3. Leaving that computer relatively unguarded against intrusion.
How exactly do you protect against your child clicking on a link, downloading a program, and executing it? Security goes out the door as soon as you choose to execute arbitrary code. A young child can't be expected to understand all of the security implications of using a computer online. I don't see a lot of blame for parents in this situation, nor for the kids (simply because they're too young to have been exposed to this before - this is where they learn not to trust people online). Ideally, you would have one computer for the child's online use, and another one for everything else, but not many families can afford to or want to do that. Other than that one precaution, the parents don't exactly share a lot of blame if their child gets targeted and exploited. I see more blame on the neopets site for allowing users to send arbitrary messages to each other, considering that this site is targeted at young kids. If you're running a site for young kids that is open to the general public, users simply shouldn't be able to send private arbitrary messages to each other. Everything should be public, and the messages may even need to be canned content. If the kid is looking for an item, they choose the "looking for an item" message to post and choose which item they're looking for, and it posts a canned message. They're trying to build an entire social networking site for kids and it looks like they're essentially running the thing unregulated.
Obviously the scammers hold the majority of the blame, but the operators of the site need to realize who their audience is and take precautions to protect them instead of expecting that they already know all about online security.
Haha, I like it. I'm not feeling all that oppressed (or restricted, I guess), I was just curious what the GP thought a crack's purpose was other than to remove copy protection. As far as I can tell that's a piece of software built with a single purpose. The "many legitimate purposes" argument is usually saved for BT, I've never heard someone try to say a crack has more than one purpose.
So, best I can suggest is that a crack is a tool that has many legitimate purposes as well as the obvious illegitimate purposes.
Considering that the DMCA expressly criminalizes removing copy protection, what exactly are the "many legitimate purposes" of a crack? Do you think a crack even has more than one purpose?
*Some* of the files *may* not be legal to share. Don't you think that's glossing over the whole thing? The site was specifically set up to track things that are illegal and can't be tracked other places. No one needs a huge site to track Linux ISOs, those are already out there. It's already easy to find them (a Google search will do that). The name "Pirate Bay", and the logo of a cassette tape with crossbones, indicates that the original purpose of the site was to search for "pirated" music. Or else why would they choose that name and logo?
It's fair to say that more than half of the files listed in the Audio, Video, Applications, and Games sections are not legal for distribution in any location that has copyright laws or treaties with the US. But the number of files is not the important statistic, and can't even be calculated. The important statistic, which can be calculated, is which files are actually getting downloaded the most. So, look over the total top 100:
It's pretty disingenuous to say that "some of the files may not be legal", although that's a true statement. It's much more accurate to say that "most of the files people download are not legal for distribution in most jurisdictions". But saying it like that, and realizing that all of this technology is essentially being used by college kids to download crappy movies, sort of takes the "nobility" out of the whole thing, doesn't it?
What in the world are you doing where you "allow" your system to get infected? My primary computer at home does everything for me, it's my entertainment, communication, development machine, etc. I don't run a software firewall or virus scanner. I don't bother to install Windows updates. I have IIS and MySQL running on it 24/7. Power outages are the only reason I shut it down. I have a Linksys NAT router on the network. We even have a static IP. This particular computer has never gotten infected in the two years or so I've had it. The computer before this one got infected a single time when my roommate used IE to browse for porn.
So, just what exactly are you doing where your computer eventually becomes unusable because of the crapware you've "allowed" on it?
They've been talking about these changes for a long, long time. If you're still using ereg, or register globals, or magic quotes, or whatever else you want to complain about them changing, then that's your problem. If you have important code laying around that you haven't looked through yet, you might want to pencil that in. There's no reason to have PHP4-only code sitting around these days.
Re:new features in php 5.3
on
PHP 5.3 Released
·
· Score: 4, Informative
You can also read the official release announcement instead of some random guy's blog.
If you think a company looks at the arts culture before looking at the local tax structure then you're delusional.
Imagine a CEO in front of a meeting of shareholders, and they're asking him why all of their dividends just fell. His answer is because he wanted to move his company into a state with a "thriving arts culture", even though he's now paying twice as much to do business there. How much are his shareholders going to care about the arts culture in a city they don't live in?
Here's a question: why are so many companies based in Delaware? Is it because Delaware has a "thriving arts culture", or is it because Delaware is once again in the top 10 states for favorable business tax environments in 2009?
