Its kinda scary to think that in just a few days, some entity could construct a website that was fully capable of attracting enuff attention and thereby garranteeing enuff signatures to stop slashdot from posting any material not strickly technical and totaly devoid of opinion. Unfortunately it takes a long time for the government to decide what to do, but thankfully it takes a long time for the government to decide what to do. On a practical note, your link yeilds no such story, this site expects you to pay for the service. Try cnet instead.
"Save the little girl" e-mails have a lot in common with viruses and worms. Mostly worms I guess. 1) They were created by very malicious and 'evil' minds. 2) The are self replicating. 3) They couse ierreversable dammage in the form of destroying any synaps they come in contact with. 4) They couse millions of dollars of dammage a year in the form of loss of production while unsuspecting employees read them, bandwidth saturation, counseling expenses I think that anyone who knowingly forwards a 'Microsoft will send you 10 cents every time you forward this', 'Make $50k in three weeks', 'send this flower to everyone on your list and an elf will run across your screen!' type message really should be fined. In fact, 15,000 or 7 years is just not enough for such a dispicable act. I say, let them get the Mitnick treatment, they cant touch a computer for say... 7 years or untill they recover some of those lost synapses. Or maybe some community service in the form of 150 hours of open source codeing. I just think its silly to target mellisa type trojans that send itself to everyone on your list when in all honesty, if the email would have just asked, so many poeple would have done it anyway.
Maybe a picture of your dog so we can duplicate that as well. I do not have a vast amount of experience in this but I do have some. Based upon said experience I can say this: If they are taking your credit card number then they have a financial institution to deal with the transaction. Even many large and well to-do websites do not handle the transaction personally. It is up to these institutions to accept or deny your credit card as they are the ones that ultimately pay the website owner. The system that is used and the rules employed for acceptance or denial have been used for well over a decade. They have never included a blood sample (or a photo to be sent). If they did, what good would they be? Why not just send a check?,br> If anyone asks for anything other than your credit card info and items that can be derived from that info (like your address, this can be derived and is used for verification that you are not pulling a fast -- one in some paranoid cases) I would be very suspect. Not only suspect of if they just wanted the card, but suspect of just how profesional they really are. If they are professional they would not be doing security checks by hand, leave that up to the credit crard security profesionals i.e. the bankers.
1ghz athlon, 256 meg, 32 meg GeForce. It has worked flawlessly for 1 month using kernels 2.2.14, 2.2.15, and since its release 2.3.99pre9. Only minor discomfort is that I had to specify append="mem=256m" to get the kernel to recognize above 64meg It has been running at udma66 for a week with no known problems. MHO is that the article is about an 80% honest perception of reality. The other 20% could likely be attributed to needing content to publish.
Like a desk toy, you know the one with 5 or more balls all tethered to a horizontal rod. The one that smacks the row of steel balls tranfering all of the kinetic energy to the ball on the end, this ball is swung on its tether untill gravity catches it and smacks the balls back, shoving the original offending ball away from the remaining 4 to start the proccess nearly over (only with a little less energy than before) It would seem that the light comming out of the tube is much like our victim ball, It looks back as it is being shoved out the too to see the orignal lights energy to already be used up, no one to blame. But it is in fact, not the same light, so could not be said to have traveled great distances in short amount of time. Any more than you can say that the Offending ball seemed to travel really fast to the other end of the toy. But in both cases, what comes out the end looks very similar to what went in yes?
At first I thought 'Ya, just wait buddy, your way outnumbered here and we have the advantage of knowing the land and having guerrila tacktics, you can pry my napster from my cold dead hands!" But then I think about it from a little distance, not too far. I have used napster see, and at the time it did not bother me in the least. (I have pretty thick skin). But I know that way back in the cobwebs of my mind, there is guilt. I xcan feal it. I can think of only one reason for there to be guilt, 'cuz its wrong. Very wrong. Now I am not talking about a lot of guilt (feeling), just a little. Much like when I install a commercial software package on multiple Machines. Or when I download an evaluation copy for the 3'rd month in a row. I guess I just fail to see how this is drastically different from any other warez operation. NOTE: I am not suggesting how everyone else should feel, This is just MHO regarding how I should feel regarding unlicensed copies of music. (Metallica did not release this material under the GPL).
Maybe they will sue them as well, I mean, they are the original perpetraitors of the evil act. Dissiminating trade secrets to god knows who. Over the web no less. Microsoft is gonna have a heyday when they get ahold of them. Or from a slightliy altered point of view, are they suggesting that I can post technical documentaion on the web if I have a click-wrapper? Can I post performance test results of MS-sequel vs. Oracle if I simply put it behind a click through to protect there secrets? The MS-sequel license strickly forbids publishing any information about performance results. But if I use thier 'trade secret license' click-through as a template I would be taking resonable steps to protect Microsofts secrets maybe. Be carefule what precedences you try to set MS.
