy GUI re-configuration of X.org when X.org blows up".
Well
http://www.firsttvdrama.com/enterprise/index.php3
... well there were two problems.
Excellent reviews of Enterprise and WHY it sucked. Not really about the Star Trek universe. More about telling the stories in that universe. And isn't that what this is all about?
http://www.xibalba.demon.co.uk/jbr/trek/0.html
I hope that guy's bandwidth can take the hit. He has GREAT ideas about how to "fix" the Star Trek universe itself. Why DOES a phaser heat rocks AND vaporize enemies? How does a trasporter work? "Logically" within the framework provided.
The problem that Star Trek had
#1. It was episodic and the "technology" was altered from episode to episode to suit the writer of that episode.
#2. Roddenberry was fixated on the current (at the time) social issues and how to portray them in his series. That's why you have the first inter-racial kiss and a Russian working with a Chinese on a "USS" ship. Where's the gay captain today? The Islamic first officer?
Star Trek sucks now because the stories suck. And the stories suck because they aren't challenging. And the stories aren't challenging because Hollywood doesn't want the RISK of challenging stories.
If they want to bring back Star Trek they need to completely change the WRITING. Get the best writers and give them 4 hours to fill. With the only limitations being that all the techno-babble needed to be vetted by a real Star Trek geek and they couldn't alter the established time lines.
Each month you'd get an entirely new, but still coherent, Star Trek. Some would suck. Some would not. And the ones that didn't suck could be expanded.
Have you seen any of that? They have him getting a JOB. That is beyond stupid. He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a script or camera or editing room.
Yep, they worked well together and gave that series most of its charm.
But they aren't required for a "Star Trek" episode or movie or series.
There is so much material out there. Why don't any of the "writers" use it? Look at what most people consider the "best" Star Trek movie. You know which it was. And it was written with the restriction of being based off of a single episode.
Why does it always come back to getting the original cast into the "new" material? I'm sure that people here can come up with ten different, decent concepts that do NOT involve any of the established characters or contravene established canon. Why can't the writers do that?
Here are the steps to infect a Windows box.
#1. Receive email with link to infection site.
#2. Click on link to infection site.
#3. There is no step #3. You're probably infected already.
Sure, in some circumstances they'll have to download a
This is EXACTLY the kind of exploit that was brought up back during the Netscape trial where Microsoft claimed it was a good idea to merge the browser with the OS.