More likely the users would complain, management would haul the IT chief in to a room to ask what was going on, and he'd explain that the users were wasting lots of time filing frivalous tickets trying to access sites for non-work purposes, and management would issue a statement telling them to stop wasting time and money.
In the home space, people would simply go "Huh? But then I won't be able to use my other webs!" and go somewhere else - especially if it's a commercial site they were looking to make a purchase from. Amazon won't serve me? I'll go to B&N, or eBay, or any of a huge number of other companies that will be more than happy to take my business.
Maybe there's an option to stop it doing that, but I currently see it happening every day
You have the following options visibility when creating/editing an album:
* Everyone * My Networks and Friends * Friends of Friends * Only Friends * Custom...
Where custom allows you to create a list of friends and set access privileges for them (though note that I've not played with this much, so I could be over-simplifying things on that one)
So yes you can prevent the behaviour you describe, but being visible to everyone is the default.
Cancer is a "simple" disease, not a mental condition. Why do you link the two?
Cancer is obvious, but the effects of the treatment most certainly are not.
I happen to know two people who had treatment for breast cancer at the same time - one woman I work with, one I know as a friend. They've both finished their treatment, and while my coworker is back at work full time, my friend isn't. The treatment hit her much harder than my coworker, both throughout the course of treatment and after.
Point is they both had similar treatments (operation, chemo, radio) for similar problems (breast cancer) but one has been affected far more than the other. The effect isn't something you can see, or easily test for - much like depression. And much like this case she has good days, when she does feel up to partying the night away (though not often and she generally pays for it), and bad days when she has trouble getting the energy together to leave her parents' flat.
Even simple diseases can have complicated knock-on effects.
The only people still using internet exploder are people who don't care about security.
Or perhaps they just don't know about that sort of thing, and expect their computer to just work, just as their TV, fridge, microwave, phone, etc all just work?
or whatever the OS X browser is called
First you lambaste people for not knowing enough about IE and its alternatives, then you admit to not knowing enough about Safari. Beautiful.
A cancer patient might be rather sick, but make an extra effort for special events.
A very close personal friend of mine has survived breast cancer. The chemotherapy took it out of her, and the radiotherapy really took it out of her - a few months on and she's still not back to her old self yet.
Despite that, she did make extra effort for special events, and paid for it later (in increased fatigue, etc). Anyone who just saw her on those occasions, and not on the days when she was too sick, too fatigued to leave her flat, might think she was fine, but she most certainly wasn't.
Not to mention that a very close friend of mine has serious depression (she's not so bad at the moment, but has been hospitalised for her own safety before), and she can sound absolutely fine on the phone in the morning, and be totally withdrawn and uncommunicative in the afternoon. She can also be on a serious downer, yet sound fine on the phone to other people - in other words, put a brave face on things.
I've used an iPod Mini and briefly used a Nano and I can't think of any feature that either of them had that I miss from my Touch; what were you thinking of?
my native country will be a better place (and before you start in with bits about American Indians, I'm part Cherokee as well as a White, so shut it)
Irrelevant. If you were born there, you're a native. Doesn't matter if your parents invaded the country and stole the land your house is built on, you'd still be a native.
Without the Cherokee blood (and perhaps even with it) you can't claim to be a Native American, but that is not the same thing as claiming to be a native American (= native of America).
Re:Economic climate... or lack of concern?
on
NIMF To Close Its Doors
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Either that, or the Video Game Bogeyman has been replaced by the Terrorism Bogeyman, and people are simply concentrating on that instead.
What happens to AppleTV and iTunes store sales when you just stream your movies and music off Amazon when you want to watch them?
And how do I do that on my iPod when I'm on the Underground on my way to/from work? Or out in the middle of nowhere, or anywhere else where I won't have a suitable network connection?
I was going to say exactly that - they're not losing money, they're simply not making as much money as they would have had everyone who pirated their app paid for it.
That's not to excuse the pirates of course, they should be paying.
Isn't that how MS wants you to configure windows update - so that a web page can trigger an update without your interaction?
No - there is a Windows service that runs and periodically phones home to check to see if there are any updates available. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a web page.
You are probably thinking of the Windows (or Microsoft) Update website, which can't do anything automatically (you have to go there, and choose what you want to have installed), and which in any case is not used by any Windows OS from Vista onwards (which use a dedicated application, not a bunch of ActiveX controls on a web page).
So for a general purpose machine, that needs to be able to do email, web, etc, how do you lock down connections out?
There's nothing to stop me from running my bot control software so that it is listening to port 80. Are you suggesting that I need to apply for permission to make outgoing connections to port 80 on a site-by-site basis?
