Allowing a.xxx domain would've done nothing to protect minors from exposure to pornography.
That's not 100% accurate.
With a.xxx TLD, the legitimate porn vendors would have a TLD that could be 100% blocked by schools and "nanny" programs. That means that anything they put there would be as "safe" as possible from innocent children accessing it. Any time a kid at school got to a.xxx site, it would be the fault of the vendor making the "nanny" app or the school for not securing its system correctly.
Now, this would not do anything to "protect" the children from a.com site run in some other country. But partial "protection" is better than no "protection" at all.
"Protection" is in quotes because this is about filtering and legal liability, not "protecting" children.
That being said, I don't think another TLD is scalable. Instead, a.xxx.us domain would be better. And so on for each country that wants to do so.
The.xxx domain was just another way to make money from a TLD domain rush (quite a good one I suspect, looking at how much sex.com ended up being worth).
Yeah, there would be a rush. But that's just evidence that the TLD system is busted. There wouldn't be as big a rush if it was.xxx.us.
Is your story possible? Sure. But I think you are OVERSTATING your case here. The likelyhood of being seriously squeezed by Microsoft because you rolled out the wrong image is actually fairly low IMO.
That's great. Of course, the article seems to contradict your opinion, but that doesn't mean your opinion is invalid.
In the article, the Microsoft rep didn't even have any evidence that the guy had rolled out an image (and there is no "wrong" about the image, it is pure license bullshit).
But the Microsoft rep seemed to trying tactics that would seem to qualify as "seriously squeezed".
But if your opinion is that Microsoft would not try that, that's great.
I should point out that I went through a Microsoft "audit" once that consisted of looking at reports from the SMS server. Of course that company was actually doing something to track and *pay for* software licenses. No nitpicking over keys or certificates.
You might want to pay attention to that "No nitpicking over keys or certificates".
In other words, that company was letting Microsoft fuck them out of additional licensing revenue and Microsoft was returning the favour by not fucking them as hard as they could have fucked them (and inviting all Microsoft's friends to fuck them, too).
Yeah, that's great. Microsoft is actually being nice when they ass rape you without lube because they could be ass raping you with sandpaper or lemon juice or sandpaper and lemon juice and salt!
Thanks, but I think I'll maintain my anal sovereignty. If Microsoft wants a shot at my ass, they're going to have to get a search warrant and I already know all their tricks.
Microsoft comes in and all your holograms are in order and you're a good customer. I find it highly unlikley they will bust you because you lack sales reciepts or can't "PROVE" that they aren't fake.
Ah, that's where you are mistaken.
If you are a "good customer" of Microsoft's then you have a LOT of time / effort / data invested in their products. Migrating to anything else is VERY FUCKING EXPENSIVE. Not just in money, but in time and effort and all the tiny incompatibilities that will result in your users asking what the fuck you were thinking when you decided to drop Microsoft.
So the easiest source of revenue is for Microsoft to "audit" their "good customers" and hit them with a bill for the most common errors that IT departments make.
After working in IT for more than 10 years, I can say that most shops are out of compliance simply because they don't really care.
That's not uncommon.
The problem is that Microsoft is threatening those customers who DO care and DO spend the time and money to stay legit.
AND
Microsoft is NOT putting any time / effort / money into providing any easy way for their "good customers" to track their licenses (or even validate that a license is legit).
This is Microsoft we're talking about. They have BILLIONS of dollars. They have very smart people. They should be able to work up a system where I can enter each and every license I have and validate that it is legit and that it is mine.
But they aren't interested in that. That approach would cost them money to implement and it would result in fewer sales because "good customers" would already have had Microsoft approve their licenses.
And that is why this whole situation is so fucked up. It's all about Microsoft making the situation as difficult as possible so they can wring every last dollar from it.
Here's an example:
You buy 50 workstations from Dell. Each comes with WinXP. You then buy a retail version of WinXP. That's 51 licenses for 50 boxes. You image one box using the full retail license and dump that image on the other 49.
You're out of compliance because Microsoft licensed Dell to only license each copy of WinXP to a specific machine. The licenses are non-transferable. You've just "pirated" 49 copies of WinXP. That's 49 licenses at $200 retail... $9,800 minimum.
