The exploit is another one that allows a content type to be set that will cause executable code to download and execute without user intervention.
Hmm, did you read the story?
Any way to skip all dialogs, ie. to run an application without ANY dialog with this vulnerability has NOT been found. In all variations of the exploit there is always the normal file download dialog, but the following Security Warning dialog is skipped.
Try to get a basic understanding of the vulnerability, first.
Any way to skip all dialogs, ie. to run an application without ANY dialog with this vulnerability has NOT been found. In all variations of the exploit there is always the normal file download dialog, but the following Security Warning dialog is skipped.
This sensationalized story is nothing more than Microsoft-bashing.
Presumably, the people willing to pay so much more for it. It's pretty much the Law of Supply and Demand. There are not many people who can program, so they can ask their price much more so than can a garbage collector.
The law of supply and demand does not apply equally to monopolies, and that's exactly what copyrighted software is, a legal, state-given monopoly.
Of course, the garbage collectors generally have a legal, state-given monopoly too, and from what I hear (IANAGC) they make half-decent money.
Not all companies are trying to actually prevent piracy, mind you.
The classic example of this was Netscape. Andreeson (damn, it's been so long since I've written that name) wanted to make the software free for home use, but still charge for companies which distributed it. The lawyers came up with the nifty idea of making the software shareware, but distributing it freely, knowing that home users would completely ignore copyright law anyway. But the software was copyrighted, so if anyone tried to profit off the distribution of Netscape, they could get nailed with a big time lawsuit.
Considering how many IPs are wasted for multicast, its really no wonder why we're at a shortage right now.
We don't really have a shortage of IP addresses. Any machine connected to the internet which doesn't have an IP address, doesn't have one for reasons other than a shortage. Some of us might like to have multiple IP address for a single machine, or would like to keep our IP address even when we're not connected to the internet, but doing this is never an efficient solution anyway.
They've been pretty good at doing things like this (maybe not so openly) to fiddle their tax returns. I seem to recall that Microsoft hasn't really paid any tax whatsoever since they became this behemoth they are today.
Someone still has to pay the taxes, though. When they were deducting employee stock options as compensation, the employee still had to claim that compensation as income, and Microsoft still had to pay half the social security and medicare tax on that compensation (up to 76,000 or something/person).
Also, granting stock options below market value has a real effect on the price of the stock. Giving away software for free does not. Microsoft can still deduct any real costs (media, salary, shipping, etc, but they can't deduct the cost of the software itself, unless they also include it as revenue (which would be stupid).
When presenting their tax return to the IRS, they will claim the retail value of the donated software/hardware. This will provide them with a $1 billion write-off, either as a loss or as a donation. It will go a long way toward earning them a tax refund.
Bzzt. They can only claim actual expenses. If they claim the $1 billion in software as an expense, they would have to claim $1 billion in revenues as well. You can't write off the value of services.
When faced with a situation where people are in immediate danger and need help, you have stated that you will first search for methods to cover your own ass.
Umm, no, I will first search for methods which have a chance of actually accomplishing something. What am I going to do when I come across this fire which is too big for a woman to put out herself? What am I going to do when I come up against this rapist? I'm almost certainly not going to be able to do shit in either case.
If you still don't see it, I don't think you ever will.
I don't expect to see it. I am fairly confident that human nature is to spread one's genes and memes, not to preserve one's own life. You're going to have to do a hell of a better than give me a single example to prove otherwise.
You're taking me out of context. Right after writing that line you quote I wrote:
"I believe I mispoke slightly. There is certainly a self-preservation instinct, but not an instinct of rational self-preservation at any cost to society."
The writer that I was responding to was trying to say that this "self-preservation instinct" was somehow more powerful than other instincts, such as the instinct to help others.
By answering the questions I posed, you have proven our point all by yourself.
I'm glad your point is proven, now could you tell me what it is?
That's because you modified the situation (added a cell phone) instead of honestly answering the question of yourself.
I always have my cell phone with me, so I don't see how that's modifying the situation. Assuming I didn't, and that no one else was around, and that I was near a phone, I would call 911 first in both situations. Assuming I was not near a phone, I would check it out first in both situations.
I still don't see your point. Are you saying that you would do something differently in the two situations?
The real problem here is that the web is the number one application on the internet. We need to replace the web with a better internet application. Only, I can't think of anything else. Can you?
The unfortunate thing is that we're already kind of stuck in this advertising revenue framework. There are better applications. Consider slashdot and other "news" sites. A much better application would be to have the news and messages in rdf or xml format, and then simply have the client display it however it wants. The number one reason why this is not done is because Slashdot wants to protect its ad revenue.
I suggest that VA Software reconsider this model. They're making basically nothing off of ad revenue anyway, and they have maybe 12 months of cash left. Even if they do succeed, it's not going to be because of ad revenue, it's going to be because of software licenses.
