Artistic works given away for free for others to improve upon and give them away for free as well? That sounds remarkably like what happens in places that don't sell their culture at the highest price possible. Namely, anyplace but North America. This describes perfectly songs written for cultural events such as Carnival in Rio de Janerio. Or Christmas in Mexico. Or any traditional music in the Far East. It could also describe public domain works from Europe like Germany's classical music, Italy's operas, and England's plays. Although these are experiences sold to the public, they are sold in a fundamentally different way than how it's done in the US. (ie, you could pay to see a concert or a play, or you could get a copy of the script off a friend and do it yourself - results may vary) This music license is probably exactly what the US needs to develop its culture.
You see, I really think that there's not enough appreciation on Slashdot for the crushing masses of people who never, ever think about free software, open standards, or whether or not there are whatever sorts of privacy or antitrust issues involved with XP. They just want to use their computers to do stuff, and if XP makes it easier for them to do things online, work with video, etc, then they will use it even if installing it's a pain in the ass. And it looks all neat and new, too. For them, Linux is geek stuff. They know that Windows is "the only real OS". They've been using Windows and are quite comfortable with it, warts and all. All their friends use it.
Well, I for one, having worked in technical support know exactly how clueless most users are about Windows and any alternatives they might have. Case in point: When asked what version of windows a customer is using when they call tech support, I swear fully 50% don't even know! I would say about 25% of that 50% don't even understand the question. And then there's the Mac people that answer "Yes" when asked "Are you running Windows 98?" It's not that they think that Windows is "The only real OS," it's that they don't know what an OS is. They don't even think about these things. It never even occurs to them to question whether Windows is a good thing or not, or whether they have a choice. They walked into a computer store one day and asked to buy a computer, and that's what they were sold.
If I didn't know any better, I would swear that Microsoft was taking advantage of these poor saps out of spite because the marketing team once worked in front line tech support.
Heh. I can see this now. The moment the case comes to conclusion, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and god knows who else in upper management, will immediately resign and cash in all their stocks. True, the price of the stock will be worth about $.10 a share at the end of the trading day, but these guys are all still going to be multi-millionaires at the very least. So while they wouldn't be able to go *completely* insane with their money anymore, they sure won't be in the poor house. Also remember that most of these guys have more diverse stock portfolios than just Microsoft. Considering where they started from, what does it matter even if the goverment were to outlaw Microsoft forever and nuke the site from orbit?
If this happens (and honestly I don't think it won't, there's no incentive for any of them to stick it out to the bitter end, and so much more incentive not to.) noone's going to get the triple damages the law promises. Hell, more than half of the companies suing wouldn't ever see a dime. They'd be in recievership before most of the suits would even be finished.
So the moral of the story: Crime does pay. Especially anti-trust crime. Which could just well be why windows XP has an extra helping of evil just before the axe falls.
This is the first time in human history disparate people in diverse places can communicate with one another instantaneously.
Geez, you mean the telegraph didn't do this first? Or radio? Or the telephone? Or... well, you get the point. It's been over a hundred years since the first of these developments. I think we can cope now.
The problem, as it always has been, is that people can't use Linux.
Actually, since using Linux is now easier to use than Windows XP, I would agree with everyone else that's replied with "Well, that's because Joe User can't use Windows either." (besides the fact that I've worked in tech support... I know people don't know dick about using windows)
Despite the fact the MS is a monopolistic megolith,... they (WE!) will tolerate it because there isn't a better choice.
There's LOTS of better choices. And cheaper choices. All the free unix-like operating sysetms are better for desktop use than Windows is for Joe User who never does anything with a computer besides e-mail, using the web, word processing, their budget and maybe even watching DVD's if they can manage that much. However, even I, a UNIX systems administrator use Windows at home. Why? There are exactly two applications that I use that I can't (or won't) do without. And they're games. (nuff said)
I'm an economist(-in-training). I know that competition drives prices down, and forces product quality up. But if someone doesn't come along and design an alternative, all we'll ever get to do is sit here, bitch about it on Slashdot, and feel sorry for people that don't know the difference.
Okay, that's great. What do your economics classes tell you about the economics of monopolies? Consider Microsoft's case.
To compete with Microsoft on the desktop, you need four things: The shiny new operating system, support from computer manufacturers, (the only way you're going to get most people to use your new OS is by selling it with their computer - they'll likely never change it) support from developers (which you'll need, because without applications, your OS is useless) and mega advertising bucks. The first and last things are easy - they just require money. The two in the middle are far from it however.
