Are you stupid or something? A virus is a virus, and an anti-virus product should find viruses, not everything else that could be objectionable. Why not scan for.MP3 files too and flag those as viruses as long as we're on "corporate"-think.
It is probably worth noting that DNA evidence can be wrong... There have been numerous cases in which a false positive led to someone being wrongly imprisoned. The probability of false positives is significantly higher than most people realize as well. This mostly has to do with the fact that they only sequence part of your DNA -- the parts most likely to differ from one person to the next. This introduces a statistical error rate.
Well, if this ruling didn't stand, the following could take place: A person is arrested for sexual assault. As part of the standard procedure, the police take a DNA sample. It doesn't match the victim, and that person is released. Later, another victim comes forward and they run a test on the DNA taken from the assault. This time it does match, and although the victim didn't know the attacker, the attacker is thus arrested. With this ruling, what they're saying now is that this hypothetical person would walk, because the DNA sample would not be in the database.
Well, now whenever someone gets off, they'll bemoan those "damn bleeding heart liberals who let another one get away over their preeeeciiious rights". What nobody on either side of the debate wants to admit is -- you can't have a perfect justice system. No matter how much technology, funding, profiling, science, and everything else you throw at it, it will be flawed. Innocent people will be found guilty, guilty people will get away, and there will always be doubt and speculation.
As a society we have to decide what's more important: Catching as many criminals as possible, or providing a system that is as fair as possible. The two are mutually exclusive -- you either bias towards letting the guilty get away so the innocent are not needlessly punished, or you sacrifice some innocents to "protect the greater good".
The Court here has basically told the UK -- The rights of the many outweigh the sins of the few.
In regards to firewalls, I think that is the opposite situation. Firewalls (IMO) *should* be paranoid. I don't want a firewall that "knows" what firefox is and what a firefox update is -- why should a firewall need to know this anyway. Keep them simple and err on the side of caution.
Sure, but as a user... I get sick of both. I just want something that detects "bad stuff", and doesn't tell me when it finds "good stuff", or at least doesn't remind me every day how sad it is that I need all this crap bolted onto my system just so I can browse fanfics.
It could be because Trend Microsystems has gone after people who have tried to benchmark their software in the past, claimed to have exclusive patents to the very concept of antivirus scanning, etc. They don't exactly have a great reputation for supporting fair marketing and being open about how their product works... Witness how many legitimate products get flagged as "hacker tools" (like Angry IP Scanner), while their commercial counterparts are ignored (ostensibly after paying them off to get off their little black list).
I have. Any "packed" EXE apparently triggers a shitfit in AVG and Antivir. even known good ones (written myself, compiled and packed myself) throw up a warning about whatever the AV in question calls a "packed trojan"
Okay, sorry -- you are correct. It does throw a hissy-fit over every day things like that. So does my Comodo firewall ("oh noes! You've updated firefox! Are you SURE it isn't a virus?"), and a lot of other products. But I've never had any of these "alerts" home in on a bona fide threat.
Okay, how does it detect something that's unknown? I think it would be better phrasing to say "this scanning engine has the best heuristic pattern matching algorithms amongst those products tested." But perhaps that's too techie and we should go with "zomg! finds viruses and kills zem dead! nom nom nom.":)
In either event, I have yet to have any antivirus product I use detect anything using its built-in heuristic scanner. But it sure does slow the machine down, as I'm sure many techies out there reading this from work will know by the curse word "Norton." And if I were a virus writer, I would have every antivirus product in my lab running to test against before releasing it as a matter of course. Could it be this thing is only effective because most virus writers haven't heard of it?
...retaining a high priced law firm in Silicon Valley known for its previous victory against Apple to do it suggests that they have a fat wad of cash from somebody...
No doubt they have financial backing beyond their revenue stream, however I think saying this implies a conspiracy or that large PC outfits are behind it is pure conjecture.
Anyhow, sorry for missing the point of your post, we apple fanboys get a little touchy sometimes
That's cool. I fangirl over things too you know. But I'm not going to write a four page manifesto if someone disagrees with my love of light/L slash in Death Note. ^_^ I'll write four pages of something else. MMMmmmmMMMmmm...
They took this long because despite what most believe, universities are exceptionally political. They have been targeted by RIAA in the past and did not want to lose potentially millions in legal fees at a time when enrollment is dropping due to rising costs. Ethical discourse is a luxury that few universities can afford right now; As you might notice, all of the universities to date have been financially well-off.