So I say to LNUX, as a last ditch effort, offer everything in XML format. The storys, the links, the messages, everything. At the very least you'll go out of business one month earlier. But maybe you won't, and/or maybe you'll be able to start a whole new paradigm in the mean time.
1) A woman screams 'rape' from a dark alley in what would be normally considered a dangerous part of town: Do you a) Call 911 or b) run to the scene to see what is happening?
Call 911 on my cell phone while running to the scene to see what is happening.
2) A woman screams 'fire' from a dark alley in what would be normally considered a dangerous part of town: Do you a) Call 911 or b) run to the scene to see what is happening?
Call 911 on my cell phone while running to the scene to see what is happening.
I don't understand the purpose of those questions.
burning does tend to interest humans...much more than personally fighting off rapists who are attacking a person that they do not know
So you have a bunch of people standing around the rapist/murderer/car jacker and watching? How is that supposed to help? Or do you think someone is going to say to themselves "Oo let me go look at the burning building." and then suddenly change into a superhero?
You're entitled to your opinion, but don't go around proposing it as fact unless you have something to back it up with. I assume your experiences with hearing the 3 loud rapes are second-hand, or else you personally would have called for help. Maybe I'm wrong, and you can fill us in on why you didn't, but would have if there was a fire?
studying to prove the opposite is rather silly
A study may or may not be silly, but unless it's done I don't think either of us are going to change our opinions. I'm fine with the rest of you being wrong, I only have a problem when you try to pass it off as obvious fact.
your argument sounds like a rehash of people explaining why they don't wear seatbelts.
The difference is that seatbelts have been proven in studies to save lives.
by the same token, ABS may increase your stopping distance under a few rare circumstance
I would hardly call dry pavement a rare circumstance. As for loose gravel, that's generally what they put on the ground when it snows!
No matter how good of a driver you are, you can't sense how close you are to beginning a skid as well as your ABS can, and you can't pump your brakes as fast as your ABS can.
First of all, ABS does not sense how close you are to beginning a skid, ABS senses a skid and releases the brakes until the wheels return to near their original speed. While you're quite right that ABS has the potential to react much quicker than the driver, this is only useful on slick surfaces at high speeds where a collision cannot be avoided.
if something is beneficial 90% of the time, and harmful 10% of the time, then its a Good Thing
ABS is beneficial about 0.000001% of the time, harmful about 0.000001% of the time, and completely neutral 99.999998% of the time.
ABS can increase stopping distance on dry pavement, loose gravel, and some other rare circumstances. Also, sometimes you might actually want to cause a skid. Skids are not always started during braking, and if you're already in a skid, ABS is going to do more damage than good. Studies have consistently shown absolutely no difference in crash statistics between cars with ABS and cars without ABS.
Regardless of the genetic reason, the fact is that real world evidence that supports the concept of self preservation abounds, even among humans.
I believe I mispoke slightly. There is certainly a self-preservation instinct, but not an instinct of rational self-preservation at any cost to society.
Honestly, you sound very sheltered. Have you ever lived in a high crime area, or large city?
The current city I live in, as well as one right next to the one that I lived in 3 years ago, rank in the top 30 highest violent crime rates in the country in 1999. The city I was born in was in the top 20. I get the feeling that you are the one who lived the sheltered life. A lot of people who only see the city when they watch the news get the impression that fires and murders and robberies are the only things that go on in the city. The fact of the matter is that most of the time this is not true. Murderers are the exception, not the rule.
People in general are afraid to get involved and, despite Dawkins' book, often don't.
I disagree. I think that people in general are not afraid to call 911. I don't think you're going to get people throwing themselves in front of bullets for others, but I think that people in general will help each other, if it takes a minimum of effort. I think that those who don't care about others and only about themselves are the exception, not the rule.
Dawkins' book and many others like it were written precisely because people do not care only about themselves. Countless attempts were made to fit the theory of rational self-interest in with the behavior of humans. They've all failed. It's because humans don't behave with rational self-interest, or even irrational self-interest. Humans in general behave semi-rationally to spread their genes, and even their memes. Hell, that's why you and I are having this discussion right now. We're trying to spread our memes.
Most of our genes and memes are much more similar to those of a normal semi-upstanding citizen than those of a rapist or a murderer. All other things being equal, we're certainly going to help out another semi-upstanding citizen against a rapist or a murderer. Even if all other things are only nearly-equal, and we have to expend a bit of energy to pick up the phone and call for help, most people are generally going to do it.
Slashdot Mirror
How many time in the last few days have you clicked the OPEN button instead of saving the file?
Considering that I use mozilla on linux, I'd say never.
Well every one of those time someone could have "sent you up the bomb".
If you go to untrusted websites and blindly open files, sure. But I've never done that, even when I was using Windows.