Manufacturers don't want to annoy Microsoft by offering a second choice to consumers because if they do, Microsoft will either increase the price of their OEM license or they'll revoke it completely. And to them, Windows is the proven choice as opposed to your upstart and uncertain OS (after all, they have *all* the applications right now).
Getting the help of Developers is even harder. They're going to develop their applications for Windows anyway - It's what runs on 95% of the desktops, and it's where the profit is. Writing a different copy for your new operating system is an added expense, and again, one with uncertain returns. The vast majority of developers won't even bother porting to your OS until you have a suitably large portion of the desktop market, and without their support you probably won't get it, so it's a perfect catch 22. You could always do what Microsoft does though, and build your own killer apps that get bundled with the new computers you're hopefully selling.
Add to these difficulties the fact that Microsoft will gladly put pressure on the hardware manufactuers and the software developers in the form of incentives to use theirs over yours, or in the form of disincentives for using yours. (an excellent example is how they got ISP's to use IE over Netscape... in some cases not only giving IE away, but giving ISP's special deals that made IE "better than free," or what happens to computer resellers that suddenly start paying more for Windows because they do things Microsoft Does Not Like). What does all this add up to? To me, it sounds like an enormous gamble of a business venture which has about a 90%+ chance in ending in bankruptcy and about a hundred million dollars (likely more than that) in hard cash down the drain. Most businessmen that have had experience dealing with Microsoft - especially in competition like Netscape has - will laugh themselves to tears at such an endeavour before telling you that your money is better spent at the craps tables in Reno than in competition with Microsoft.
It's not about whether better technology exists to compete with Microsoft (it does) because it isn't a technology issue, it's a business issue. Microsoft is in a perfect business position to maintain a monopoly indefinitely. Not even big businesses like IBM can stop them. (see: OS/2)
This is news? Jesus, I knew this back in the days of "Compute!," back when they still published BASIC programs on paper. Bias towards one's advertisers is nothing new. Hell, this isn't even a restriction on tech journalists, as most mainstream journalists are also corporate whores.
The fact of the matter is that if you piss off the people who buy your advertising, there isn't a very high likelihood that they'll continue to buy the advertising that pays your bills. Using Dan Rather and the white house as an example of this is horrible. Of course the White House never paid Dan Rather's wages. That was done by Charmin.
Basically, all that's happened in this article is that yet another idiot has finally figured out what they should have known from the age of 10 - that the media is a big fucking sham and that none of it is to be believed. Get over it already and take it all with a big lump of salt.
In many of the cases mentioned, the problem lies in the fact that the people on 56K modems are slowing everyone else down. This isn't the case with say Q3Arena, but in games that require fast syncrhonization like Starcraft, the game goes at the speed of the slowest client. (and while sometimes this may be a cable user, most often it is not) While the modem user might *really* want to play, she/he shouldn't, because it is causing everyone else in the game grief.
Of course, it would be nice if game authors made their networking code a little cleaner.:)
Unfortunately, this assumes the following order of operations:
1) The bug is found first by security experts reviewing code.
2) Creator is notified
3) Creator cares enough to fix the bug before the script kiddies get to it.
4) Sysadmins care enough to patch the hole, likewise before script kiddies get to it.
More often than not, there is a lag time between steps 1 and 4. This can be several weeks, or it can be months. Also more often than not, the creator and/or the sysadmin doesn't give a damn unless it suddenly becomes Very Important. Ie, that it is not only a known exploit, but it is currently being exploited.
However, this also assumes that the good guys find out about the security hole before the bad guys do. This is very often not the case. This is what happens instead:
1) Cracker finds the security hole and writes a worm to use it.
2a) Someone finds the hole and notifies the vendor before releasing the exploit to the security community, or 2b) Someone finds out about the security hole because their system was compromised by it.
3) Vendor is notified. (and we all hope they realize the scope of the problem) At this point the exploit may or may not be actively in use, and we may or may not actually know about it. (some crackers are really sneaky and don't bother to make it known they've been there, using their shiny new shell account for further nefarious purposes.) We patiently wait for the vendor to issue a patch.
4) This is, potentially, where the shit hits the fan. By this time either the vendor has given a damn about the security of their product and issued a patch, (which, we hope, will be installed by 100% of the sysadmins affected Right Away!) or full disclosure happens and the flood of script kiddies hits like a tsunami, OR the worm is successfully completed and delivered, turning a good chunk of the servers on the internet into boat anchors (or maybe just displaying a web page that says "Boo!" -- If we're lucky.).