As to the position the law departments' take, I would point out that they are under no ethical obligation to represent a person based on presumed guilt or innocence. Most practitioners of law are doing so to make money, and pick and choose who they represent based on how much income can be derived from a case. The issue of innocence or guilt has no bearing on the decision to (or not to) represent someone. And besides, you don't want a lawyer who presumes one way or another, you want a lawyer who will argue your side to the best of his/her abilities.
How do I know that the latest update to Forecastfox isn't now ready my browsing history or passwords and uploading that information to a third party. Many addons do not need access to the web page being rendered, so I wonder why there isn't some additional layer of security there.
You don't. You are trusting solely that the developers are honest and/or that an interested third party reviews their code to ensure it does not do this. But this isn't any different than closed-source; When you install Windows, you're trusting that Microsoft hasn't trojaned their software either. Really, what people fail to understand is that all security is based on trust.
What's mind-blowing though, is that people overwhelmingly are honest.
it seems like Google is uninterested in the end user's extendibility of the platform, which was supposedly it's raison d'etre.
One would hope this isn't the selling point of the phone, but rather that it is a flexible phone that meets the users' needs. The fact that it's hackable and "community-driven" is a means, not an end.
*sigh* You just set up a couple of intermediary companies and have them invoice for something innocuous sounding. They then pass the money directly to the end-point.
I would suggest that DO-NOT "Remember Passwords" and Login ids in any Browser where Sensitive Information will be sent ultimately.,/quote>
Well, that'll stop the really stupid malware authors that sit down at your PC and copy the file that stores your passwords. But it won't stop the one who left a key logger, the other who is doing control scrapes, the guy looking over your shoulder, the in-memory debugger that waits for a POST submission and copies everything in the data struct, or the FBI (who knows about those magazines under your bed too).
If you want to offer some advice to people that'll result in a real increase in security, tell them to install NoScript, or not to download executables and run them without scanning them. Tell them to install Spybot, or AdAware, or AVG Free. But don't ask them to turn off a convenient feature because it will stop the.1% of attackers too stupid to figure out a better way of getting that information.
I think you're being a little naive (and the mods too) because this looks precisely like what happened with SCO
I'm not being naive, I'm trying to avoid slashdot turning into a forum where people have had their sense of humor surgically removed. Sacred cows make the best hamburgers, and Apple's fanbase is just too tempting of a target. nom nom nom.
But if we must be serious... Why sue Apple in a "dramatic way". Well, has anyone sued Apple in a boring and non-dramatic way recently? No. Apple's lawyers are legendary. Suitors routinely stage reenactments of Custer's last stand in the courtroom. Why would you try to stay "under the radar" until being sued? What -- hoping that the armies of Mordor won't notice the Ring Bearer until its too late? It makes more sense to use the lawsuit as free press, rather than wait for them to descend on you. Besides, it looks better bravely charging into battle than it does making your last stand -- people are more likely to buy your product if they think you're on the offense than if you're fighting extinction.
I do believe a little ruling a few years ago basically said no, Microsoft CANT do that. This is why Dell and HP have been able to sell Linux and Unix systems on top of their Microsoft OEM products.
No, Microsoft couldn't contractually force them to sell only Windows. That doesn't mean they can't just say "we're not giving you a discount anymore and we're not saying why." You think people that are fired for being gay are ever told that's why? Or people that are profiled by the police are told "We pulled you over because you're black"? There's always been ways around laws that say you can't do X for reason Y, because there's always reason Z, which is what everyone will claim was the reason, never Y.
6. Get sued to hell and gone by shareholders and the SEC who just found out they diverted money off the books.
Apple watches their SEC filings -- and they have to disclose where all their money goes as a publicly-traded company. If its discovered that Dell directly financed this company and didn't disclose it in their SEC filings, their next investment will be in Crisco.
ell has definitely said that it would like to sell machines with OS X. Should a court rule that Apple does not have the right to restrict OS X to its own hardware, that would open the floodgates to major manufacturers including Dell and HP to selling machines with OS X.
Sure, except you forget that Microsoft still has both hands on their balls right now. "Go ahead, sell OS X, but we won't give you OEM pricing then, you'll pay retail." Small companies like this one are the only ones that can pull this off because they don't have legions of angry shareholders and lawsuits to worry about, who would be rightfully pissed about a $100 increase in unit shipping price over an OS with a ~7% market share. Most won't even put Linux on their systems right now because of this, and Linux is free.