And that's if you're 100% legit on 50 machines. And provided that you can "prove" that that 1 retail copy wasn't also "stolen".
But not every one of their customers has experienced it. So it is "new" to them.
The reality is that many of Microsoft's customers are "pirates" but only in the sense that they do not keep the kind of records that Microsoft demands when doing an audit.
It isn't enough to have the box the software came in, along with the hologram and the license certificate and so on and on and on.
You also need to be able to PROVE that all of that isn't fake.
And since Microsoft specifically REFUSES to track the license keys and such, the only way to "prove" that the software is legit is to have the original sales receipt from an approved Microsoft vendor.
And that's even if you're not really pirating their software. In past versions, they've made it as easy as possible for companies to pirate their stuff AND as difficult as possible for companies to ensure that they are in compliance without spending lots of hours recording and checking their licenses.
So, even if you had 50 machines and you had bought 50 licenses... you were out of compliance if:
#1. Those licenses couldn't be found. #2. Those licenses weren't matched to receipts from MS vendors. #3. The machines had been "imaged" with a common image without purchasing the MS license agreement that authorized that.
If you're just using the Shadowrun name to sell copies of the game, without the intent to stay reasonably compliant with the pre-existing material, you suck.
If you cannot stay reasonably compliant with the material, then make the game you want to make and call it something else.
You have the license so you can still use the terminology and such. Just don't call it Shadowrun.
I can't see any drawbacks to this model, but then I don't own any Microsoft stock.
Bingo!
Such a situation would help the blind.
But it would not help the stockholders of any other company.
Once it is done, it is done. There really isn't all the much functionality that the various apps need. Word processing hasn't changed much since MS Word 95. Which is part of the reason why Microsoft is having troubles convincing people to upgrade. If a voice-only app can read you any document (ODF formatted), then what functionality is left for reading that document to you?
The same with writing it. Once the various voice-recognition / homonym issues have been solved, who would BUY any other company's app?
And because those are technological problems, they will be solved. Eventually.
But there are advantages for proprietary companies in having a closed format. Particularly if it is in use on 90% of the workstations out there.
Anyone anywhere is free to write an app or plugin - heck, build a set-top box even - that can easily handle the needs of the disabled or anyone else to use the format.
Yes. And that's the "problem".
If anyone can do it, then once someone does do it, there won't be much of a market for those other companies.
As with most if not all features of anything open-source, if the need is there the solution is within reach.
Yep. But it doesn't generate the same revenues that proprietary products do.
So, having a universal format that is licensed is good for their profitability (provided the license isn't too expensive).
But having an Open format that is Free to anyone to write to means that their market may be replaced by a Free (as in speech, as in beer) app that does everything their current apps do, but does it better.
Example: Some blind guy wants to edit a document that was sent to him.
Right now he needs MS Office.
Two years from now, he'll run an app that doesn't even display the document. Straight from file to speech and from speech to file. The speech recognition won't be tied to the MS Word (or even OpenOffice.org). It will be a distinct app. That means less effort on the part of the programmers. And being a distinct app means that it won't be tied to variations in the word processing program that the current ones have to interact with.
Simplicity and modularity. All of a sudden, the market for apps for the blind is taken over by Open Source and Open formats.
So "up to" 75% savings on "up to" 50% of the electricity usage. So 3/8 or 37.5% savings, all in all...
If it saves that much electricity on the CPU, that should also yield a heat reduction.
Now, whether it is linear or not, any heat reduction is a Good Thing (tm).
Hopefully we can choose between faster chips at the heat levels we have now, or the same speed chips at a 37.5% reduction in heat (and points in between).
Every mailing list I subscribe to has an unsubscribe link at the bottom. I think every mass-mail should do this. Simple and effective. If you're sending bulk e-mail you need to have somewhere in that a way to get off the list.
Yep. That's what I said in the "Easy and complete removals."
This is more. This is a regularly scheduled email that does nothing other than tell me that I'm still on their list and how to get off of it.
The big problem with this is that spammers can and do use this to confirm an address being legitimate.
And I have no problem with that.
I am happily "unsubscribing" old accounts all the time.
I would be overjoyed if the spammers would add them to their "legitimate" account list.
