But like many other things, just because it's possible for it to be abused by misguided parents doesn't automatically make it a bad thing.
I'd agree except for the following...
You're limiting your point of view by assuming that computers are restricted to rectangular boxes in fixed places that people have to be gone to in order to be used. On the contrary, Microsoft wants computers everywhere (running Microsoft software), all networked into a big integrated system and designed for people to interact with. A network-enabled teddy bear is just another part of it. From the article itself:
That doesn't exist yet.
So, right now, the parent would be sitting in front of a computer.
I'll change my opinion of that when it can be shown that the parent isn't sitting in front of the computer.
I'm not even going to bother arguing with such a blowhard given how absolutely rudimentary of child psychology and early education, pounded home in every tome about childcare.
Well, it's good you're not going to argue because that's the only part of that sentence that made any sense.
Ah, the good old days. The days when a dozen children didn't all fight for a moment of attention from parents who were too busy trying to subsist -- instead they all got individual around the clock loving care. They had a real Santa Claus back then too.
Hey, you're the one that said, and I quote
This absurd ideology that True Parenting(TM) means sitting interacting with your child every waking minute of every day is the height of idiocy, not only psychologically unreasonable but not being based in anything close to reality.
If you can't deal with the reality that parents DID spend more time with their their children when there weren't TV's or video games to use as parental substitutes, then that is YOUR problem.
Crying does not change the facts.
Good parents spend time with their children rather than letting an electronic device babysit the kids. Bad parents defend their use of such devices.
The kind of parent you are is demonstrated by your extreme reaction to that and by you having to resort to false dichotomies.
The tasks you've mentioned do NOT involve sitting in front of a computer.
But the bear is linked to the computer.
What this is designed for is the parent who is in front of a computer for some reason. I don't think this would be at work, because that would mean the parent's work network is connected to their home network.
Which leaves, parents working at home or playing computer games.
If both parents are on the computer that much, there is a problem.
This is designed for parents who are too self absorbed and shallow to be bothered raising the child(ren) they've created.
Kids love to help with the laundry and so forth. They really want to be close to their parents.
Perhaps I'm a little sensitive about this given that I actually have a child with another on the way shortly, compared to the countless armchair parents out there espousing their great views on parenting.
The ability to produce offspring does not, in any way, make you more of an expert of raising them.
For proof, please see any of the thousands of cases of abused children.
This toy, like television, video games, books, puzzles, or whatever, is a part of the complex environment that you can immerse your child in so that they can get the most out of life, learning while enjoying the ride.
And exactly what does a video game teach that wouldn't be better taught via parental interaction?
The same with this bear.
The same with TV.
This absurd ideology that True Parenting(TM) means sitting interacting with your child every waking minute of every day is the height of idiocy, not only psychologically unreasonable but not being based in anything close to reality.
Actually, it was the standard until recently. The babies were looked after until they were old enough to start helping with the chores. They learned what to do by helping their parents.
They didn't have TV or video games or electronic bears (nor a lot of books). They just had human contact.
Children seek out and love independent play, and it's a critical element of their upbringing.
Keep believing that. Or you could look and learn. Watch how the kids who aren't invited to play on the teams react to that exclusion.
There's a Wells Fargo ATM close to where I work, not inside a bank, and the guy who puts the money in it is always accompanied by an armed guard.
I wouldn't trust a bank that had an untrained teller doing that.
Particularly one who is taking instructions from someone over the phone. Yeah, I really trust that system.
What bank do you work for? I want to be sure that I don't have any accounts with it.
Part of security is being correctly trained. An untrained person (problem #1) taking instructions over the phone (problem #2) to service a machine that is "web enabled" (problem #3) is a script for disaster.
I'm suspicious of this just because they lump so many different scenarios into one category.
#1. Zombies
#2. Man in the middle
#3. Traffic analysis
#4. "email-cluster-bomb attack"
#5. "incorrectly update routing tables"
And so forth. Of what possible use would authentication be with a bunch of zombies? If a zombie is an example of a "stealth" attack, then what would be an example of a non-stealth attack?
Anyway, if Alice and Bob (might as well use the common ID's) both have access to the password, why not simply use authentication and encryption as Bruce Schneier covers in "Practical Cryptography"?
Authentication and cryptography aren't that difficult to understand.
In fact, in his scenario (Alice and Bob both have the password and it hasn't been compromised), encryption/authentication is super easy. Again, it's covered in Bruce Schneier's book "Practical Cryptography".
I can hook it straight to the Internet, without a firewall, and it still won't get cracked.
It's all about the avenues of attack.
With Windows, too many services are running by default.
Those services can be attacked, remotely.
The first step is to limit the avenues that you can be attacked from. Ubuntu does this by not running services you haven't chosen to.
Microsoft has finally caught on to the idea of a firewall. But that is just a band-aid for the real problem of running the services in the first place.