I think Jobs has been hitting the egg nog a bit early this year. Wizard of Oz stuff and backroom deals is really more the providence of large corporations like the one he's a member of, not small businesses that are trying to find a niche to grow in. But at least the fanboys who go along with this line of thinking will look even more ridiculous than usual, which is a nice stocking stuffer for those of us that have gotten about as sick of these "Hi, I'm a PC" commercials as the whistling guy on about "natural male enhancement". Heh. "Mystery men out to ruin Jobs!" Really, sometimes the right hand (marketing) doesn't know what the left (legal) is doing with that company...
The first implies that that there are some things that are easy that will become difficult, the second says that all things that are difficult start out easy. At best, it's a misquote, at worst it is a deliberate mischaracterization of Lao Tse's words designed to deceive.
I was asked for a source. I think that's where it came from. There's no intent to deceive; Chineseenglish translations aren't easy, and my understanding of his teachings would find this an agreeable statement. This is really splitting hairs, and its pretty elitist to grind on someone for it. As long as we're quoting Lao Tse, I end this thread on this note:
My words are easy to understand, and very easy to practise; yet there is no one in the world who can understand them and practise them.
I don't have any intentions. I just thought it was a cool quote. From my english translation of Tao Te Ching, section LXIII (2); I have a translation of:
Anticipate difficulties while things are still easy; achieve great things with small beginnings.
The real heroes are the guys (and gals) with the calculators.
Sure, but you'll only see them in the credits just before they run the copyright notices. Hollywood is like real life -- nobody cares what it took for the star character to finish the job, because it's all about looking cool, sipping martinis, and driving aston martins. Q just got a few witty one-liners, but otherwise it was a 12 hour work day and no vacation to keep the james bonds of the world well-stocked in disposable tech.
Will this be like the original, where if you lose a city then it's gone, or the newer version where you can rebuild a city if you blow up enough asteroids? Also, how are we going to get the east and west to cooperate? Will they only shoot down asteroids that come down on their side of the screen? What if they split up and some come onto our side? Oh, the political decisions...
Slashdot Mirror
Are you stupid or something? A virus is a virus, and an anti-virus product should find viruses, not everything else that could be objectionable. Why not scan for .MP3 files too and flag those as viruses as long as we're on "corporate"-think.
It is probably worth noting that DNA evidence can be wrong... There have been numerous cases in which a false positive led to someone being wrongly imprisoned. The probability of false positives is significantly higher than most people realize as well. This mostly has to do with the fact that they only sequence part of your DNA -- the parts most likely to differ from one person to the next. This introduces a statistical error rate.
It's a dirty little secret.
Well, if this ruling didn't stand, the following could take place: A person is arrested for sexual assault. As part of the standard procedure, the police take a DNA sample. It doesn't match the victim, and that person is released. Later, another victim comes forward and they run a test on the DNA taken from the assault. This time it does match, and although the victim didn't know the attacker, the attacker is thus arrested. With this ruling, what they're saying now is that this hypothetical person would walk, because the DNA sample would not be in the database.
Well, now whenever someone gets off, they'll bemoan those "damn bleeding heart liberals who let another one get away over their preeeeciiious rights". What nobody on either side of the debate wants to admit is -- you can't have a perfect justice system. No matter how much technology, funding, profiling, science, and everything else you throw at it, it will be flawed. Innocent people will be found guilty, guilty people will get away, and there will always be doubt and speculation.
As a society we have to decide what's more important: Catching as many criminals as possible, or providing a system that is as fair as possible. The two are mutually exclusive -- you either bias towards letting the guilty get away so the innocent are not needlessly punished, or you sacrifice some innocents to "protect the greater good".
The Court here has basically told the UK -- The rights of the many outweigh the sins of the few.
In regards to firewalls, I think that is the opposite situation. Firewalls (IMO) *should* be paranoid. I don't want a firewall that "knows" what firefox is and what a firefox update is -- why should a firewall need to know this anyway. Keep them simple and err on the side of caution.
Sure, but as a user... I get sick of both. I just want something that detects "bad stuff", and doesn't tell me when it finds "good stuff", or at least doesn't remind me every day how sad it is that I need all this crap bolted onto my system just so I can browse fanfics.
It could be because Trend Microsystems has gone after people who have tried to benchmark their software in the past, claimed to have exclusive patents to the very concept of antivirus scanning, etc. They don't exactly have a great reputation for supporting fair marketing and being open about how their product works... Witness how many legitimate products get flagged as "hacker tools" (like Angry IP Scanner), while their commercial counterparts are ignored (ostensibly after paying them off to get off their little black list).