And unfortunately, since vendors have had a history of either not caring about security, or trying to avoid the bad publicity of security problems by sticking their heads in the sand, all the bad parts of step 4 have, do, and will continue to happen in the future. Also unfortunately, some percentage of systems administrators will not install the patch because they are lazy and/or inattentive. As a result, worms such as Code Red are inevitable until we centralize the Internet in such a way that everything gets patched the day someone finds out about an exploit. And you and I both know that even that is a whole new can of worms.:)
damages or destroys the motherboards on certain PC brands
Heh. So they're suing Palm? Why aren't they suing the motherboard makers for making such crappy motherboards? It seems to be a much higher likelihood, since it only happens to *some* motherboards. My guess would be that palm has deeper pockets.
Either that, or the users in question here don't know jack about what really went wrong... like if they put a cup of coffee in their "cup holder" and when they hit the hot-sync button, it closed.
Do you believe everything you read?
on
Netscape 6.1
·
· Score: 1
Um, didn't you know that "objective reporting" is a fallacy to make you believe that all the major "news outlets" tell the truth, rather than putting their own spin on the news?
There is no such thing as objective reporting. There never was. Take everything you read with a huge lump of salt, with an eye to who wrote it and who paid them to do so.
This was discussed, of course.:) In the summer, you still have a need for hot water. In the winter, you still have a need for cold drinks. And you always have a need for electricity.;)
Like I said though, this contraption probably isn't *that* useful, but my idea was more useful than the original one.:) ---
If it wasn't enough that he was using a compressor not to re-compress the gas he was expanding, but to run a jet engine, he's topping it off by building an afterburner on it to roast weinies when the exhaust is already hot enough to broil them in seconds. He seems to bear a remarkable resemblance to Tim on Home Improvement.
However, I see a possible useful application for this. This very contraption could be used as a combination hot water heater/air conditioner/electrical generator for his home. Just add a generator on the get turbine, immerse the propane tank in a coolant to circulate where needed, and pipe the jet exhaust through the orifice normally used by a natural gas flame in your natural gas hot water tank. I somehow doubt that this would be efficient at all three jobs, but hey, his concept wasn't any less silly, that's for sure.:) ---
No, this is how you get open source out of the server environment, where it currently dominates. The fact of the matter is that if Microsoft gets businesses to mistrust open source (not themselves... after all *their* platform still works fine after they change passport) on such a large scale, then for years, even *decades* afterwards, businessmen are going to say "but look what happened with.NET."
And it's already hard enough trying to get businessmen to use open source operating systems on their critical servers, because they believe that they "get what they pay for" when they get something for free (typically, the more expensive the solution, the better it is in their minds), and that they don't have the opportunity to scream at the developer and threaten to sue to get things fixed. (which in reality is completely ineffective anyway... microsoft's EULA specifically removes liability in these situations, but the business owner knows that at least there's a phone number he can scream at)
Since the cards are already stacked against open source in the business world, it would only take one anecdote - true or not - to yank the carpet from under our feet. But if you're not in the least bit interested in having an audience for your software, I guess you're not terribly concerned with these things.:) ---
It would be easier to get a real world fix on your stolen goods (laptop or desktop... doesn't matter) with a radio transmitter than it would be with an IP address. And since the goods in question have all the electrical power they would need for that sort of thing, it should be pretty easy.
This method is actually used by some R/C aircraft enthusiasts to locate their aircraft after they lose control of them, although they generally use small, low-range transmitters. (range of about a mile or so... they don't need much) Except they have to rely on on-board batteries rather than 120VAC.
Another idea might be to use GPS if it can be done... Every time you connect to the net, it sends out its GPS coordinates to your favourite web host.:)
The sad fact is, without a big break like this the likelihood that you'll ever get your stuff back is pretty much nil. ---
They held that being deaf wasn't a "defect" that needed to be fixed.
Actually, it has more to do with the fact that deaf people have a culture all their own, and cochlear implants threaten to destroy that culture. Also, cochlear implants are far from perfect, and are at best a pale imitation. You can't really listen to music for instance, and hearing in crowded or noisy environments is next to impossible. ---
Perhaps You could instead install sheets of lead around the vital components. This would have a twofold effect: theft deterrent and protection from an EMP in the event of a nuclear war. ---
All I've heard from anyone bothering to respond to this is bitching about how newbies are so stupid and lazy and how they should shut up and stop whining.
