How do we know they aren't going to try to do what they successfully did to Netscape.
Bundling IE with Windows isn't what killed Netscape. Netscape killed Netscape.
Navigator 4.x was a bloated, buggy, crash-prone piece of shit. It would choke and die on even moderately complex tabular layouts, and resizing the window caused it to re-request the page it was displaying. IE 4 was a match for it and IE 5 quite simply wiped the floor with it - and I say that as someone who stuck with it right up until about M12 or M13 of Mozilla, and who has never and likely will never use IE as his primary browser.
Microsoft bundling IE with Windows didn't help, and perhaps that paniced Netscape into making some truly awful decisions (like throwing away their existing codebase and starting again from scratch for Netscape 5), but it most certainly did not kill Netscape.
I'd go with CD or DVD personally. They're much easier (and cheaper) to comprehensively destroy once finished with. We even have a CD (and floppy) shredder at work; quite good fun to use.
Personally I'd burn it to CD or DVD rather than put it on a drive if it's that sensitive. Much much easier to destroy once it's finished with.
That said, I'd need to hear a damn good reason before sending the real data over in the first place, especially if the final installation is going to be on-site. Send them some anonymised dummy data; problem solved.
The only time I've ever been surprised by a movie ending was "The Sixth Sense".
Meh, I guessed the secret of "The Sixth Sense" in the hospital after the kid has the attack/fit/seizure thing. I thought it was blindingly obvious, personally, although I guess it's one of those "either you can see it or you can't" things.
"The Others", on the other hand (pun not intended) I guessed literally as it was being revealed - it hit me as she opened the door to reveal the twist. *That* was cool.
If I say the holocaust didn't happen, I go to jail.
Yes, and there's a reason for that. By saying that it didn't happen, you are effectively calling everyone who claims to have survived it a liar, and bringing their reputation into disrepute. That's libel/slander (as appropriate), and so would normally be the subject of a civil case. However, in this particular circumstance it has been decided that the survivors and their relatives have already suffered quite enough, and so rather than put them through the pain of reliving their experiences on the stand, the state handles the prosecution on their behalf.
Yes, it is a curtailment of free speech, but free speech has never been about freedom from the consequences of your speech.
But if you do not see the video yourself, then you must trust the officials when they say that it exists, and that the terrorists are doing this.
Again, you are making decisions based on an incomplete picture of reality, and it becomes that much easier to manipulate you.
Terrorists have been training for, planning and committing atrocities since long before they had YouTube, removing the videos will barely slow them down, let alone prevent them.
No, IE can't be removed, but modern Windows OSes have built-in controls to allow you to change the default browser, email client, etc. Some apps ignore this, but that's down to the app, not the OS.
Netscape deserves to be dead. 4.x was a bloated, buggy, crash-prone abomination, and I say that as someone who used it right up until about M12 or M13 of Mozilla. I have never and most likely will never use IE as my primary browser, but IE 4 was a match for Navigator and 5 simply wiped the floor with it. Netscape badly dropped the ball, and in my opinion Mozilla are in danger of doing so again with Firefox, which is getting more bloated and slower with each release (YMMV of course).
Other than that I completely agree, the US DoJ have utterly failed to punish MS. At least the EU seems to be making a real stand in that respect.
Someone can be summoned because they express a non-violent opinion about a group, yet religious groups who advocate the violent over throw of the government and the establishment of a theocracy falls under protected speech.
I think the clue is in what you said, if you look hard enough...
I dumped AVG Free (for Avast) around Christmas, when it started to advertise AVG Pro at me by opening my browser and directing it to a web page.
Yes, it was telling me about a limited-time money-off offer; no, I do not expect adware behaviour from software designed to keep malware off my machine.
Windows Update still uses ActiveX. If it is off by default, it means Vista machines won't be updated.
The Windows Update website does; neither Automatic Updates nor Vista's dedicated WU app do.