It makes it easier to tell the "good" companies from the spammers. A "good" company will NOT be sending email to those addresses. Particularly more than one of those addresses. So, one of the spammer checks is whether that IP address has attempted to send email to 3 or more of the spam trap addresses. If it has, blacklist it.
Make it easy for me to see that you are you and that you are a responsible citizen.
1. Only use names that have been signed up with you personally. With double opt in.
2. Use your own email servers or domain. Do not make me wonder if an email is from you if it isn't in an address block that I normally see from you.
3. Easy and complete removals. By anyone, from anywhere. I'll click a link. I'll even reply to an email. Once. If you haven't removed the address by then, it's your fault.
4. Every month / quarter / year (more often is better), let me know that I'm on your list and how to get off of it.
I'm in charge of the email system for a small company. I want the legitimate ads to get through to my users. And I want to cut the spam down. If your behaviour is more like that of a spammer than a legitimate business, guess what's going to happen to your messages.
Just because it is easy and cheap to send a few hundred million ads via email does NOT mean that you should. When you behave like a responsible business, you'll be treated like a responsible business.
If a kiddie cereal is one packed with sugar and marketed to children.
If a kiddie movie is one packed with fart jokes and marketed to children.
Kiddie ride, kiddie menu, etc.
Therefore, kiddie porn must be porn that is marketed to children.
Who needs facts or investigation when you can just launch a lawsuit? I'm betting these guys are hoping for a quick settlement from Google just to make the allegations go away.
Fysical abuse is only one aspect. Not knowing what you are being accused of and for how long you need to be locked up, is to me atleast very wrong. This is the same elements as in torture.
Big time. It doesn't matter if you've heard of "worse" being done in "training" or whatever.
In training, you always have the option to say "Fuck this, I quit". You do NOT have that option in captivity.
Two wrongs does not make a right...
But 1 wrong and 1 right can.
Basically, you have several different scenarios:
#1. Innocent guy captured.
1a. Innocent guy tortured
1a1. Innocent guy swears vengence. (loss)
1a2. Innocent guy does not swear vengence. (gain)
1b. Innocent guy treated decently.
1b1. Innocent guy swears vengence. (why?) (loss)
1b2. Innocent guy does not swear vengence. (gain)
#2. Terrorist supporter captured.
2a. Terrorist supporter tortured
2a1. Terrorist supporter swears vengence. (no loss)
2a2. Terrorist supporter does not swear vengence. (gain)
2b. Terrorist supporter treated decently.
2b1. Terrorist supporter swears vengence. (no loss)
2b2. Terrorist supporter does not swear vengence. (gain)
So, by looking at it logically, it would seem that by treating the prisoners decently, we actually come out ahead of the game.
The innocents would have no reason to hate us and the guilty may be convinced that we are not the Great Satan as they have been told.
Yes, I am counting it as a "gain" anytime the prisoner does not vow to to strap on a bomb and blow himself up.
The thing about being the "good" guys is not the circumstances under which you perform the same actions the "bad" guys do.
The "good" guys will NOT perform certain actions, regardless of the circumstances. Anyone who argues any other way would be a great follower of Saddam, if you were born in Iraq instead of here.
The "rights" of terrorists include the right to be killed like the barbarians they are.
You won't find that stated as such in there.
What you will find is that... if you do not meet the qualifications to be a POW, you are a "civilian" and must be turned over to the local authorities for any crimes you may have committed.
If the local authorities do not exist, you may be held until they are established.
Other than that, you have all the same rights and protections that a POW has, except for things like getting paid.
The military is not allowed to torture anyone it captures. Regardless of their past actions.
My point was that the additional warning will add nothing. That is why I added the "Mechanic" part. People need an expert to service their machines. I'm the mechanic of my family and nobody has problems.
First off, the additional warning WILL add something.
It will further de-sensitize people to clicking "okay" whenever a fucking popup pops up. You want the warning boxes to be so rare that the user actually stops and thinks.
Secondly, get a Mac. It doesn't take a dedicated mechanic to keep a Mac happy. And Macs use the old *nix security model. There's no reason to claim that a computer needs a mechanic.
From that review, it seems that running as a regular user will be easier under Ubuntu today than under Windows whenever it is released. There's no excuse for that.