You are comparing "bleeding edge Linux distros" to a service pack to fix bugs in existing software.
Now, either the apps that broke were depending upon bugs in the OS (in which case, it is the ISV's fault) -or- Microsoft's approach to "patching" is wrong.
And please learn the difference between a bug fix and "bleeding edge".
This is no different than a sysadmin pushing out critical updates to their user base. You run the 80-20 rule. You make sure it runs for 80% of your user base, and deal with the exceptions.
Right. It must be a lot of fun to work in a shop where 20% failure is considered normal.
Now for the next part. Most companies have corporate standard images. They don't have admin access and they don't go around installing a bunch of things. So, if it works on the image it will cover most of your users and again, you work around the exceptions.
That approach is okay when the 20% of the problems are the people least likely to affect your job.
But when the CEO's machine dies or one of his apps crashed, then your "20%" rule is useless.
He will want to know WHY you did NOT test the update with ALL the apps. After all, isn't that your job?
Why would you not apply a critical patch for exceptions?
Because Microsoft took the fucked up approach of including ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS with their "critical patches".
Look at Linux's approach. Each app has its own patch. It's easy to apply one patch and FULLY TEST IT in your environment.
And you do not get new, untested apps when you apply the patch.
Sure, most of the apps that have a problem can be fixed by disabling the firewall. But that's because they use some form of Internet connectivity.
In other words, if Microsoft had followed good practices, they would NOT have included NEW SOFTWARE in the service pack and only PATCHED BUGS and that would have resulted in a lot fewer "problems" with this "service pack".
Open standards will guarantee that your data is safe. What happens if the company that makes the software goes out of business?...
I agree completely.
But the question I haven't seen asked (or answered) anywhere is... what problem(s) would a commercial ISV have with supporting Open file formats?
This discussion really cannot progress until Microsoft's people can explain EXACTLY what functionality they would lose IF they supported Open file formats (as the default format).
I hear a lot of crying about "patents" and "IP" and "innovation" and "don't give Open Source an unfair advantage", but I haven't heard what the technological problem would be with supporting an Open file format (without any patent restrictions or other IP problems).
Microsoft, are you going to step up and say what the technological problem is?
============= Yeah, I know what the real problem is and it ain't tech. It's all about control of your data and making it as expensive as possible for you to switch.
The first rainstorm would wash most of it into the ocean. Any parks and such would have to have the first few inches of topsoil removed, but that's about it.
Slashdot Mirror
XML doesn't give you anything that isn't already available in a text file.
Why aren't text files the best way to configure a system?
So, right now, the parent would be sitting in front of a computer.
I'll change my opinion of that when it can be shown that the parent isn't sitting in front of the computer.
Crying does not change the facts.
Good parents spend time with their children rather than letting an electronic device babysit the kids. Bad parents defend their use of such devices.
The kind of parent you are is demonstrated by your extreme reaction to that and by you having to resort to false dichotomies.
The tasks you've mentioned do NOT involve sitting in front of a computer.
But the bear is linked to the computer.
What this is designed for is the parent who is in front of a computer for some reason. I don't think this would be at work, because that would mean the parent's work network is connected to their home network.
Which leaves, parents working at home or playing computer games.
If both parents are on the computer that much, there is a problem.
This is designed for parents who are too self absorbed and shallow to be bothered raising the child(ren) they've created.
Kids love to help with the laundry and so forth. They really want to be close to their parents.
For proof, please see any of the thousands of cases of abused children.And exactly what does a video game teach that wouldn't be better taught via parental interaction?
The same with this bear.
The same with TV.Actually, it was the standard until recently. The babies were looked after until they were old enough to start helping with the chores. They learned what to do by helping their parents.
They didn't have TV or video games or electronic bears (nor a lot of books). They just had human contact.Keep believing that. Or you could look and learn. Watch how the kids who aren't invited to play on the teams react to that exclusion.
Humans are social animals.
There's a Wells Fargo ATM close to where I work, not inside a bank, and the guy who puts the money in it is always accompanied by an armed guard.
I wouldn't trust a bank that had an untrained teller doing that.
Particularly one who is taking instructions from someone over the phone. Yeah, I really trust that system.
What bank do you work for? I want to be sure that I don't have any accounts with it.
Part of security is being correctly trained. An untrained person (problem #1) taking instructions over the phone (problem #2) to service a machine that is "web enabled" (problem #3) is a script for disaster.
Some people claim that Linux sucks.
Some people claim that Linux is great.
But I don't see much in the way of SPECIFICS.
Here are some. I can boot Knoppix 3.6 on the following laptops and have EVERYTHING work without additional tweeking.
IBM T23
IBM T40
Anyone who claims that Linux has problems on laptops needs to post
WHAT problems
WHICH laptops
WHICH distribution
I've provided two complete examples. I doubt the Linux-haters will be able to provide any themselves.