Isn't that the one that Windows Update keep bugging us XP users to download again?
No, you're thinking of the malicious software removal tool; Windows Defender is an entirely different app.
Protecting the internet against infected Vista machines... Looks like even Microsoft doesn't believe the claims about security.
How you can possibly spin a feature that has been in every single personal software firewall product I've ever used as a bash against MS I don't know. This allows you to control what connections legitimate software makes too - don't want something phoning home to search for updates? Block it. (But of course you know that, and are merely trolling)
Given that PC Hardware is a moving target, how will AMD certify future machines? Will AMD GAME and GAME ULTRA also be moving targets?
That right there is the biggest killer I think. Names are all-but useless for this purpose, for exactly the reason you give. MS's Vista performance index might actually be useful for this sort of scheme (depending on exactly how relevant its calculation is), as that at least is an ever-increasing number. A machine that scores 5 will *always* score 5, a game that requires a 5 will *always* require a 5. In a few years, you'll have games requiring machines that score 10 or 15 or whatever.
I know that common sense is entirely too uncommon these days, but if I were to release a digital file (whether to an individual or the public) I'd make sure that someone from the IT department looked it over before release.
A month or so ago our HR director distributed professionally-printed copies of the new Employee Handbook to everyone in the company.
It is full of typos, grammatical errors, strange changes of tense or person, weird extra line breaks, etc. You'd have thought that someone would have proof read it, or at the very least approved a sample print before the full run was produced.
Point being that people take it upon themselves to do things all the time without seeking input from others.
Ctrl+C, Ctrl+X and Ctrl+V were increasingly common shortcuts in Linux apps the last time I used Linux on the desktop, which is going back a good few years now.
Yes, they still do "different" things in a terminal, but they're by no means "Windows commands" any more.
I didn't say that I didn't think his comment was relevant to the issue. I was merely responding to his closing remark:
but 3 pages of Trojans would seem to indicate that they found something, no?
I see nothing in the original comment that implies that the poster believes that nothing was found. As I read it, the original poster believes that the issue is being blown out of proportion, and that without more detail we can't tell whether or not this is the case. Given that malware tools do indeed flag some perfectly innocuous things, that this is slashdot and that the report was produced by a firm that sells PC security software, I'd say that it would seem likely that the issue has been somewhat overstated.
I think we're arguing the same point - the report is meaningless without more detail.
You know, apart from the near-invisible speakers that describes my 2 year old HP laptop pretty well. It's not as pretty as a MacBook, and part of me does want one (as I don't do anything on the laptop that ties me to Windows, unlike my desktop), but the difference absolutely is not worth the money, given I already have a perfectly serviceable laptop.
Maybe in a couple of years, when my current machine is ready for retirement, but definitely not now.
He didn't say that they didn't find anything, he was merely wondering if there were any details as to what exactly they did find.
He's entirely correct about the tracking cookie thing, every malware scanner I've used (apart from Windows Defender, I *think*) flags cookies as malware. My ex's new Vista laptop came with Norton pre-installed, and it flags a tracking cookie every time it runs (and only the cookie - so her laptop would possibly contribute to the report's number, despite being clean)
Simple fact - 60 million people and counting simply do not FIT into the British Isles.
Yes they do, but 7 million+ people don't fit into London. There is a lot of space here that's completely empty, the problem isn't that we don't have space for all the people we have, it's that we tend to clump together and the clumps are getting crowded.
Slashdot Mirror
Just to let you know (and because I'm a pedant ;) ) it's spelled "dearth", and it means "lack of" or "not large enough supply of".
:)
Basically, you said exactly the opposite of what you were trying to say
He drinks fluoridated water? Well it's no wonder then. Probably eats bread too.
Fundamentalist Christian books such as Tim LaHaye's Left Behind
Which, ironically enough, is the basis for a video game...
How do we know they aren't going to try to do what they successfully did to Netscape.