Oh, and those that say that you can't run in Limited User on XP (as in the fine article is stated) are completely ignorant.
What the article actually said was:
When you use Windows XP, you are almost certainly using an account that belongs to the Administrators group. (The challenges of running as a Limited user in XP are well documented.)
What was that about "ignorant"?
Granted, I have to set the ACLs on both directories and registry settings, but it's never been very hard.
Go ahead and ask 100 people on the street whether they use Windows and whether they know what an ACL is and how to change it.
Running as a Limited User is not impossible.
It just requires spending a LOT of time and effort to LEARN how to do so...
and that pre-supposes that the person understands the risk of running as Administrator.
So, someone has to already be aware of the threat... Then that person has to choose to try to avoid that threat... Then, then that person has to spend time becoming further educated... Then, then, then that person has to spend time fixing the ACL's and such.
Or just choose to run as Administrator and all those problems go away (and you get new problems, but all your apps run).
If everyone's app can read/write to the same format, with no loss of formatting and such, then different departments can use whatever works best for them.
This would also include any vendors or contractors that they use.
Standardizing on the format gives everyone the Freedom to use whatever app they prefer. Some companies might prefer MSWord95. Others like MSOffice 2000 pro. While various governmental departments are migrated to OpenOffice.org to save taxpayer money.
And they all work together, seamlessly.
Freedom.
I'm happy with the current situation.
on
Spam Gets Personal
·
· Score: 1
My stats right now: Messages received: 9,466 Messages identified as spam: 394 Messages flagged with a virus: 1
Sure, it's possible to get better than that. But for the company I work for, the "spam problem" is effectively "solved".
And over time, it just going to get better as the spamtrap address I've been using are sold and re-sold amongst the spammers.
I'm sure others have even better stats. I'm using a mix of Exim4, greylisting and SpamAssassin along with my personal white/black lists (populated by the aforementioned spamtrap addresses).
And not very accurate the first time, either. Since Mom probably isn't going to be sending me v1agr4 ads, it will be easy to find and clean the infected machines.
Nonsense. Microsoft is the target of viruses and spyware because of Microsoft's moronic design decisions and security policies AND because of marketshare.
Okay, if you want to be specific:
Microsoft is the most often TARGETTED because of their marketshare.
Microsoft is the most often COMPROMISED because of their design.
I have Apache servers that are often TARGETTED by worms running on Microsoft machines. But my servers are not COMPROMISED by those worms.
Virus writers are writing viruses to make profit; either by stealing information, creating botnets, or proliferation of unwanted advertising. They make more profit by exploiting more machines, so it's no wonder that the most common OS is also the most targetted.
That may be correct. But "targetting" a platform is NOT the same as being able to "compromise" that platform.
Anyone can write a virus or worm or trojan for Linux. That is "targetting" Linux.
It's very difficult to get that virus / worm / trojan to spread to other Linux machines. This is "compromising" Linux. And the reason for that is because Linux's security model and implementation is better than Windows.
The same with Macs.
The fact that it's so trivial to exploit Microsoft software is purely because of the moronic design decisions and security policies, not because of marketshare. But the fact that Microsoft is so frequently the target of virus writers is a function of marketshare as well.
I'll disagree.
If it were 100x harder to compromise a Windows box than a Mac, but Windows boxes were 10x more common than Macs, you wouldn't see the same results you see now.
"Marketshare" in this instance means nothing WITHOUT the vulnerabilities.
The only thing that marketshare determines is the SPEED at which the virus / worm / trojan spreads. That's because with 90% of the market, the odds of any one infected machine finding an uninfected machine within a minute are very high.
The odds of one infected Mac finding another Mac with the same vulnerability within a minute is low. But given enough time, that one machine can scan the entire IP address range of the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
Usually, we use the ballot box. Get out and vote. Get involved.
... political.
Get
With a
Now, this would not do anything to "protect" the children from a
"Protection" is in quotes because this is about filtering and legal liability, not "protecting" children.
That being said, I don't think another TLD is scalable. Instead, a
In the article, the Microsoft rep didn't even have any evidence that the guy had rolled out an image (and there is no "wrong" about the image, it is pure license bullshit).
But the Microsoft rep seemed to trying tactics that would seem to qualify as "seriously squeezed".