What should he have said? "People who can't afford to buy TVs?" When those are the people you're talking about, it's easier to say "those people." There's no reason to bring your insecurities or sensitivities into this.
except that Morphine is produced from the Milk of the poppy, which can be directly ingested in the case of a Wallaby eating a poppy, it would be similar to a human eating 80mg of pure Morphine Sulphate, i.e pretty strong.
No, it would be similar to a human eating one or two poppies.
I would say that in order to mitigate losing customers because they can't figure out how to log in, if the login fails you should tell them what username and password they tried.
I just think that passwords in plain text are more of a risk than losing customers. It's a little odd that the focus is on retaining customers instead of keeping data secure.
Login issues always confuse me. I've got an application online with almost 70,000 accounts registered, and just under 30% of the support calls for the application are people asking how to log in. When you load the front page, there's a banner going across the top with the title, there's a footer going across the bottom with copyright and development info, and there's a horizontally/vertically centered box (right in the middle of the window) with a field marked "Username", a field marked "Password", and buttons marked "Log In" and "Reset Password". Still, 30% of support calls are from people who can't figure out how to use that page. I don't even know how to address that. The fact that they can't see their password when they type it in is probably the least of their worries.
So, password masking doesn't even protect fully against snoopers.
No, it doesn't protect fully, but it does protect from everyone who can't see the keyboard when you type. In other words, it protects against every shoulder-surfing scenario except when the person is looking directly at the keyboard when you type. And even then, if you're typing fast enough or the keys are close enough together you won't be able to guess the password by watching the keyboard. Hell, I'm sitting right in front of the keyboard and I still can't look through my hands to see which keys my fingertips are actually pressing. So, password masking does protect from shoulder-surfing. It might not protect against people looking directly at your keyboard, but that might be because it's designed specifically to protect against people looking at the goddamn monitor.
More importantly, there's usually nobody looking over your shoulder when you log in to a website. It's just you, sitting all alone in your office, suffering reduced usability to protect against a non-issue.
OK, so this is a great usability solution for websites that only get accessed by people sitting alone in their offices without the possibility of a co-worker standing there as they log in. For all other sites that people might access in an internet cafe, or at the airport, or in a coffee shop, or wherever else, I guess it doesn't apply at all.
I realize it shouldn't be required, but it's not difficult to go through the Add/Remove list and get it all out. They're nice enough to have similar-looking icons for all the crap that does nothing except hang. One of their helpful applications refused to close, so every time I shut down my computer and walked away I came back to be greeted by a box asking if I really wanted to end this one process that refused to die. That's what triggered the mass uninstall.
No, no, no, they *do* have elves, but they're just not the same as the elves in the US. They don't go around telling people they're elves. That's what he meant.
They had substantially more votes than people in more than 10(?) districts
Even the Guardian Council now concedes that the total number of votes cast exceeded the population in at least 50 cities. According to Iranian PressTV, it was "only 50" cities. Here's a glimpse of Iranian TV footage:
Suppose *you* were the person who bought Apple shares right before it was revealed that Jobs was going to have to retire for health reasons. You'd be pretty unhappy to know that this information was known to the company and not revealed as part of their filings, at least as much as if they suddenly had to deal with a major lawsuit.
Yeah, I might be unhappy, but I would also try to put myself in Steve Jobs' shoes and realize that I wouldn't want to talk about my health problems either. I would also hope that I had some sympathy for Jobs instead of just worrying about my bottom line. But at the end of the day, I would realize that what I invested in was Apple Computer Inc., not Steve Jobs.
I'm a regular citizen, just watching the market like everyone else. You shouldn't have to be a lawyer to do that. The major difference between me and a lot of other people in this discussion is that I'm not going around claiming that shareholders have all these rights that they don't actually have.
I agree that Steve Jobs is a major public part of Apple's success, and I can understand that some investors might not be happy that he's not talking about his health problems. But the thing is, he has every right not to talk about that. The shareholders have no right to demand that information from him, regardless of anything having to do with money. His rights as a person supersede anything having to do with people making a buck. A lot of people here don't understand that. People are claiming that shareholders have certain rights that they were never given.
Wow! A person choosing what to consume into their own body is a privilege granted by some nebulous higher authority?
When the substance they're consuming is a controlled substance in the country that they're consuming it in, yes, they either do or do not have a privilege to consume that substance. If the person in question doesn't like the fact that the state is granting or revoking those privileges, including punishing people for them, then the solution is to either get out of the state or change the governance.