The exploit is another one that allows a content type to be set that will cause executable code to download and execute without user intervention.
Hmm, did you read the story?
Try to get a basic understanding of the vulnerability, first.
This sensationalized story is nothing more than Microsoft-bashing.
Presumably, the people willing to pay so much more for it. It's pretty much the Law of Supply and Demand. There are not many people who can program, so they can ask their price much more so than can a garbage collector.
The law of supply and demand does not apply equally to monopolies, and that's exactly what copyrighted software is, a legal, state-given monopoly.
Of course, the garbage collectors generally have a legal, state-given monopoly too, and from what I hear (IANAGC) they make half-decent money.
Not all companies are trying to actually prevent piracy, mind you.
The classic example of this was Netscape. Andreeson (damn, it's been so long since I've written that name) wanted to make the software free for home use, but still charge for companies which distributed it. The lawyers came up with the nifty idea of making the software shareware, but distributing it freely, knowing that home users would completely ignore copyright law anyway. But the software was copyrighted, so if anyone tried to profit off the distribution of Netscape, they could get nailed with a big time lawsuit.
C'mon, how many people do you know who paid for Winzip? Everyone pirates, some to a greater degree than others, of course.
What I'm saying is that there is no shortage at all. I know of no example of someone with a legitimate need for an IP address who can't get one.
Considering how many IPs are wasted for multicast, its really no wonder why we're at a shortage right now.
We don't really have a shortage of IP addresses. Any machine connected to the internet which doesn't have an IP address, doesn't have one for reasons other than a shortage. Some of us might like to have multiple IP address for a single machine, or would like to keep our IP address even when we're not connected to the internet, but doing this is never an efficient solution anyway.
They've been pretty good at doing things like this (maybe not so openly) to fiddle their tax returns. I seem to recall that Microsoft hasn't really paid any tax whatsoever since they became this behemoth they are today.
Someone still has to pay the taxes, though. When they were deducting employee stock options as compensation, the employee still had to claim that compensation as income, and Microsoft still had to pay half the social security and medicare tax on that compensation (up to 76,000 or something/person).
Also, granting stock options below market value has a real effect on the price of the stock. Giving away software for free does not. Microsoft can still deduct any real costs (media, salary, shipping, etc, but they can't deduct the cost of the software itself, unless they also include it as revenue (which would be stupid).
When presenting their tax return to the IRS, they will claim the retail value of the donated software/hardware. This will provide them with a $1 billion write-off, either as a loss or as a donation. It will go a long way toward earning them a tax refund.
Bzzt. They can only claim actual expenses. If they claim the $1 billion in software as an expense, they would have to claim $1 billion in revenues as well. You can't write off the value of services.
When faced with a situation where people are in immediate danger and need help, you have stated that you will first search for methods to cover your own ass.
Umm, no, I will first search for methods which have a chance of actually accomplishing something. What am I going to do when I come across this fire which is too big for a woman to put out herself? What am I going to do when I come up against this rapist? I'm almost certainly not going to be able to do shit in either case.
If you still don't see it, I don't think you ever will.
I don't expect to see it. I am fairly confident that human nature is to spread one's genes and memes, not to preserve one's own life. You're going to have to do a hell of a better than give me a single example to prove otherwise.
You're taking me out of context. Right after writing that line you quote I wrote:
"I believe I mispoke slightly. There is certainly a self-preservation instinct, but not an instinct of rational self-preservation at any cost to society."
The writer that I was responding to was trying to say that this "self-preservation instinct" was somehow more powerful than other instincts, such as the instinct to help others.
By answering the questions I posed, you have proven our point all by yourself.
I'm glad your point is proven, now could you tell me what it is?
That's because you modified the situation (added a cell phone) instead of honestly answering the question of yourself.
I always have my cell phone with me, so I don't see how that's modifying the situation. Assuming I didn't, and that no one else was around, and that I was near a phone, I would call 911 first in both situations. Assuming I was not near a phone, I would check it out first in both situations.
I still don't see your point. Are you saying that you would do something differently in the two situations?
The real problem here is that the web is the number one application on the internet. We need to replace the web with a better internet application. Only, I can't think of anything else. Can you?
The unfortunate thing is that we're already kind of stuck in this advertising revenue framework. There are better applications. Consider slashdot and other "news" sites. A much better application would be to have the news and messages in rdf or xml format, and then simply have the client display it however it wants. The number one reason why this is not done is because Slashdot wants to protect its ad revenue.
I suggest that VA Software reconsider this model. They're making basically nothing off of ad revenue anyway, and they have maybe 12 months of cash left. Even if they do succeed, it's not going to be because of ad revenue, it's going to be because of software licenses.