If you want to give back to the user community by doing technical support for linux (ie, joining #linux on the undernet) then shut up, answer the goddamn questions, and stop whining and being lazy - ie, stop being a hippocrite.
Really, how hard is it to answer questions like "how do I get my mouse to work under X" with "Well, that's a complicated question with a complicated answer, and that question has been answered in painful detial at www.makeyourmousework.com," or even "RTFM @ www.makeyourmousework.com." Just saying "RTFM!" is just a petty way of denying your own lack of technical skill to yourself and newbies alike. It's a quick cover that makes you feel self-important and superior to those you believe to be the unwashed masses. The fact of the matter is that you couldn't answer the question yourself, you would have to go look it up, so instead of admitting that you don't actually *know* that information, you just tell them to fuck off.
And all this time you believe that you're the guru on the mountaintop, knowing all and giving out nothing, because after all, noone ever gave you a break, so you're not going to help anyone get to your mountaintop. The newbie sees you for what you are though - an arrogant prick. Actually helping them to find the answers on their own will elevate you to a technical god in their eyes, even if you aren't even close.
Give a newbie an answer, and you help him for a moment. Show a newbie how to find the answer, and he will always have whatever knowledge he needs.
So what if it's flamebait? You needed to hear that. ---
You probably can give it away legally. They might not like that, but the contract you signed probably didn't say that you couldn't set up a firewall and run 128 computers behind your firewall. Whether they belong to you or to someone else is irrelevent.
You might have a wee bit of a problem with people abusing your network though. ---
It seems fairly simple. You could take Microsoft's lead. Flagrantly violate antitrust and business competition laws (after all, those ones don't really count. It's not like you're *murdering* anyone or anything like that.), and after you've wiped out the competition you've already got a billion dollars. In internet time, this is something you can easily do in only say, four years. Since it takes more time than that for the government to even notice you, you're in the clear by that time. You have enough money to purchase expensive lawyers that will stall the government court cases for at least ten years, by which time you can buy your own small country (say, The Netherlands or Switzerland) where you can successfully live out your retirement without fear of arrest. ---
So what? So much of "objective" "news" offers "facts" that can be "held on their own" or some such garbage. You never see a real dissenting opinion, and when you do see a real dissenting opinion, it's because it's the weakest one they could find so they can disprove it so easily and laugh at it. (kind of like that bit on Fox a few months back about how the moon landings were faked. Except it's so very prevelent in "real" news stories, just more subtle.) As a result, I find Malda's rant refreshing. ---
Hmph. Like most people responding to this post, I had easy access to hard-core porn when I was a kid. I'm only 25, and I can tell you even now, having seen everything that I've seen, Penthouse Variations was as kinky and as varied in the early 80's as sexual experience can be. It's also worth noting that by the time I was 11, I had read "The Joy of Sex" from cover to cover, and I'm a better person because of it.
But what would I say to my daughter if I were in this man's shoes? Well, if the topic of pornography were to come up (and even if it did not I would bring it up, as she's at the age where she's either starting to get interested in learning about sex, or she will be within a year or two) I would be delighted to inform her that the vast majority of porn, like the vast majority of TV and movies, is purely entertainment and has absolutely no educational value whatsoever. Also, like TV and movies, most of it is fake and a good whack of it is truly distasteful.
At the same time, there are websites like scarleteen which are terrific sexuality resources for teenagers, plus a wide array of other educational websites about biology, romance, and human relations, among other interesting topics. Would you deny your daughter information on astronomy if she were just dying to look it up? Why wouldn't you give her the same courtesy in sciences like human biology and sexology? Perhaps at 11 she won't be terribly interested, but she will be, and soon!
As for myself, I promised myself long ago that I'd have a copy of "The Joy of Sex" on an accessible shelf out in the open for my kids to read instead of tucked away in an underwear drawer where they have to feel guilty about finding it and sneaking peeks at it whenever they can. There's no harm in allowing children access to such things - especially when they're truthful and open - but plenty of harm in making them feel ashamed about it. ---
I work at an ISP, and you would be *amazed* at how many people are still using windows 3.11. These people could spend $100 on a computer at a flea market and end up with a system that is 10x faster, yet they still keep on. Most of them are students or working poor who either can't afford a "new" computer, or don't know enough about them to bother.