Granted by whom? Who is above the individual?
Most often, the government of the state that the person chooses to reside in. If they don't like the government, see above.
Certain actions are restricted but there's no such thing as a "privilege" when it comes to the relationship between the individual and the state.
That is patently ridiculous. What do you think a "license" is? Any license grants the bearer a certain privilege, be it to drive a vehicle on public roads, serve alcohol, practice law or medicine, get married, etc. You don't think that people have the innate right to serve alcohol or drive a car wherever they want, do you?
The state exists because of the individual.
Indeed, and the people give the state the power to make and enforce laws, including the granting and revoking of various privileges.
I would think that the health of Steve Jobs is quite important to the stock price of apple.
So fing what, are the greed of shareholders and the privileges they hold as shareholders more important than the rights to personal privacy held by Steve Jobs? Is that what this is about? Money money money money, tell me if your liver is shutting down because I need that information to make more money.
Listen, there are privileges, and there are rights. They are not the same. A lot of things that people go around spouting as "rights" are in fact "privileges", not rights. You have the right to gather with other people in public. You have the privilege, if applicable, to drive a car on public streets. You have the right to say whatever you want to say as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's right. You have the privilege to drink alcohol when you turn 21. You have the right to have your privacy protected. As a shareholder, you have the privilege to know what's going on with the company you invested in.
If you don't like what's going on in the company you invested in, the solution is pretty obvious. And it doesn't involve getting angry at the CEO because he didn't want to tell you about the biological processes going on in his body. It's his right not to have to do that.
Your privilege does not outweigh his right, and I'm sorry if you don't like that, and I'm sorry if you lose money because of it.
Slashdot Mirror
3. Leaving that computer relatively unguarded against intrusion.
How exactly do you protect against your child clicking on a link, downloading a program, and executing it? Security goes out the door as soon as you choose to execute arbitrary code. A young child can't be expected to understand all of the security implications of using a computer online. I don't see a lot of blame for parents in this situation, nor for the kids (simply because they're too young to have been exposed to this before - this is where they learn not to trust people online). Ideally, you would have one computer for the child's online use, and another one for everything else, but not many families can afford to or want to do that. Other than that one precaution, the parents don't exactly share a lot of blame if their child gets targeted and exploited. I see more blame on the neopets site for allowing users to send arbitrary messages to each other, considering that this site is targeted at young kids. If you're running a site for young kids that is open to the general public, users simply shouldn't be able to send private arbitrary messages to each other. Everything should be public, and the messages may even need to be canned content. If the kid is looking for an item, they choose the "looking for an item" message to post and choose which item they're looking for, and it posts a canned message. They're trying to build an entire social networking site for kids and it looks like they're essentially running the thing unregulated.
Obviously the scammers hold the majority of the blame, but the operators of the site need to realize who their audience is and take precautions to protect them instead of expecting that they already know all about online security.
Haha, I like it. I'm not feeling all that oppressed (or restricted, I guess), I was just curious what the GP thought a crack's purpose was other than to remove copy protection. As far as I can tell that's a piece of software built with a single purpose. The "many legitimate purposes" argument is usually saved for BT, I've never heard someone try to say a crack has more than one purpose.
It was only an informal thing to prove the CD advertisers wrong.
If you're trying to prove something, it actually does require proof. What you have right now is an anecdote, not proof of anything.
So, best I can suggest is that a crack is a tool that has many legitimate purposes as well as the obvious illegitimate purposes.
Considering that the DMCA expressly criminalizes removing copy protection, what exactly are the "many legitimate purposes" of a crack? Do you think a crack even has more than one purpose?
*Some* of the files *may* not be legal to share. Don't you think that's glossing over the whole thing? The site was specifically set up to track things that are illegal and can't be tracked other places. No one needs a huge site to track Linux ISOs, those are already out there. It's already easy to find them (a Google search will do that). The name "Pirate Bay", and the logo of a cassette tape with crossbones, indicates that the original purpose of the site was to search for "pirated" music. Or else why would they choose that name and logo?