So I say to LNUX, as a last ditch effort, offer everything in XML format. The storys, the links, the messages, everything. At the very least you'll go out of business one month earlier. But maybe you won't, and/or maybe you'll be able to start a whole new paradigm in the mean time.
1) A woman screams 'rape' from a dark alley in what would be normally considered a dangerous part of town: Do you a) Call 911 or b) run to the scene to see what is happening?
Call 911 on my cell phone while running to the scene to see what is happening.
2) A woman screams 'fire' from a dark alley in what would be normally considered a dangerous part of town: Do you a) Call 911 or b) run to the scene to see what is happening?
Call 911 on my cell phone while running to the scene to see what is happening.
I don't understand the purpose of those questions.
burning does tend to interest humans...much more than personally fighting off rapists who are attacking a person that they do not know
So you have a bunch of people standing around the rapist/murderer/car jacker and watching? How is that supposed to help? Or do you think someone is going to say to themselves "Oo let me go look at the burning building." and then suddenly change into a superhero?
You're entitled to your opinion, but don't go around proposing it as fact unless you have something to back it up with. I assume your experiences with hearing the 3 loud rapes are second-hand, or else you personally would have called for help. Maybe I'm wrong, and you can fill us in on why you didn't, but would have if there was a fire?
studying to prove the opposite is rather silly
A study may or may not be silly, but unless it's done I don't think either of us are going to change our opinions. I'm fine with the rest of you being wrong, I only have a problem when you try to pass it off as obvious fact.
Study, schmudy, let's deal with reality
You then go on to propose the answer to a mind experiment...
If LA sunk, would it still be a city?
Are they planning on changing their ticker symbol or do they enjoy the contradiction of it all?
They're not planning on it, but the next ticker symbol for this company will be LNUXQ (followed quickly by LNUXQ.OB).
your argument sounds like a rehash of people explaining why they don't wear seatbelts.
The difference is that seatbelts have been proven in studies to save lives.
by the same token, ABS may increase your stopping distance under a few rare circumstance
I would hardly call dry pavement a rare circumstance. As for loose gravel, that's generally what they put on the ground when it snows!
No matter how good of a driver you are, you can't sense how close you are to beginning a skid as well as your ABS can, and you can't pump your brakes as fast as your ABS can.
First of all, ABS does not sense how close you are to beginning a skid, ABS senses a skid and releases the brakes until the wheels return to near their original speed. While you're quite right that ABS has the potential to react much quicker than the driver, this is only useful on slick surfaces at high speeds where a collision cannot be avoided.
if something is beneficial 90% of the time, and harmful 10% of the time, then its a Good Thing
ABS is beneficial about 0.000001% of the time, harmful about 0.000001% of the time, and completely neutral 99.999998% of the time.
ABS can increase stopping distance on dry pavement, loose gravel, and some other rare circumstances. Also, sometimes you might actually want to cause a skid. Skids are not always started during braking, and if you're already in a skid, ABS is going to do more damage than good. Studies have consistently shown absolutely no difference in crash statistics between cars with ABS and cars without ABS.
That's probably because the leftists are right and the conservatives are wrong.
the media probably won't be mentioning its name at all any more.
Regardless of the genetic reason, the fact is that real world evidence that supports the concept of self preservation abounds, even among humans.
I believe I mispoke slightly. There is certainly a self-preservation instinct, but not an instinct of rational self-preservation at any cost to society.
Honestly, you sound very sheltered. Have you ever lived in a high crime area, or large city?
The current city I live in, as well as one right next to the one that I lived in 3 years ago, rank in the top 30 highest violent crime rates in the country in 1999. The city I was born in was in the top 20. I get the feeling that you are the one who lived the sheltered life. A lot of people who only see the city when they watch the news get the impression that fires and murders and robberies are the only things that go on in the city. The fact of the matter is that most of the time this is not true. Murderers are the exception, not the rule.
People in general are afraid to get involved and, despite Dawkins' book, often don't.
I disagree. I think that people in general are not afraid to call 911. I don't think you're going to get people throwing themselves in front of bullets for others, but I think that people in general will help each other, if it takes a minimum of effort. I think that those who don't care about others and only about themselves are the exception, not the rule.
Dawkins' book and many others like it were written precisely because people do not care only about themselves. Countless attempts were made to fit the theory of rational self-interest in with the behavior of humans. They've all failed. It's because humans don't behave with rational self-interest, or even irrational self-interest. Humans in general behave semi-rationally to spread their genes, and even their memes. Hell, that's why you and I are having this discussion right now. We're trying to spread our memes.
Most of our genes and memes are much more similar to those of a normal semi-upstanding citizen than those of a rapist or a murderer. All other things being equal, we're certainly going to help out another semi-upstanding citizen against a rapist or a murderer. Even if all other things are only nearly-equal, and we have to expend a bit of energy to pick up the phone and call for help, most people are generally going to do it.