As an added bonus, most point of sale terminals are still running on old 386's that haven't been upgraded since they were bought. And why should they upgrade? The system works exactly the same as it did when they first bought it, and moving to a new system would be a royal pain in the butt, likely without any real benefits. Old hardware isn't a problem to use so long as you're using old software on it too. ---
Gartner recommended that managers train employees to use e-mail more efficiently, including using distribution lists with caution by sending e-mail to only those who need the information or avoid sending needless responses, such as "I'm with you 100 percent" or "Glad to be of help."
And with their usual zeal, American CEO's decide that politeness is a waste of productivity, deciding en masse that it must be rooted out to get a nice 2% more time out of their employees' workday. ---
Slashdot Mirror
Artistic works given away for free for others to improve upon and give them away for free as well? That sounds remarkably like what happens in places that don't sell their culture at the highest price possible. Namely, anyplace but North America. This describes perfectly songs written for cultural events such as Carnival in Rio de Janerio. Or Christmas in Mexico. Or any traditional music in the Far East. It could also describe public domain works from Europe like Germany's classical music, Italy's operas, and England's plays. Although these are experiences sold to the public, they are sold in a fundamentally different way than how it's done in the US. (ie, you could pay to see a concert or a play, or you could get a copy of the script off a friend and do it yourself - results may vary) This music license is probably exactly what the US needs to develop its culture.
Well, I for one, having worked in technical support know exactly how clueless most users are about Windows and any alternatives they might have. Case in point: When asked what version of windows a customer is using when they call tech support, I swear fully 50% don't even know! I would say about 25% of that 50% don't even understand the question. And then there's the Mac people that answer "Yes" when asked "Are you running Windows 98?" It's not that they think that Windows is "The only real OS," it's that they don't know what an OS is. They don't even think about these things. It never even occurs to them to question whether Windows is a good thing or not, or whether they have a choice. They walked into a computer store one day and asked to buy a computer, and that's what they were sold.
If I didn't know any better, I would swear that Microsoft was taking advantage of these poor saps out of spite because the marketing team once worked in front line tech support.
Heh. I can see this now. The moment the case comes to conclusion, Bill Gates, Steve Ballmer, and god knows who else in upper management, will immediately resign and cash in all their stocks. True, the price of the stock will be worth about $.10 a share at the end of the trading day, but these guys are all still going to be multi-millionaires at the very least. So while they wouldn't be able to go *completely* insane with their money anymore, they sure won't be in the poor house. Also remember that most of these guys have more diverse stock portfolios than just Microsoft. Considering where they started from, what does it matter even if the goverment were to outlaw Microsoft forever and nuke the site from orbit?
If this happens (and honestly I don't think it won't, there's no incentive for any of them to stick it out to the bitter end, and so much more incentive not to.) noone's going to get the triple damages the law promises. Hell, more than half of the companies suing wouldn't ever see a dime. They'd be in recievership before most of the suits would even be finished.
So the moral of the story: Crime does pay. Especially anti-trust crime. Which could just well be why windows XP has an extra helping of evil just before the axe falls.
Geez, you mean the telegraph didn't do this first? Or radio? Or the telephone? Or... well, you get the point. It's been over a hundred years since the first of these developments. I think we can cope now.
Actually, since using Linux is now easier to use than Windows XP, I would agree with everyone else that's replied with "Well, that's because Joe User can't use Windows either." (besides the fact that I've worked in tech support... I know people don't know dick about using windows)
Despite the fact the MS is a monopolistic megolith, ... they (WE!) will tolerate it because there isn't a better choice.
There's LOTS of better choices. And cheaper choices. All the free unix-like operating sysetms are better for desktop use than Windows is for Joe User who never does anything with a computer besides e-mail, using the web, word processing, their budget and maybe even watching DVD's if they can manage that much. However, even I, a UNIX systems administrator use Windows at home. Why? There are exactly two applications that I use that I can't (or won't) do without. And they're games. (nuff said)
I'm an economist(-in-training). I know that competition drives prices down, and forces product quality up. But if someone doesn't come along and design an alternative, all we'll ever get to do is sit here, bitch about it on Slashdot, and feel sorry for people that don't know the difference.
Okay, that's great. What do your economics classes tell you about the economics of monopolies? Consider Microsoft's case.
To compete with Microsoft on the desktop, you need four things: The shiny new operating system, support from computer manufacturers, (the only way you're going to get most people to use your new OS is by selling it with their computer - they'll likely never change it) support from developers (which you'll need, because without applications, your OS is useless) and mega advertising bucks. The first and last things are easy - they just require money. The two in the middle are far from it however.