I say, it could be.
I have. Any "packed" EXE apparently triggers a shitfit in AVG and Antivir. even known good ones (written myself, compiled and packed myself) throw up a warning about whatever the AV in question calls a "packed trojan"
Okay, sorry -- you are correct. It does throw a hissy-fit over every day things like that. So does my Comodo firewall ("oh noes! You've updated firefox! Are you SURE it isn't a virus?"), and a lot of other products. But I've never had any of these "alerts" home in on a bona fide threat.
The site seems to block direct linking...and gives you a 404. Now that's fucking stupid.
I second that motion. Let bombing begin in 10 minutes.
Okay, how does it detect something that's unknown? I think it would be better phrasing to say "this scanning engine has the best heuristic pattern matching algorithms amongst those products tested." But perhaps that's too techie and we should go with "zomg! finds viruses and kills zem dead! nom nom nom." :)
In either event, I have yet to have any antivirus product I use detect anything using its built-in heuristic scanner. But it sure does slow the machine down, as I'm sure many techies out there reading this from work will know by the curse word "Norton." And if I were a virus writer, I would have every antivirus product in my lab running to test against before releasing it as a matter of course. Could it be this thing is only effective because most virus writers haven't heard of it?
...retaining a high priced law firm in Silicon Valley known for its previous victory against Apple to do it suggests that they have a fat wad of cash from somebody...
No doubt they have financial backing beyond their revenue stream, however I think saying this implies a conspiracy or that large PC outfits are behind it is pure conjecture.
Anyhow, sorry for missing the point of your post, we apple fanboys get a little touchy sometimes
That's cool. I fangirl over things too you know. But I'm not going to write a four page manifesto if someone disagrees with my love of light/L slash in Death Note. ^_^ I'll write four pages of something else. MMMmmmmMMMmmm...
They took this long because despite what most believe, universities are exceptionally political. They have been targeted by RIAA in the past and did not want to lose potentially millions in legal fees at a time when enrollment is dropping due to rising costs. Ethical discourse is a luxury that few universities can afford right now; As you might notice, all of the universities to date have been financially well-off.
As to the position the law departments' take, I would point out that they are under no ethical obligation to represent a person based on presumed guilt or innocence. Most practitioners of law are doing so to make money, and pick and choose who they represent based on how much income can be derived from a case. The issue of innocence or guilt has no bearing on the decision to (or not to) represent someone. And besides, you don't want a lawyer who presumes one way or another, you want a lawyer who will argue your side to the best of his/her abilities.
How do I know that the latest update to Forecastfox isn't now ready my browsing history or passwords and uploading that information to a third party. Many addons do not need access to the web page being rendered, so I wonder why there isn't some additional layer of security there.
You don't. You are trusting solely that the developers are honest and/or that an interested third party reviews their code to ensure it does not do this. But this isn't any different than closed-source; When you install Windows, you're trusting that Microsoft hasn't trojaned their software either. Really, what people fail to understand is that all security is based on trust.
What's mind-blowing though, is that people overwhelmingly are honest.
it seems like Google is uninterested in the end user's extendibility of the platform, which was supposedly it's raison d'etre.
One would hope this isn't the selling point of the phone, but rather that it is a flexible phone that meets the users' needs. The fact that it's hackable and "community-driven" is a means, not an end.
*sigh* You just set up a couple of intermediary companies and have them invoice for something innocuous sounding. They then pass the money directly to the end-point.
Look up Forensic Accounting sometime.
I would suggest that DO-NOT "Remember Passwords" and Login ids in any Browser where Sensitive Information will be sent ultimately.,/quote>
Well, that'll stop the really stupid malware authors that sit down at your PC and copy the file that stores your passwords. But it won't stop the one who left a key logger, the other who is doing control scrapes, the guy looking over your shoulder, the in-memory debugger that waits for a POST submission and copies everything in the data struct, or the FBI (who knows about those magazines under your bed too).
If you want to offer some advice to people that'll result in a real increase in security, tell them to install NoScript, or not to download executables and run them without scanning them. Tell them to install Spybot, or AdAware, or AVG Free. But don't ask them to turn off a convenient feature because it will stop the .1% of attackers too stupid to figure out a better way of getting that information.