It's fair to say that more than half of the files listed in the Audio, Video, Applications, and Games sections are not legal for distribution in any location that has copyright laws or treaties with the US. But the number of files is not the important statistic, and can't even be calculated. The important statistic, which can be calculated, is which files are actually getting downloaded the most. So, look over the total top 100:
http://thepiratebay.org/top/all
See anything there that's legal to distribute in most jurisdictions? Or how about the top 100 from just the Applications category:
http://thepiratebay.org/top/300
It's pretty disingenuous to say that "some of the files may not be legal", although that's a true statement. It's much more accurate to say that "most of the files people download are not legal for distribution in most jurisdictions". But saying it like that, and realizing that all of this technology is essentially being used by college kids to download crappy movies, sort of takes the "nobility" out of the whole thing, doesn't it?
What in the world are you doing where you "allow" your system to get infected? My primary computer at home does everything for me, it's my entertainment, communication, development machine, etc. I don't run a software firewall or virus scanner. I don't bother to install Windows updates. I have IIS and MySQL running on it 24/7. Power outages are the only reason I shut it down. I have a Linksys NAT router on the network. We even have a static IP. This particular computer has never gotten infected in the two years or so I've had it. The computer before this one got infected a single time when my roommate used IE to browse for porn.
So, just what exactly are you doing where your computer eventually becomes unusable because of the crapware you've "allowed" on it?
They've been talking about these changes for a long, long time. If you're still using ereg, or register globals, or magic quotes, or whatever else you want to complain about them changing, then that's your problem. If you have important code laying around that you haven't looked through yet, you might want to pencil that in. There's no reason to have PHP4-only code sitting around these days.
You can also read the official release announcement instead of some random guy's blog.
http://php.net/releases/5_3_0.php
So you just don't know the difference between "lose" and "loose", and between "to" and "too", correct?
If you think a company looks at the arts culture before looking at the local tax structure then you're delusional.
Imagine a CEO in front of a meeting of shareholders, and they're asking him why all of their dividends just fell. His answer is because he wanted to move his company into a state with a "thriving arts culture", even though he's now paying twice as much to do business there. How much are his shareholders going to care about the arts culture in a city they don't live in?
Here's a question: why are so many companies based in Delaware? Is it because Delaware has a "thriving arts culture", or is it because Delaware is once again in the top 10 states for favorable business tax environments in 2009?
What should he have said? "People who can't afford to buy TVs?" When those are the people you're talking about, it's easier to say "those people." There's no reason to bring your insecurities or sensitivities into this.
except that Morphine is produced from the Milk of the poppy, which can be directly ingested in the case of a Wallaby eating a poppy, it would be similar to a human eating 80mg of pure Morphine Sulphate, i.e pretty strong.
No, it would be similar to a human eating one or two poppies.
your post in the subject, and part in the body.
I would say that in order to mitigate losing customers because they can't figure out how to log in, if the login fails you should tell them what username and password they tried.
I just think that passwords in plain text are more of a risk than losing customers. It's a little odd that the focus is on retaining customers instead of keeping data secure.
Login issues always confuse me. I've got an application online with almost 70,000 accounts registered, and just under 30% of the support calls for the application are people asking how to log in. When you load the front page, there's a banner going across the top with the title, there's a footer going across the bottom with copyright and development info, and there's a horizontally/vertically centered box (right in the middle of the window) with a field marked "Username", a field marked "Password", and buttons marked "Log In" and "Reset Password". Still, 30% of support calls are from people who can't figure out how to use that page. I don't even know how to address that. The fact that they can't see their password when they type it in is probably the least of their worries.
I'm sorry, did you just compare password masking to nuclear weapons?
Oh, c'mon.
So, password masking doesn't even protect fully against snoopers.
No, it doesn't protect fully, but it does protect from everyone who can't see the keyboard when you type. In other words, it protects against every shoulder-surfing scenario except when the person is looking directly at the keyboard when you type. And even then, if you're typing fast enough or the keys are close enough together you won't be able to guess the password by watching the keyboard. Hell, I'm sitting right in front of the keyboard and I still can't look through my hands to see which keys my fingertips are actually pressing. So, password masking does protect from shoulder-surfing. It might not protect against people looking directly at your keyboard, but that might be because it's designed specifically to protect against people looking at the goddamn monitor.
More importantly, there's usually nobody looking over your shoulder when you log in to a website. It's just you, sitting all alone in your office, suffering reduced usability to protect against a non-issue.