No offense, but screw that, the problem is that MS has taken control from the user by default and designed the system to execute code oe not execute based on predefined criteria. "Is this a trusted site"? "Is this a trusted freind"? To hell with the whole auto execution model entirely. If the user want to execute something fine. Its on them. Dont make any decisions for the user. This is not the OS's job. Oh oops. Outlook is not part of the OS. Or is the jury still out on that? Basically, let the user decide, dont take control and functionality from the user. Or at most let it be a sysadmin setting. Let the SA decide what types of files will be executed, but let the user have the last say. VB is just one aspect of a very bad policy. Who are they to choose policy? And now they want to exclude certain file extentions from attachments. Ya this is great, except that you can make a.DOC file execute by command.com. That dont really bother me so much as the fact that this is from the same company that wants to hide those ugly file name extentions from the user by default. ARRRGGGG!!! I cant rant enuff about this. Its not you though this whole damn thing has me angry.
No wait, 'Every program strives to become an email client'. I think... hell, I forget, but the point is this, If every program strives to become an E-mail client then what do e-mail clients strive to become? Web browsers? Phone books? PIM's? Multi media platforms? And my favorite... Program launchers? What the..heck? I realize that that Microsoft has to be inovative, but why in the hell do they have to make all there programs do everything that all their other applications do? I beleive its under the guise of being inovative. (maybe they have problems developing beyond parity with competative products) Why do they do this sort of thing with a complete disregard to security or anything else? Its all in an effort to make thier products warm and fuzzy. No thought (comparatively) to the security of their userbase. I once saw an article from MS that described how they were taking security very serious in the development of win2k. They actually dedicated 10 personel to doing nothing but finding security holes in Windows 2000. 10 people out of 30,000. Pretty depressive. I am utterly demazed. Wonder how many janitors they have? Wonder how many man hours it took to find thier current secure E-mail solution? I know none of these answers so dont ask. But here is one I would not mind having answered: why do they not just make an E-mail client? Not a web browser, not a multimedia platform, not a program louncher. Just E-mail. Oh, and they might even include attachments of whatever flavor, like every other E-mail client. Or is this in the works for Outlook 2002? Hell, they could call it inovative. I'd let em.
Using ISO does not denote quality.
If you follow your procedures laid out for you then you can say 'Yes, I did it to spec'.
But where does it say that those have to be high quality procedures?
I think people like to confuse quality with documentation. Decent documentation is important but I also think that herds of consultants would have you believe the mantra 'if you have ISO then you have quality.'
Cant really comment on the rest of the standards.
Slashdot Mirror
Its kinda scary to think that in just a few days, some entity could construct a website that was fully capable of attracting enuff attention and thereby garranteeing enuff signatures to stop slashdot from posting any material not strickly technical and totaly devoid of opinion.
Unfortunately it takes a long time for the government to decide what to do, but thankfully it takes a long time for the government to decide what to do.
On a practical note, your link yeilds no such story, this site expects you to pay for the service.
Try cnet instead.
"Save the little girl" e-mails have a lot in common with viruses and worms. Mostly worms I guess.
1) They were created by very malicious and 'evil' minds.
2) The are self replicating.
3) They couse ierreversable dammage in the form of destroying any synaps they come in contact with.
4) They couse millions of dollars of dammage a year in the form of loss of production while unsuspecting employees read them, bandwidth saturation, counseling expenses
I think that anyone who knowingly forwards a 'Microsoft will send you 10 cents every time you forward this', 'Make $50k in three weeks', 'send this flower to everyone on your list and an elf will run across your screen!' type message really should be fined. In fact, 15,000 or 7 years is just not enough for such a dispicable act.
I say, let them get the Mitnick treatment, they cant touch a computer for say... 7 years or untill they recover some of those lost synapses. Or maybe some community service in the form of 150 hours of open source codeing.
I just think its silly to target mellisa type trojans that send itself to everyone on your list when in all honesty, if the email would have just asked, so many poeple would have done it anyway.
Maybe a picture of your dog so we can duplicate that as well.
I do not have a vast amount of experience in this but I do have some. Based upon said experience I can say this: If they are taking your credit card number then they have a financial institution to deal with the transaction. Even many large and well to-do websites do not handle the transaction personally. It is up to these institutions to accept or deny your credit card as they are the ones that ultimately pay the website owner.
The system that is used and the rules employed for acceptance or denial have been used for well over a decade. They have never included a blood sample (or a photo to be sent). If they did, what good would they be? Why not just send a check?,br> If anyone asks for anything other than your credit card info and items that can be derived from that info (like your address, this can be derived and is used for verification that you are not pulling a fast -- one in some paranoid cases) I would be very suspect. Not only suspect of if they just wanted the card, but suspect of just how profesional they really are. If they are professional they would not be doing security checks by hand, leave that up to the credit crard security profesionals i.e. the bankers.
1ghz athlon, 256 meg, 32 meg GeForce.
It has worked flawlessly for 1 month using kernels 2.2.14, 2.2.15, and since its release 2.3.99pre9.
Only minor discomfort is that I had to specify append="mem=256m" to get the kernel to recognize above 64meg
It has been running at udma66 for a week with no known problems.