But if your opinion is that Microsoft would not try that, that's great.You might want to pay attention to that "No nitpicking over keys or certificates".
In other words, that company was letting Microsoft fuck them out of additional licensing revenue and Microsoft was returning the favour by not fucking them as hard as they could have fucked them (and inviting all Microsoft's friends to fuck them, too).
Yeah, that's great. Microsoft is actually being nice when they ass rape you without lube because they could be ass raping you with sandpaper or lemon juice or sandpaper and lemon juice and salt!
Thanks, but I think I'll maintain my anal sovereignty. If Microsoft wants a shot at my ass, they're going to have to get a search warrant and I already know all their tricks.
If you are a "good customer" of Microsoft's then you have a LOT of time / effort / data invested in their products. Migrating to anything else is VERY FUCKING EXPENSIVE. Not just in money, but in time and effort and all the tiny incompatibilities that will result in your users asking what the fuck you were thinking when you decided to drop Microsoft.
So the easiest source of revenue is for Microsoft to "audit" their "good customers" and hit them with a bill for the most common errors that IT departments make.That's not uncommon.
The problem is that Microsoft is threatening those customers who DO care and DO spend the time and money to stay legit.
AND
Microsoft is NOT putting any time / effort / money into providing any easy way for their "good customers" to track their licenses (or even validate that a license is legit).
This is Microsoft we're talking about. They have BILLIONS of dollars. They have very smart people. They should be able to work up a system where I can enter each and every license I have and validate that it is legit and that it is mine.
But they aren't interested in that. That approach would cost them money to implement and it would result in fewer sales because "good customers" would already have had Microsoft approve their licenses.
And that is why this whole situation is so fucked up. It's all about Microsoft making the situation as difficult as possible so they can wring every last dollar from it.
Here's an example:
You buy 50 workstations from Dell. Each comes with WinXP.
You then buy a retail version of WinXP. That's 51 licenses for 50 boxes.
You image one box using the full retail license and dump that image on the other 49.
You're out of compliance because Microsoft licensed Dell to only license each copy of WinXP to a specific machine. The licenses are non-transferable. You've just "pirated" 49 copies of WinXP. That's 49 licenses at $200 retail
And that's if you're 100% legit on 50 machines. And provided that you can "prove" that that 1 retail copy wasn't also "stolen".
If you don't like the facts, that doesn't change the facts.
Just keep mod'ing down anyone who posts facts you don't agree with.
Microsoft has been doing this for years.
... you were out of compliance if:
But not every one of their customers has experienced it. So it is "new" to them.
The reality is that many of Microsoft's customers are "pirates" but only in the sense that they do not keep the kind of records that Microsoft demands when doing an audit.
It isn't enough to have the box the software came in, along with the hologram and the license certificate and so on and on and on.
You also need to be able to PROVE that all of that isn't fake.
And since Microsoft specifically REFUSES to track the license keys and such, the only way to "prove" that the software is legit is to have the original sales receipt from an approved Microsoft vendor.
And that's even if you're not really pirating their software. In past versions, they've made it as easy as possible for companies to pirate their stuff AND as difficult as possible for companies to ensure that they are in compliance without spending lots of hours recording and checking their licenses.
So, even if you had 50 machines and you had bought 50 licenses
#1. Those licenses couldn't be found.
#2. Those licenses weren't matched to receipts from MS vendors.
#3. The machines had been "imaged" with a common image without purchasing the MS license agreement that authorized that.
It's all about driving sales.
If you're just using the Shadowrun name to sell copies of the game, without the intent to stay reasonably compliant with the pre-existing material, you suck.
If you cannot stay reasonably compliant with the material, then make the game you want to make and call it something else.
You have the license so you can still use the terminology and such. Just don't call it Shadowrun.
Such a situation would help the blind.
But it would not help the stockholders of any other company.
Once it is done, it is done. There really isn't all the much functionality that the various apps need. Word processing hasn't changed much since MS Word 95. Which is part of the reason why Microsoft is having troubles convincing people to upgrade. If a voice-only app can read you any document (ODF formatted), then what functionality is left for reading that document to you?
The same with writing it. Once the various voice-recognition / homonym issues have been solved, who would BUY any other company's app?