Manufacturers don't want to annoy Microsoft by offering a second choice to consumers because if they do, Microsoft will either increase the price of their OEM license or they'll revoke it completely. And to them, Windows is the proven choice as opposed to your upstart and uncertain OS (after all, they have *all* the applications right now).
Getting the help of Developers is even harder. They're going to develop their applications for Windows anyway - It's what runs on 95% of the desktops, and it's where the profit is. Writing a different copy for your new operating system is an added expense, and again, one with uncertain returns. The vast majority of developers won't even bother porting to your OS until you have a suitably large portion of the desktop market, and without their support you probably won't get it, so it's a perfect catch 22. You could always do what Microsoft does though, and build your own killer apps that get bundled with the new computers you're hopefully selling.
Add to these difficulties the fact that Microsoft will gladly put pressure on the hardware manufactuers and the software developers in the form of incentives to use theirs over yours, or in the form of disincentives for using yours. (an excellent example is how they got ISP's to use IE over Netscape... in some cases not only giving IE away, but giving ISP's special deals that made IE "better than free," or what happens to computer resellers that suddenly start paying more for Windows because they do things Microsoft Does Not Like). What does all this add up to? To me, it sounds like an enormous gamble of a business venture which has about a 90%+ chance in ending in bankruptcy and about a hundred million dollars (likely more than that) in hard cash down the drain. Most businessmen that have had experience dealing with Microsoft - especially in competition like Netscape has - will laugh themselves to tears at such an endeavour before telling you that your money is better spent at the craps tables in Reno than in competition with Microsoft.
It's not about whether better technology exists to compete with Microsoft (it does) because it isn't a technology issue, it's a business issue. Microsoft is in a perfect business position to maintain a monopoly indefinitely. Not even big businesses like IBM can stop them. (see: OS/2)
"Most tech journalists are corporate whores!"
This is news? Jesus, I knew this back in the days of "Compute!," back when they still published BASIC programs on paper. Bias towards one's advertisers is nothing new. Hell, this isn't even a restriction on tech journalists, as most mainstream journalists are also corporate whores.
The fact of the matter is that if you piss off the people who buy your advertising, there isn't a very high likelihood that they'll continue to buy the advertising that pays your bills. Using Dan Rather and the white house as an example of this is horrible. Of course the White House never paid Dan Rather's wages. That was done by Charmin.
Basically, all that's happened in this article is that yet another idiot has finally figured out what they should have known from the age of 10 - that the media is a big fucking sham and that none of it is to be believed. Get over it already and take it all with a big lump of salt.
In many of the cases mentioned, the problem lies in the fact that the people on 56K modems are slowing everyone else down. This isn't the case with say Q3Arena, but in games that require fast syncrhonization like Starcraft, the game goes at the speed of the slowest client. (and while sometimes this may be a cable user, most often it is not) While the modem user might *really* want to play, she/he shouldn't, because it is causing everyone else in the game grief.
:)
Of course, it would be nice if game authors made their networking code a little cleaner.
Unfortunately, this assumes the following order of operations:
:)
1) The bug is found first by security experts reviewing code.
2) Creator is notified
3) Creator cares enough to fix the bug before the script kiddies get to it.
4) Sysadmins care enough to patch the hole, likewise before script kiddies get to it.
More often than not, there is a lag time between steps 1 and 4. This can be several weeks, or it can be months. Also more often than not, the creator and/or the sysadmin doesn't give a damn unless it suddenly becomes Very Important. Ie, that it is not only a known exploit, but it is currently being exploited.
However, this also assumes that the good guys find out about the security hole before the bad guys do. This is very often not the case. This is what happens instead:
1) Cracker finds the security hole and writes a worm to use it.
2a) Someone finds the hole and notifies the vendor before releasing the exploit to the security community, or 2b) Someone finds out about the security hole because their system was compromised by it.
3) Vendor is notified. (and we all hope they realize the scope of the problem) At this point the exploit may or may not be actively in use, and we may or may not actually know about it. (some crackers are really sneaky and don't bother to make it known they've been there, using their shiny new shell account for further nefarious purposes.) We patiently wait for the vendor to issue a patch.
4) This is, potentially, where the shit hits the fan. By this time either the vendor has given a damn about the security of their product and issued a patch, (which, we hope, will be installed by 100% of the sysadmins affected Right Away!) or full disclosure happens and the flood of script kiddies hits like a tsunami, OR the worm is successfully completed and delivered, turning a good chunk of the servers on the internet into boat anchors (or maybe just displaying a web page that says "Boo!" -- If we're lucky.).