You can make it more difficult for processes to dial out, but on a machine that can actually use the network, you can't make it impossible.
Even more ironically, most of the comments seem to indicate that sudo is a recommended solution! Are you kidding?... If a user wants to do something that needs more privileges, you grant him carte blanche root access?
That's not what sudo does, necessarily. There is a file that can be used to list the commands that a given user/group can run using sudo. If the command you're running isn't in that list (including the arguments you're supplying) then you don't get permission to run it.
It's common to allow people to sudo anything they want, but that is by no means the only option.
Non-root processes are restricted from using low port numbers(1024, iirc).
And? Just because SMTP servers traditionally listen on port 25 doesn't mean that my zombie mailer process has to; similarly clients making outgoing connections all use high-numbered ports anyway, whether they're malicious or not.
if there's a correctly configured firewall on the machine, a non-root process is incapable of going around it
Not entirely true - you can make a connection out to a known address, and have the controller on the other end send commands back down that channel. In fact, you'd have to connect out regardless of how connections are made back to the bot just to advertise your existence.
Not that it would actually prevent any malware I know of from wreaking havoc
Exactly! Restricting low port numbers is no help at all - all it can do is prevent me from running a process on a machine on say port 80, and tricking people to connect to my malicious site rather than the presumably trustworthy one that's being run by the admin. That's a very, very small level of protection.
To be honest that's kind of what I've come to expect from most FOSS projects - an attitude of "we're doing this because we want to, we donate our time for free - if you don't like it, fork it and fix it, or use something else".
It's actually hard to argue with most of the time, as they really are donating their time for free...
Patch Tuesday is the fault of the big corporate customers, who demanded that patches be released on a schedule so they had more time to plan around testing and rolling them out.
I don't like it either, but it's not like it's something MS made up just to piss us off, they're doing exactly what their customers have asked for.
Slashdot Mirror
Very few people can realistically turn their office, study, etc into a clean room. Absolutely everyone can refrain from smoking in it.
Also dust is easy to blow/vacuum out; a gunky tar residue is not.
More likely the users would complain, management would haul the IT chief in to a room to ask what was going on, and he'd explain that the users were wasting lots of time filing frivalous tickets trying to access sites for non-work purposes, and management would issue a statement telling them to stop wasting time and money.
In the home space, people would simply go "Huh? But then I won't be able to use my other webs!" and go somewhere else - especially if it's a commercial site they were looking to make a purchase from. Amazon won't serve me? I'll go to B&N, or eBay, or any of a huge number of other companies that will be more than happy to take my business.
Maybe there's an option to stop it doing that, but I currently see it happening every day
You have the following options visibility when creating/editing an album:
* Everyone
* My Networks and Friends
* Friends of Friends
* Only Friends
* Custom...
Where custom allows you to create a list of friends and set access privileges for them (though note that I've not played with this much, so I could be over-simplifying things on that one)
So yes you can prevent the behaviour you describe, but being visible to everyone is the default.
Cancer is a "simple" disease, not a mental condition. Why do you link the two?
Cancer is obvious, but the effects of the treatment most certainly are not.
I happen to know two people who had treatment for breast cancer at the same time - one woman I work with, one I know as a friend. They've both finished their treatment, and while my coworker is back at work full time, my friend isn't. The treatment hit her much harder than my coworker, both throughout the course of treatment and after.
Point is they both had similar treatments (operation, chemo, radio) for similar problems (breast cancer) but one has been affected far more than the other. The effect isn't something you can see, or easily test for - much like depression. And much like this case she has good days, when she does feel up to partying the night away (though not often and she generally pays for it), and bad days when she has trouble getting the energy together to leave her parents' flat.
Even simple diseases can have complicated knock-on effects.
It's the ratio of the circumference of a circle to the diameter - approximately 3.14, though it's an irrational (and transcendental) number.
More info on Wikipedia.
In the UK that would fall foul of the Computer Misuse Act; other countries have similar laws.
It's also a really, really stupid idea, only marginally less anti-social than writing traditional malware.
The only people still using internet exploder are people who don't care about security.
Or perhaps they just don't know about that sort of thing, and expect their computer to just work, just as their TV, fridge, microwave, phone, etc all just work?
or whatever the OS X browser is called
First you lambaste people for not knowing enough about IE and its alternatives, then you admit to not knowing enough about Safari. Beautiful.
A cancer patient might be rather sick, but make an extra effort for special events.
A very close personal friend of mine has survived breast cancer. The chemotherapy took it out of her, and the radiotherapy really took it out of her - a few months on and she's still not back to her old self yet.
Despite that, she did make extra effort for special events, and paid for it later (in increased fatigue, etc). Anyone who just saw her on those occasions, and not on the days when she was too sick, too fatigued to leave her flat, might think she was fine, but she most certainly wasn't.