Bundling IE with Windows isn't what killed Netscape. Netscape killed Netscape.
Navigator 4.x was a bloated, buggy, crash-prone piece of shit. It would choke and die on even moderately complex tabular layouts, and resizing the window caused it to re-request the page it was displaying. IE 4 was a match for it and IE 5 quite simply wiped the floor with it - and I say that as someone who stuck with it right up until about M12 or M13 of Mozilla, and who has never and likely will never use IE as his primary browser.
Microsoft bundling IE with Windows didn't help, and perhaps that paniced Netscape into making some truly awful decisions (like throwing away their existing codebase and starting again from scratch for Netscape 5), but it most certainly did not kill Netscape.
I'd go with CD or DVD personally. They're much easier (and cheaper) to comprehensively destroy once finished with. We even have a CD (and floppy) shredder at work; quite good fun to use.
Personally I'd burn it to CD or DVD rather than put it on a drive if it's that sensitive. Much much easier to destroy once it's finished with.
That said, I'd need to hear a damn good reason before sending the real data over in the first place, especially if the final installation is going to be on-site. Send them some anonymised dummy data; problem solved.
Because it simply doesn't work in any densely populated area for a start, unless you stretch the definition of "reasonable proximity".
That bit about the layout of the article sucking was written by CmdrTaco - the submitter writes the bit in quotes.
That doesn't answer your second question, of course...
The only time I've ever been surprised by a movie ending was "The Sixth Sense".
Meh, I guessed the secret of "The Sixth Sense" in the hospital after the kid has the attack/fit/seizure thing. I thought it was blindingly obvious, personally, although I guess it's one of those "either you can see it or you can't" things.
"The Others", on the other hand (pun not intended) I guessed literally as it was being revealed - it hit me as she opened the door to reveal the twist. *That* was cool.
practically everything in a modern web browser behaves like it's single-threaded?
Yes it does, hence the entire browser stalls when one tab is busy for some reason.
Also, one word: NORAID.
If I say the holocaust didn't happen, I go to jail.
Yes, and there's a reason for that. By saying that it didn't happen, you are effectively calling everyone who claims to have survived it a liar, and bringing their reputation into disrepute. That's libel/slander (as appropriate), and so would normally be the subject of a civil case. However, in this particular circumstance it has been decided that the survivors and their relatives have already suffered quite enough, and so rather than put them through the pain of reliving their experiences on the stand, the state handles the prosecution on their behalf.
Yes, it is a curtailment of free speech, but free speech has never been about freedom from the consequences of your speech.
But if you do not see the video yourself, then you must trust the officials when they say that it exists, and that the terrorists are doing this.
Again, you are making decisions based on an incomplete picture of reality, and it becomes that much easier to manipulate you.
Terrorists have been training for, planning and committing atrocities since long before they had YouTube, removing the videos will barely slow them down, let alone prevent them.
No, IE can't be removed, but modern Windows OSes have built-in controls to allow you to change the default browser, email client, etc. Some apps ignore this, but that's down to the app, not the OS.
Netscape deserves to be dead. 4.x was a bloated, buggy, crash-prone abomination, and I say that as someone who used it right up until about M12 or M13 of Mozilla. I have never and most likely will never use IE as my primary browser, but IE 4 was a match for Navigator and 5 simply wiped the floor with it. Netscape badly dropped the ball, and in my opinion Mozilla are in danger of doing so again with Firefox, which is getting more bloated and slower with each release (YMMV of course).
Other than that I completely agree, the US DoJ have utterly failed to punish MS. At least the EU seems to be making a real stand in that respect.
Someone can be summoned because they express a non-violent opinion about a group, yet religious groups who advocate the violent over throw of the government and the establishment of a theocracy falls under protected speech.
I think the clue is in what you said, if you look hard enough...
I dumped AVG Free (for Avast) around Christmas, when it started to advertise AVG Pro at me by opening my browser and directing it to a web page.