And because those are technological problems, they will be solved. Eventually.
But there are advantages for proprietary companies in having a closed format. Particularly if it is in use on 90% of the workstations out there.Yes. And that's the "problem".
If anyone can do it, then once someone does do it, there won't be much of a market for those other companies.Yep. But it doesn't generate the same revenues that proprietary products do.
So, having a universal format that is licensed is good for their profitability (provided the license isn't too expensive).
But having an Open format that is Free to anyone to write to means that their market may be replaced by a Free (as in speech, as in beer) app that does everything their current apps do, but does it better.
Example: Some blind guy wants to edit a document that was sent to him.
Right now he needs MS Office.
Two years from now, he'll run an app that doesn't even display the document. Straight from file to speech and from speech to file. The speech recognition won't be tied to the MS Word (or even OpenOffice.org). It will be a distinct app. That means less effort on the part of the programmers. And being a distinct app means that it won't be tied to variations in the word processing program that the current ones have to interact with.
Simplicity and modularity. All of a sudden, the market for apps for the blind is taken over by Open Source and Open formats.
And it spreads to other markets.
Now, whether it is linear or not, any heat reduction is a Good Thing (tm).
Hopefully we can choose between faster chips at the heat levels we have now, or the same speed chips at a 37.5% reduction in heat (and points in between).
This is more. This is a regularly scheduled email that does nothing other than tell me that I'm still on their list and how to get off of it.And I have no problem with that.
I am happily "unsubscribing" old accounts all the time.
I would be overjoyed if the spammers would add them to their "legitimate" account list.
It makes it easier to tell the "good" companies from the spammers. A "good" company will NOT be sending email to those addresses. Particularly more than one of those addresses. So, one of the spammer checks is whether that IP address has attempted to send email to 3 or more of the spam trap addresses. If it has, blacklist it.
they will be treated like responsible businesses.
Make it easy for me to see that you are you and that you are a responsible citizen.
1. Only use names that have been signed up with you personally. With double opt in.
2. Use your own email servers or domain.
Do not make me wonder if an email is from you if it isn't in an address block that I normally see from you.
3. Easy and complete removals. By anyone, from anywhere. I'll click a link. I'll even reply to an email. Once. If you haven't removed the address by then, it's your fault.
4. Every month / quarter / year (more often is better), let me know that I'm on your list and how to get off of it.
I'm in charge of the email system for a small company. I want the legitimate ads to get through to my users. And I want to cut the spam down. If your behaviour is more like that of a spammer than a legitimate business, guess what's going to happen to your messages.
Just because it is easy and cheap to send a few hundred million ads via email does NOT mean that you should. When you behave like a responsible business, you'll be treated like a responsible business.
If a kiddie cereal is one packed with sugar and marketed to children.
If a kiddie movie is one packed with fart jokes and marketed to children.
Kiddie ride, kiddie menu, etc.
Therefore, kiddie porn must be porn that is marketed to children.
Who needs facts or investigation when you can just launch a lawsuit? I'm betting these guys are hoping for a quick settlement from Google just to make the allegations go away.
I'm hoping that Google fights this.
You'll find a few packages and a few stories.
In training, you always have the option to say "Fuck this, I quit". You do NOT have that option in captivity.But 1 wrong and 1 right can.
Basically, you have several different scenarios:
#1. Innocent guy captured.
1a. Innocent guy tortured
1a1. Innocent guy swears vengence. (loss)
1a2. Innocent guy does not swear vengence. (gain)
1b. Innocent guy treated decently.
1b1. Innocent guy swears vengence. (why?) (loss)
1b2. Innocent guy does not swear vengence. (gain)
#2. Terrorist supporter captured.
2a. Terrorist supporter tortured
2a1. Terrorist supporter swears vengence. (no loss)
2a2. Terrorist supporter does not swear vengence. (gain)
2b. Terrorist supporter treated decently.
2b1. Terrorist supporter swears vengence. (no loss)
2b2. Terrorist supporter does not swear vengence. (gain)
So, by looking at it logically, it would seem that by treating the prisoners decently, we actually come out ahead of the game.
The innocents would have no reason to hate us and the guilty may be convinced that we are not the Great Satan as they have been told.