Suffice to say it involves a knife and the first instance of a human engaging in auto-necrophilia.
ewwwwwwww!
But it was original.
I'm suspicious of this just because they lump so many different scenarios into one category.
#1. Zombies
#2. Man in the middle
#3. Traffic analysis
#4. "email-cluster-bomb attack"
#5. "incorrectly update routing tables"
And so forth. Of what possible use would authentication be with a bunch of zombies? If a zombie is an example of a "stealth" attack, then what would be an example of a non-stealth attack?
Anyway, if Alice and Bob (might as well use the common ID's) both have access to the password, why not simply use authentication and encryption as Bruce Schneier covers in "Practical Cryptography"?
Authentication and cryptography aren't that difficult to understand.
In fact, in his scenario (Alice and Bob both have the password and it hasn't been compromised), encryption/authentication is super easy. Again, it's covered in Bruce Schneier's book "Practical Cryptography".
I can hook it straight to the Internet, without a firewall, and it still won't get cracked.
It's all about the avenues of attack.
With Windows, too many services are running by default.
Those services can be attacked, remotely.
The first step is to limit the avenues that you can be attacked from. Ubuntu does this by not running services you haven't chosen to.
Microsoft has finally caught on to the idea of a firewall. But that is just a band-aid for the real problem of running the services in the first place.
You are comparing "bleeding edge Linux distros" to a service pack to fix bugs in existing software.
Now, either the apps that broke were depending upon bugs in the OS (in which case, it is the ISV's fault)
-or-
Microsoft's approach to "patching" is wrong.
And please learn the difference between a bug fix and "bleeding edge".
But when the CEO's machine dies or one of his apps crashed, then your "20%" rule is useless.
He will want to know WHY you did NOT test the update with ALL the apps. After all, isn't that your job?Because Microsoft took the fucked up approach of including ADDITIONAL APPLICATIONS with their "critical patches".
Look at Linux's approach. Each app has its own patch. It's easy to apply one patch and FULLY TEST IT in your environment.
And you do not get new, untested apps when you apply the patch.
Photoshop CS v8 is their latest.
Sure, most of the apps that have a problem can be fixed by disabling the firewall. But that's because they use some form of Internet connectivity.
In other words, if Microsoft had followed good practices, they would NOT have included NEW SOFTWARE in the service pack and only PATCHED BUGS and that would have resulted in a lot fewer "problems" with this "service pack".
I've scored 3 -1, Offtopic's so far for a comment on the software included in the service pack that is the subject of the article.
/.'s system messed up and the "insightfuls" are being scored as "offtopic"?
Is
Or did a bunch of Microsofties suddenly come into mod points?
By default, scripting is turned off for all sites.
To allow it, you have to add that site to a white list.
The same way software installation works on FireFox.
Why does Microsoft find it so hard to understand that concept?
You do not ADD software to a service pack. You only fix bugs in the existing software.
But the question I haven't seen asked (or answered) anywhere is
This discussion really cannot progress until Microsoft's people can explain EXACTLY what functionality they would lose IF they supported Open file formats (as the default format).
I hear a lot of crying about "patents" and "IP" and "innovation" and "don't give Open Source an unfair advantage", but I haven't heard what the technological problem would be with supporting an Open file format (without any patent restrictions or other IP problems).
Microsoft, are you going to step up and say what the technological problem is?
=============
Yeah, I know what the real problem is and it ain't tech. It's all about control of your data and making it as expensive as possible for you to switch.
That's all it takes to keep the dust out of your lungs.
How about firefighters? Ever see the gear they wear so they don't die from smoke?
With Linux, you can boot from a live CD and validate every file and package on your system.
You can even chroot the system, wipe the boot sector and re-install the kernel.
This might be "impossible" to clean on Windows, but on Linux, it's just really annoying.
Everything works just like you say it should.
And "auntie jenna" will never install an OS on her computer. She will use whatever came with it when she bought it or whatever someone sets up on it.
Dirty bombs spread radioactive dust and debris.
This is only dangerous if you inhale/ingest it.
The first rainstorm would wash most of it into the ocean. Any parks and such would have to have the first few inches of topsoil removed, but that's about it.
Depending upon the size of the blast, just sailing one into any US harbour and blowing it would be enough.
Otherwise, you'd put it on a moving van and just park it in the same city as your target.
With nukes, "on target" can be a mile away.
That may be true, I'll check the web server logs to see what the Windows2003 hits are.
From my previous post: http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2003-23.html
From Microsoft's web site:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/823980
Look for the string "Windows Server 2003, 32-Bit Edition".
Summary:
Windows 2003 is vulnerable to the Blaster worm and I still see those attacks in my firewall logs.
http://www.cert.org/advisories/CA-2003-23.html
Microsoft doesn't change anything unless forced to.