Yes, it was telling me about a limited-time money-off offer; no, I do not expect adware behaviour from software designed to keep malware off my machine.
Windows Update still uses ActiveX. If it is off by default, it means Vista machines won't be updated.
The Windows Update website does; neither Automatic Updates nor Vista's dedicated WU app do.
Isn't that the one that Windows Update keep bugging us XP users to download again?
No, you're thinking of the malicious software removal tool; Windows Defender is an entirely different app.
Protecting the internet against infected Vista machines... Looks like even Microsoft doesn't believe the claims about security.
How you can possibly spin a feature that has been in every single personal software firewall product I've ever used as a bash against MS I don't know. This allows you to control what connections legitimate software makes too - don't want something phoning home to search for updates? Block it. (But of course you know that, and are merely trolling)
Given that PC Hardware is a moving target, how will AMD certify future machines? Will AMD GAME and GAME ULTRA also be moving targets?
That right there is the biggest killer I think. Names are all-but useless for this purpose, for exactly the reason you give. MS's Vista performance index might actually be useful for this sort of scheme (depending on exactly how relevant its calculation is), as that at least is an ever-increasing number. A machine that scores 5 will *always* score 5, a game that requires a 5 will *always* require a 5. In a few years, you'll have games requiring machines that score 10 or 15 or whatever.
I know that common sense is entirely too uncommon these days, but if I were to release a digital file (whether to an individual or the public) I'd make sure that someone from the IT department looked it over before release.
A month or so ago our HR director distributed professionally-printed copies of the new Employee Handbook to everyone in the company.
It is full of typos, grammatical errors, strange changes of tense or person, weird extra line breaks, etc. You'd have thought that someone would have proof read it, or at the very least approved a sample print before the full run was produced.
Point being that people take it upon themselves to do things all the time without seeking input from others.
Ctrl+C, Ctrl+X and Ctrl+V were increasingly common shortcuts in Linux apps the last time I used Linux on the desktop, which is going back a good few years now.
Yes, they still do "different" things in a terminal, but they're by no means "Windows commands" any more.
I didn't say that I didn't think his comment was relevant to the issue. I was merely responding to his closing remark:
but 3 pages of Trojans would seem to indicate that they found something, no?
I see nothing in the original comment that implies that the poster believes that nothing was found. As I read it, the original poster believes that the issue is being blown out of proportion, and that without more detail we can't tell whether or not this is the case. Given that malware tools do indeed flag some perfectly innocuous things, that this is slashdot and that the report was produced by a firm that sells PC security software, I'd say that it would seem likely that the issue has been somewhat overstated.
I think we're arguing the same point - the report is meaningless without more detail.
You know, apart from the near-invisible speakers that describes my 2 year old HP laptop pretty well. It's not as pretty as a MacBook, and part of me does want one (as I don't do anything on the laptop that ties me to Windows, unlike my desktop), but the difference absolutely is not worth the money, given I already have a perfectly serviceable laptop.
Maybe in a couple of years, when my current machine is ready for retirement, but definitely not now.
He didn't say that they didn't find anything, he was merely wondering if there were any details as to what exactly they did find.
He's entirely correct about the tracking cookie thing, every malware scanner I've used (apart from Windows Defender, I *think*) flags cookies as malware. My ex's new Vista laptop came with Norton pre-installed, and it flags a tracking cookie every time it runs (and only the cookie - so her laptop would possibly contribute to the report's number, despite being clean)
Instead, the ISPs are being pulled into doing the dirty work, which means the gov't gets shielded from some of the heat.
And, of course, much of the cost.
Simple fact - 60 million people and counting simply do not FIT into the British Isles.
Yes they do, but 7 million+ people don't fit into London. There is a lot of space here that's completely empty, the problem isn't that we don't have space for all the people we have, it's that we tend to clump together and the clumps are getting crowded.