OK, so this is a great usability solution for websites that only get accessed by people sitting alone in their offices without the possibility of a co-worker standing there as they log in. For all other sites that people might access in an internet cafe, or at the airport, or in a coffee shop, or wherever else, I guess it doesn't apply at all.
If only the site operators were as serious..
Other Slots: 1 x Express Card 34 / 54 Slot
Wide Screen Support: Yes
Screen Revolution: 1900 x 1200
sigh...
I realize it shouldn't be required, but it's not difficult to go through the Add/Remove list and get it all out. They're nice enough to have similar-looking icons for all the crap that does nothing except hang. One of their helpful applications refused to close, so every time I shut down my computer and walked away I came back to be greeted by a box asking if I really wanted to end this one process that refused to die. That's what triggered the mass uninstall.
Where do you buy an empty or barebones laptop case and the components for it?
No, no, no, they *do* have elves, but they're just not the same as the elves in the US. They don't go around telling people they're elves. That's what he meant.
They had substantially more votes than people in more than 10(?) districts
Even the Guardian Council now concedes that the total number of votes cast exceeded the population in at least 50 cities. According to Iranian PressTV, it was "only 50" cities. Here's a glimpse of Iranian TV footage:
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2009/06/23/nasr.iran.tv.3.million.votes.cnn.html
Suppose *you* were the person who bought Apple shares right before it was revealed that Jobs was going to have to retire for health reasons. You'd be pretty unhappy to know that this information was known to the company and not revealed as part of their filings, at least as much as if they suddenly had to deal with a major lawsuit.
Yeah, I might be unhappy, but I would also try to put myself in Steve Jobs' shoes and realize that I wouldn't want to talk about my health problems either. I would also hope that I had some sympathy for Jobs instead of just worrying about my bottom line. But at the end of the day, I would realize that what I invested in was Apple Computer Inc., not Steve Jobs.
I'm a regular citizen, just watching the market like everyone else. You shouldn't have to be a lawyer to do that. The major difference between me and a lot of other people in this discussion is that I'm not going around claiming that shareholders have all these rights that they don't actually have.
I agree that Steve Jobs is a major public part of Apple's success, and I can understand that some investors might not be happy that he's not talking about his health problems. But the thing is, he has every right not to talk about that. The shareholders have no right to demand that information from him, regardless of anything having to do with money. His rights as a person supersede anything having to do with people making a buck. A lot of people here don't understand that. People are claiming that shareholders have certain rights that they were never given.
Wow! A person choosing what to consume into their own body is a privilege granted by some nebulous higher authority?
When the substance they're consuming is a controlled substance in the country that they're consuming it in, yes, they either do or do not have a privilege to consume that substance. If the person in question doesn't like the fact that the state is granting or revoking those privileges, including punishing people for them, then the solution is to either get out of the state or change the governance.
Granted by whom? Who is above the individual?
Most often, the government of the state that the person chooses to reside in. If they don't like the government, see above.
Certain actions are restricted but there's no such thing as a "privilege" when it comes to the relationship between the individual and the state.
That is patently ridiculous. What do you think a "license" is? Any license grants the bearer a certain privilege, be it to drive a vehicle on public roads, serve alcohol, practice law or medicine, get married, etc. You don't think that people have the innate right to serve alcohol or drive a car wherever they want, do you?
The state exists because of the individual.
Indeed, and the people give the state the power to make and enforce laws, including the granting and revoking of various privileges.
I would think that the health of Steve Jobs is quite important to the stock price of apple.
So fing what, are the greed of shareholders and the privileges they hold as shareholders more important than the rights to personal privacy held by Steve Jobs? Is that what this is about? Money money money money, tell me if your liver is shutting down because I need that information to make more money.
Listen, there are privileges, and there are rights. They are not the same. A lot of things that people go around spouting as "rights" are in fact "privileges", not rights. You have the right to gather with other people in public. You have the privilege, if applicable, to drive a car on public streets. You have the right to say whatever you want to say as long as it doesn't infringe upon someone else's right. You have the privilege to drink alcohol when you turn 21. You have the right to have your privacy protected. As a shareholder, you have the privilege to know what's going on with the company you invested in.
If you don't like what's going on in the company you invested in, the solution is pretty obvious. And it doesn't involve getting angry at the CEO because he didn't want to tell you about the biological processes going on in his body. It's his right not to have to do that.
Your privilege does not outweigh his right, and I'm sorry if you don't like that, and I'm sorry if you lose money because of it.
Christ.