Yes, I am counting it as a "gain" anytime the prisoner does not vow to to strap on a bomb and blow himself up.
The thing about being the "good" guys is not the circumstances under which you perform the same actions the "bad" guys do.
The "good" guys will NOT perform certain actions, regardless of the circumstances. Anyone who argues any other way would be a great follower of Saddam, if you were born in Iraq instead of here.
http://www.genevaconventions.org/ You won't find that stated as such in there.
What you will find is that
If the local authorities do not exist, you may be held until they are established.
Other than that, you have all the same rights and protections that a POW has, except for things like getting paid.
The military is not allowed to torture anyone it captures. Regardless of their past actions.
It will further de-sensitize people to clicking "okay" whenever a fucking popup pops up. You want the warning boxes to be so rare that the user actually stops and thinks.
Secondly, get a Mac. It doesn't take a dedicated mechanic to keep a Mac happy. And Macs use the old *nix security model. There's no reason to claim that a computer needs a mechanic.
From that review, it seems that running as a regular user will be easier under Ubuntu today than under Windows whenever it is released. There's no excuse for that.
Running as a Limited User is not impossible.
It just requires spending a LOT of time and effort to LEARN how to do so
and that pre-supposes that the person understands the risk of running as Administrator.
So, someone has to already be aware of the threat
Then that person has to choose to try to avoid that threat
Then, then that person has to spend time becoming further educated
Then, then, then that person has to spend time fixing the ACL's and such.
Or just choose to run as Administrator and all those problems go away (and you get new problems, but all your apps run).
as if millions of investors cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced...
Microsoft will have to compete on a level playing field now.
They have the money, they have the programmers, they have the marketshare. Competition should not hold any fear for them. We'll see how it plays out.
If everyone's app can read/write to the same format, with no loss of formatting and such, then different departments can use whatever works best for them.
This would also include any vendors or contractors that they use.
Standardizing on the format gives everyone the Freedom to use whatever app they prefer. Some companies might prefer MSWord95. Others like MSOffice 2000 pro. While various governmental departments are migrated to OpenOffice.org to save taxpayer money.
And they all work together, seamlessly.
Freedom.
My stats right now:
Messages received: 9,466
Messages identified as spam: 394
Messages flagged with a virus: 1
Sure, it's possible to get better than that. But for the company I work for, the "spam problem" is effectively "solved".
And over time, it just going to get better as the spamtrap address I've been using are sold and re-sold amongst the spammers.
I'm sure others have even better stats. I'm using a mix of Exim4, greylisting and SpamAssassin along with my personal white/black lists (populated by the aforementioned spamtrap addresses).
http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/04/28/181 1210
And not very accurate the first time, either. Since Mom probably isn't going to be sending me v1agr4 ads, it will be easy to find and clean the infected machines.
"Open Source" covers a LOT of licenses.
What changes and how would depend upon which license was chosen.
So they could charge more money for the hottest, newest songs.
They lost on that.
And they couldn't pull their catalogs from iTunes because that would hurt their sales.
When they can't afford to pull their product and cannot get concessions on the price, that is "losing".
Microsoft is the most often TARGETTED because of their marketshare.
Microsoft is the most often COMPROMISED because of their design.
I have Apache servers that are often TARGETTED by worms running on Microsoft machines. But my servers are not COMPROMISED by those worms.That may be correct. But "targetting" a platform is NOT the same as being able to "compromise" that platform.
Anyone can write a virus or worm or trojan for Linux. That is "targetting" Linux.
It's very difficult to get that virus / worm / trojan to spread to other Linux machines. This is "compromising" Linux. And the reason for that is because Linux's security model and implementation is better than Windows.
The same with Macs.I'll disagree.
If it were 100x harder to compromise a Windows box than a Mac, but Windows boxes were 10x more common than Macs, you wouldn't see the same results you see now.
"Marketshare" in this instance means nothing WITHOUT the vulnerabilities.
The only thing that marketshare determines is the SPEED at which the virus / worm / trojan spreads. That's because with 90% of the market, the odds of any one infected machine finding an uninfected machine within a minute are very high.
The odds of one infected Mac finding another Mac with the same vulnerability within a minute is low. But given enough time, that one machine can scan the entire IP address range of the Internet.