Not to mention that a very close friend of mine has serious depression (she's not so bad at the moment, but has been hospitalised for her own safety before), and she can sound absolutely fine on the phone in the morning, and be totally withdrawn and uncommunicative in the afternoon. She can also be on a serious downer, yet sound fine on the phone to other people - in other words, put a brave face on things.
If Microsoft could just figure out how to prevent restarts on software installs, the cold boot scenario would be almost pointless.
I updated my display driver (for a Radeon 5850) under Windows 7 last night; it didn't require a reboot. The problem most certainly has a solution.
I've used an iPod Mini and briefly used a Nano and I can't think of any feature that either of them had that I miss from my Touch; what were you thinking of?
my native country will be a better place (and before you start in with bits about American Indians, I'm part Cherokee as well as a White, so shut it)
Irrelevant. If you were born there, you're a native. Doesn't matter if your parents invaded the country and stole the land your house is built on, you'd still be a native.
Without the Cherokee blood (and perhaps even with it) you can't claim to be a Native American, but that is not the same thing as claiming to be a native American (= native of America).
Either that, or the Video Game Bogeyman has been replaced by the Terrorism Bogeyman, and people are simply concentrating on that instead.
What happens to AppleTV and iTunes store sales when you just stream your movies and music off Amazon when you want to watch them?
And how do I do that on my iPod when I'm on the Underground on my way to/from work? Or out in the middle of nowhere, or anywhere else where I won't have a suitable network connection?
I was going to say exactly that - they're not losing money, they're simply not making as much money as they would have had everyone who pirated their app paid for it.
That's not to excuse the pirates of course, they should be paying.
Isn't that how MS wants you to configure windows update - so that a web page can trigger an update without your interaction?
No - there is a Windows service that runs and periodically phones home to check to see if there are any updates available. It has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with a web page.
You are probably thinking of the Windows (or Microsoft) Update website, which can't do anything automatically (you have to go there, and choose what you want to have installed), and which in any case is not used by any Windows OS from Vista onwards (which use a dedicated application, not a bunch of ActiveX controls on a web page).
So for a general purpose machine, that needs to be able to do email, web, etc, how do you lock down connections out?
There's nothing to stop me from running my bot control software so that it is listening to port 80. Are you suggesting that I need to apply for permission to make outgoing connections to port 80 on a site-by-site basis?
You can make it more difficult for processes to dial out, but on a machine that can actually use the network, you can't make it impossible.
Even more ironically, most of the comments seem to indicate that sudo is a recommended solution! Are you kidding? ... If a user wants to do something that needs more privileges, you grant him carte blanche root access?
That's not what sudo does, necessarily. There is a file that can be used to list the commands that a given user/group can run using sudo. If the command you're running isn't in that list (including the arguments you're supplying) then you don't get permission to run it.
It's common to allow people to sudo anything they want, but that is by no means the only option.
Non-root processes are restricted from using low port numbers(1024, iirc).
And? Just because SMTP servers traditionally listen on port 25 doesn't mean that my zombie mailer process has to; similarly clients making outgoing connections all use high-numbered ports anyway, whether they're malicious or not.
if there's a correctly configured firewall on the machine, a non-root process is incapable of going around it
Not entirely true - you can make a connection out to a known address, and have the controller on the other end send commands back down that channel. In fact, you'd have to connect out regardless of how connections are made back to the bot just to advertise your existence.
Not that it would actually prevent any malware I know of from wreaking havoc
Exactly! Restricting low port numbers is no help at all - all it can do is prevent me from running a process on a machine on say port 80, and tricking people to connect to my malicious site rather than the presumably trustworthy one that's being run by the admin. That's a very, very small level of protection.
To be honest that's kind of what I've come to expect from most FOSS projects - an attitude of "we're doing this because we want to, we donate our time for free - if you don't like it, fork it and fix it, or use something else".
It's actually hard to argue with most of the time, as they really are donating their time for free...
It (or similar) has been showing up on pretty much every story I've read on here for the last few days.
You own a book.
You scan the book.
Now you have a jpeg (or whatever) of the text of the book stored on your computer.
In what way is that not a copy?
China only cares about copyright violation only when they're the ones on the losing end
And that is different from any other country or company how, exactly?
So... you're saying that they should have sat on this until they'd fixed all outstanding issues in their own software?
Patch Tuesday is the fault of the big corporate customers, who demanded that patches be released on a schedule so they had more time to plan around testing and rolling them out.
I don't like it either, but it's not like it's something MS made up just to piss us off, they're doing exactly what their customers have asked for.