And unfortunately, since vendors have had a history of either not caring about security, or trying to avoid the bad publicity of security problems by sticking their heads in the sand, all the bad parts of step 4 have, do, and will continue to happen in the future. Also unfortunately, some percentage of systems administrators will not install the patch because they are lazy and/or inattentive. As a result, worms such as Code Red are inevitable until we centralize the Internet in such a way that everything gets patched the day someone finds out about an exploit. And you and I both know that even that is a whole new can of worms.
Heh. So they're suing Palm? Why aren't they suing the motherboard makers for making such crappy motherboards? It seems to be a much higher likelihood, since it only happens to *some* motherboards. My guess would be that palm has deeper pockets.
Either that, or the users in question here don't know jack about what really went wrong... like if they put a cup of coffee in their "cup holder" and when they hit the hot-sync button, it closed.
Um, didn't you know that "objective reporting" is a fallacy to make you believe that all the major "news outlets" tell the truth, rather than putting their own spin on the news?
There is no such thing as objective reporting. There never was. Take everything you read with a huge lump of salt, with an eye to who wrote it and who paid them to do so.
This was discussed, of course. :) In the summer, you still have a need for hot water. In the winter, you still have a need for cold drinks. And you always have a need for electricity. ;)
:)
Like I said though, this contraption probably isn't *that* useful, but my idea was more useful than the original one.
---
If it wasn't enough that he was using a compressor not to re-compress the gas he was expanding, but to run a jet engine, he's topping it off by building an afterburner on it to roast weinies when the exhaust is already hot enough to broil them in seconds. He seems to bear a remarkable resemblance to Tim on Home Improvement.
:)
However, I see a possible useful application for this. This very contraption could be used as a combination hot water heater/air conditioner/electrical generator for his home. Just add a generator on the get turbine, immerse the propane tank in a coolant to circulate where needed, and pipe the jet exhaust through the orifice normally used by a natural gas flame in your natural gas hot water tank. I somehow doubt that this would be efficient at all three jobs, but hey, his concept wasn't any less silly, that's for sure.
---
No, this is how you get open source out of the server environment, where it currently dominates. The fact of the matter is that if Microsoft gets businesses to mistrust open source (not themselves... after all *their* platform still works fine after they change passport) on such a large scale, then for years, even *decades* afterwards, businessmen are going to say "but look what happened with .NET."
:)
And it's already hard enough trying to get businessmen to use open source operating systems on their critical servers, because they believe that they "get what they pay for" when they get something for free (typically, the more expensive the solution, the better it is in their minds), and that they don't have the opportunity to scream at the developer and threaten to sue to get things fixed. (which in reality is completely ineffective anyway... microsoft's EULA specifically removes liability in these situations, but the business owner knows that at least there's a phone number he can scream at)
Since the cards are already stacked against open source in the business world, it would only take one anecdote - true or not - to yank the carpet from under our feet. But if you're not in the least bit interested in having an audience for your software, I guess you're not terribly concerned with these things.
---
It would be easier to get a real world fix on your stolen goods (laptop or desktop... doesn't matter) with a radio transmitter than it would be with an IP address. And since the goods in question have all the electrical power they would need for that sort of thing, it should be pretty easy.
:)
This method is actually used by some R/C aircraft enthusiasts to locate their aircraft after they lose control of them, although they generally use small, low-range transmitters. (range of about a mile or so... they don't need much) Except they have to rely on on-board batteries rather than 120VAC.
Another idea might be to use GPS if it can be done... Every time you connect to the net, it sends out its GPS coordinates to your favourite web host.
The sad fact is, without a big break like this the likelihood that you'll ever get your stuff back is pretty much nil.
---
Actually, it has more to do with the fact that deaf people have a culture all their own, and cochlear implants threaten to destroy that culture. Also, cochlear implants are far from perfect, and are at best a pale imitation. You can't really listen to music for instance, and hearing in crowded or noisy environments is next to impossible.
---
Perhaps You could instead install sheets of lead around the vital components. This would have a twofold effect: theft deterrent and protection from an EMP in the event of a nuclear war.
---
The comparison with NT is the entire point of the sig.
---
All I've heard from anyone bothering to respond to this is bitching about how newbies are so stupid and lazy and how they should shut up and stop whining.