I think you're being a little naive (and the mods too) because this looks precisely like what happened with SCO
I'm not being naive, I'm trying to avoid slashdot turning into a forum where people have had their sense of humor surgically removed. Sacred cows make the best hamburgers, and Apple's fanbase is just too tempting of a target. nom nom nom.
But if we must be serious... Why sue Apple in a "dramatic way". Well, has anyone sued Apple in a boring and non-dramatic way recently? No. Apple's lawyers are legendary. Suitors routinely stage reenactments of Custer's last stand in the courtroom. Why would you try to stay "under the radar" until being sued? What -- hoping that the armies of Mordor won't notice the Ring Bearer until its too late? It makes more sense to use the lawsuit as free press, rather than wait for them to descend on you. Besides, it looks better bravely charging into battle than it does making your last stand -- people are more likely to buy your product if they think you're on the offense than if you're fighting extinction.
I do believe a little ruling a few years ago basically said no, Microsoft CANT do that. This is why Dell and HP have been able to sell Linux and Unix systems on top of their Microsoft OEM products.
No, Microsoft couldn't contractually force them to sell only Windows. That doesn't mean they can't just say "we're not giving you a discount anymore and we're not saying why." You think people that are fired for being gay are ever told that's why? Or people that are profiled by the police are told "We pulled you over because you're black"? There's always been ways around laws that say you can't do X for reason Y, because there's always reason Z, which is what everyone will claim was the reason, never Y.
Well, this just proves that it's easier to develop for Firefox than IE. ^_^ Of course, it's a very backhanded compliment.
6. Get sued to hell and gone by shareholders and the SEC who just found out they diverted money off the books.
Apple watches their SEC filings -- and they have to disclose where all their money goes as a publicly-traded company. If its discovered that Dell directly financed this company and didn't disclose it in their SEC filings, their next investment will be in Crisco.
ell has definitely said that it would like to sell machines with OS X. Should a court rule that Apple does not have the right to restrict OS X to its own hardware, that would open the floodgates to major manufacturers including Dell and HP to selling machines with OS X.
Sure, except you forget that Microsoft still has both hands on their balls right now. "Go ahead, sell OS X, but we won't give you OEM pricing then, you'll pay retail." Small companies like this one are the only ones that can pull this off because they don't have legions of angry shareholders and lawsuits to worry about, who would be rightfully pissed about a $100 increase in unit shipping price over an OS with a ~7% market share. Most won't even put Linux on their systems right now because of this, and Linux is free.
I think Jobs has been hitting the egg nog a bit early this year. Wizard of Oz stuff and backroom deals is really more the providence of large corporations like the one he's a member of, not small businesses that are trying to find a niche to grow in. But at least the fanboys who go along with this line of thinking will look even more ridiculous than usual, which is a nice stocking stuffer for those of us that have gotten about as sick of these "Hi, I'm a PC" commercials as the whistling guy on about "natural male enhancement". Heh. "Mystery men out to ruin Jobs!" Really, sometimes the right hand (marketing) doesn't know what the left (legal) is doing with that company...
The first implies that that there are some things that are easy that will become difficult, the second says that all things that are difficult start out easy. At best, it's a misquote, at worst it is a deliberate mischaracterization of Lao Tse's words designed to deceive.
I was asked for a source. I think that's where it came from. There's no intent to deceive; Chineseenglish translations aren't easy, and my understanding of his teachings would find this an agreeable statement. This is really splitting hairs, and its pretty elitist to grind on someone for it. As long as we're quoting Lao Tse, I end this thread on this note:
My words are easy to understand, and very easy to practise;
yet there is no one in the world who can understand them and practise them.
I don't have any intentions. I just thought it was a cool quote. From my english translation of Tao Te Ching, section LXIII (2); I have a translation of:
Anticipate difficulties while things are still easy;
achieve great things with small beginnings.
The real heroes are the guys (and gals) with the calculators.
Sure, but you'll only see them in the credits just before they run the copyright notices. Hollywood is like real life -- nobody cares what it took for the star character to finish the job, because it's all about looking cool, sipping martinis, and driving aston martins. Q just got a few witty one-liners, but otherwise it was a 12 hour work day and no vacation to keep the james bonds of the world well-stocked in disposable tech.
Will this be like the original, where if you lose a city then it's gone, or the newer version where you can rebuild a city if you blow up enough asteroids? Also, how are we going to get the east and west to cooperate? Will they only shoot down asteroids that come down on their side of the screen? What if they split up and some come onto our side? Oh, the political decisions...