MHO is that the article is about an 80% honest perception of reality. The other 20% could likely be attributed to needing content to publish.
How about a web server the size of your phone?
Like a desk toy, you know the one with 5 or more balls all tethered to a horizontal rod. The one that smacks the row of steel balls tranfering all of the kinetic energy to the ball on the end, this ball is swung on its tether untill gravity catches it and smacks the balls back, shoving the original offending ball away from the remaining 4 to start the proccess nearly over (only with a little less energy than before)
It would seem that the light comming out of the tube is much like our victim ball, It looks back as it is being shoved out the too to see the orignal lights energy to already be used up, no one to blame. But it is in fact, not the same light, so could not be said to have traveled great distances in short amount of time. Any more than you can say that the Offending ball seemed to travel really fast to the other end of the toy.
But in both cases, what comes out the end looks very similar to what went in yes?
At first I thought 'Ya, just wait buddy, your way outnumbered here and we have the advantage of knowing the land and having guerrila tacktics, you can pry my napster from my cold dead hands!"
But then I think about it from a little distance, not too far. I have used napster see, and at the time it did not bother me in the least. (I have pretty thick skin). But I know that way back in the cobwebs of my mind, there is guilt. I xcan feal it.
I can think of only one reason for there to be guilt, 'cuz its wrong. Very wrong.
Now I am not talking about a lot of guilt (feeling), just a little. Much like when I install a commercial software package on multiple Machines. Or when I download an evaluation copy for the 3'rd month in a row.
I guess I just fail to see how this is drastically different from any other warez operation.
NOTE: I am not suggesting how everyone else should feel, This is just MHO regarding how I should feel regarding unlicensed copies of music. (Metallica did not release this material under the GPL).
Maybe they will sue them as well, I mean, they are the original perpetraitors of the evil act. Dissiminating trade secrets to god knows who.
Over the web no less. Microsoft is gonna have a heyday when they get ahold of them.
Or from a slightliy altered point of view, are they suggesting that I can post technical documentaion on the web if I have a click-wrapper?
Can I post performance test results of MS-sequel vs. Oracle if I simply put it behind a click through to protect there secrets? The MS-sequel license strickly forbids publishing any information about performance results. But if I use thier 'trade secret license' click-through as a template I would be taking resonable steps to protect Microsofts secrets maybe.
Be carefule what precedences you try to set MS.
No offense, but screw that, the problem is that MS has taken control from the user by default and designed the system to execute code oe not execute based on predefined criteria. "Is this a trusted site"? "Is this a trusted freind"? .DOC file execute by command.com. That dont really bother me so much as the fact that this is from the same company that wants to hide those ugly file name extentions from the user by default.
To hell with the whole auto execution model entirely. If the user want to execute something fine. Its on them. Dont make any decisions for the user. This is not the OS's job.
Oh oops. Outlook is not part of the OS. Or is the jury still out on that?
Basically, let the user decide, dont take control and functionality from the user. Or at most let it be a sysadmin setting. Let the SA decide what types of files will be executed, but let the user have the last say.
VB is just one aspect of a very bad policy. Who are they to choose policy?
And now they want to exclude certain file extentions from attachments. Ya this is great, except that you can make a
ARRRGGGG!!! I cant rant enuff about this. Its not you though this whole damn thing has me angry.
No wait, 'Every program strives to become an email client'.
I think... hell, I forget, but the point is this, If every program strives to become an E-mail client then what do e-mail clients strive to become?
Web browsers?
Phone books?
PIM's?
Multi media platforms?
And my favorite... Program launchers? What the..heck?
I realize that that Microsoft has to be inovative, but why in the hell do they have to make all there programs do everything that all their other applications do?
I beleive its under the guise of being inovative. (maybe they have problems developing beyond parity with competative products)
Why do they do this sort of thing with a complete disregard to security or anything else?
Its all in an effort to make thier products warm and fuzzy. No thought (comparatively) to the security of their userbase.
I once saw an article from MS that described how they were taking security very serious in the development of win2k. They actually dedicated 10 personel to doing nothing but finding security holes in Windows 2000.
10 people out of 30,000. Pretty depressive. I am utterly demazed. Wonder how many janitors they have?
Wonder how many man hours it took to find thier current secure E-mail solution?
I know none of these answers so dont ask.
But here is one I would not mind having answered: why do they not just make an E-mail client?
Not a web browser, not a multimedia platform, not a program louncher. Just E-mail. Oh, and they might even include attachments of whatever flavor, like every other E-mail client. Or is this in the works for Outlook 2002?
Hell, they could call it inovative. I'd let em.
Are Micheal Jackson and Jannet Jackson one and the same? This could settle the arguement.
Using ISO does not denote quality.
If you follow your procedures laid out for you then you can say 'Yes, I did it to spec'.
But where does it say that those have to be high quality procedures? I think people like to confuse quality with documentation. Decent documentation is important but I also think that herds of consultants would have you believe the mantra 'if you have ISO then you have quality.'
Cant really comment on the rest of the standards.