If you want to give back to the user community by doing technical support for linux (ie, joining #linux on the undernet) then shut up, answer the goddamn questions, and stop whining and being lazy - ie, stop being a hippocrite.
Really, how hard is it to answer questions like "how do I get my mouse to work under X" with "Well, that's a complicated question with a complicated answer, and that question has been answered in painful detial at www.makeyourmousework.com," or even "RTFM @ www.makeyourmousework.com." Just saying "RTFM!" is just a petty way of denying your own lack of technical skill to yourself and newbies alike. It's a quick cover that makes you feel self-important and superior to those you believe to be the unwashed masses. The fact of the matter is that you couldn't answer the question yourself, you would have to go look it up, so instead of admitting that you don't actually *know* that information, you just tell them to fuck off.
And all this time you believe that you're the guru on the mountaintop, knowing all and giving out nothing, because after all, noone ever gave you a break, so you're not going to help anyone get to your mountaintop. The newbie sees you for what you are though - an arrogant prick. Actually helping them to find the answers on their own will elevate you to a technical god in their eyes, even if you aren't even close.
Give a newbie an answer, and you help him for a moment. Show a newbie how to find the answer, and he will always have whatever knowledge he needs.
So what if it's flamebait? You needed to hear that.
---
You probably can give it away legally. They might not like that, but the contract you signed probably didn't say that you couldn't set up a firewall and run 128 computers behind your firewall. Whether they belong to you or to someone else is irrelevent.
You might have a wee bit of a problem with people abusing your network though.
---
It seems fairly simple. You could take Microsoft's lead. Flagrantly violate antitrust and business competition laws (after all, those ones don't really count. It's not like you're *murdering* anyone or anything like that.), and after you've wiped out the competition you've already got a billion dollars. In internet time, this is something you can easily do in only say, four years. Since it takes more time than that for the government to even notice you, you're in the clear by that time. You have enough money to purchase expensive lawyers that will stall the government court cases for at least ten years, by which time you can buy your own small country (say, The Netherlands or Switzerland) where you can successfully live out your retirement without fear of arrest.
---
So what? So much of "objective" "news" offers "facts" that can be "held on their own" or some such garbage. You never see a real dissenting opinion, and when you do see a real dissenting opinion, it's because it's the weakest one they could find so they can disprove it so easily and laugh at it. (kind of like that bit on Fox a few months back about how the moon landings were faked. Except it's so very prevelent in "real" news stories, just more subtle.) As a result, I find Malda's rant refreshing.
---
But what would I say to my daughter if I were in this man's shoes? Well, if the topic of pornography were to come up (and even if it did not I would bring it up, as she's at the age where she's either starting to get interested in learning about sex, or she will be within a year or two) I would be delighted to inform her that the vast majority of porn, like the vast majority of TV and movies, is purely entertainment and has absolutely no educational value whatsoever. Also, like TV and movies, most of it is fake and a good whack of it is truly distasteful.
At the same time, there are websites like scarleteen which are terrific sexuality resources for teenagers, plus a wide array of other educational websites about biology, romance, and human relations, among other interesting topics. Would you deny your daughter information on astronomy if she were just dying to look it up? Why wouldn't you give her the same courtesy in sciences like human biology and sexology? Perhaps at 11 she won't be terribly interested, but she will be, and soon!
As for myself, I promised myself long ago that I'd have a copy of "The Joy of Sex" on an accessible shelf out in the open for my kids to read instead of tucked away in an underwear drawer where they have to feel guilty about finding it and sneaking peeks at it whenever they can. There's no harm in allowing children access to such things - especially when they're truthful and open - but plenty of harm in making them feel ashamed about it.
---
Heh. Not really. He's just another asshole. He's trying too hard to get that sort of recognition.
---
Heh.
I work at an ISP, and you would be *amazed* at how many people are still using windows 3.11. These people could spend $100 on a computer at a flea market and end up with a system that is 10x faster, yet they still keep on. Most of them are students or working poor who either can't afford a "new" computer, or don't know enough about them to bother.
As an added bonus, most point of sale terminals are still running on old 386's that haven't been upgraded since they were bought. And why should they upgrade? The system works exactly the same as it did when they first bought it, and moving to a new system would be a royal pain in the butt, likely without any real benefits. Old hardware isn't a problem to use so long as you're using old software on it too.
---
And with their usual zeal, American CEO's decide that politeness is a waste of productivity, deciding en masse that it must be rooted out to get a nice 2% more time out of their employees' workday.
---