When I was stationed at a base in Kuwait back in '98, the recreation center had a number PS's and Nintendo 64's. There were also several computer games accessible through the base network (nothing like fragging the base commander in Quake 2 to lift your spirits) and a surprisingly extensive video library (though all VHS). Updating the systems to PS3s and XBoxes just makes sense in my book. I'm just a little surprised they haven't purchased more Zunes as this would give each remote base a virtual library soldiers could access without having to move a ton of books to each base.
"But Chrome OS, by putting most of a user's applications and data on the Web with some offline capabilities... "
In the wake of the PSN/SOE hack (antiquity of security noted), wouldn't this be a huge red flag for ANY business?
"In tonight's news, hackers managed to infiltrate Google's network and copied hundreds of databases. Some of these databases are already showing up on Wikileaks."
--
"Simmons, where's our payroll report?"
"Sorry sir, but the Google network is still down from the hacker attack."
"That was two weeks ago!"
"Yes sir, they're still rebuilding their security systems. No ETA yet on when the network will be back up."
If it were possible for me to completely copy the entire recipe of that loaf of bread, replicate it and then give away the bread with minimal effort and at absolutely no cost to me thus putting the bakery that originally made the bread out of business, then yes, I would consider it wrong.
Uh oh. I think you made a mistake trying to bring morality into this. Not that I disagree with you. In fact, I do agree with you. But it's becoming more and more apparent that the idea of morals is waxing among today's generations. Especially among those in the online community. The moral compass of the average teen/20-something these days seems to work like Capt. Sparrow's, "Ooh, look. My moral compass points to what I want. So it must be right."
The idea of morality seems to be lumped as something that society deems how we should act, even though morality was in-part brought about by people who stood outside of early societies. And obviously, if society wants us to act a certain way, we must rage and resist and rebel without thought of whether what we're doing is morally right. Because, "Morality? Psh. Keep your moralities to yourself."
You can point your finger and call someone gutless for their baseless and thin justifications, but the simple fact is they don't and won't care. They're not going to take a deep, hard look at themselves in the mirror and question what they're doing. They're not going to make changes to their lives tonight, tomorrow or anytime in any foreseeable future. They feel justified and will continue to do so until they are actually held accountable. Which is not going to happen in an online environment.
And in 75-100 years, Disney will make a series of movies called 'Pirates of the Aden', depicting romanticized Somali pirates in captured cargo/combat ships searching for a lost treasure of nuclear arms while one of the main characters is haunted and chased by the Ghost of Bin Laden.
I find the claim that they traced it to Texas dubious as well. From what I recall of our (US) military/gov't comms, the most that Iran would have discovered is that the data trail led to a European or Arabian (Israel?) location where we have assets before the trail disappeared when it started bouncing off of secure (about three layers of cryptography) comm satellites. If they were able to trace the data trail through all the satellite jumps it would have led them to Virginia, SC, La or a number of other places other than... Texas. Granted, it's been over twelve years since I was involved in gov't comms, but I would think they would have made things easier since then.
Having said that, if there was a data trail to Texas, I wouldn't put it past some nutjobs in Texas trying something like this and thinking they were being patriotic. But the folks I have in mind wouldn't be working hand in hand with Israel either.
Same here. TFA (or TFB? [blog]) states that Forge can make anything he can imagine and then says he only built a few things. Made me think the blogger just did a quick google search of Forge Inventions and left it at that. It's been ages since I collected, but I seem to recall Forge building items from practically nothing in a matter of moments to provide anything from simple structural supports to weaponry.
What he's saying is that at 1MW, it wouldn't shoot through just a razor, but probably through the wood behind the razor. And the bricks behind the wood. And the cinderblock wall behind the bricks. And the lead statue across the quad and the sign over the diner across the campus. Where he would stop for a burger.
I would have to disagree here. What you're saying is that Internet Service Providers should not be held accountable in any way, shape or form for how their service is used? Every service provider from Electrical to Transportation to Gas stations are responsible for monitoring how their services are used and reporting any illegal activities. But you're suggesting that not only should ISPs not have to monitor their services, but they should be rewarded if they allow their services to be used illegally.
I'm all for our internet freedoms. I don't think certain things on the internet should necessarily be illegal (God I miss acquiring old, hard-to-get singles via old Napster). I want our freedoms to remain intact. But I'm also aware of my responsibilities to keep it that way. And I think ISPs should hold some of that responsibility. If an ISP is willing to blindly allow their customers to use their services however they want, then that ISP should be willing to lose that customer if the service is used irresponsibly.
I would also suggest Comodo. I've been using it non-stop for almost 2 years now and I've been quite pleased with it. I have installed it on friends'/family's computers that had Norton or some other paid subscription AV and they're always amazed when Comodo picks up on a virus on their computer that their AV missed.
And every time it's been NAV, NAV has piped up AFTER Comodo found a virus, like it was saying "Oh yeah, I knew about that virus all along, I just didn't think you wanted to know about it."
How long until the first spoiler sites show up with all the quest info?
And while this sounds rather inventive, if WoW quests (and those doing them) have shown me anything, this will only help to dumb down
"Travel along the road to the north tower and deliver this package the dwarf at the tower."
"Newb tells general, 'Where can I find the dwarf for this quest?'"
"Newb tells LocalDefense, 'Where can I find the dwarf for this quest?'"
"Newb whispers you, 'Do you know where I can find the dwarf for this quest?'"
"You whisper Newb, 'It's in the quest info, plain as day.'"
"Newb whispers you, 'Can you take me?'"
(The above hypothetical conversation was cleaned up for legibility. Actual conversations would require heavy deciphering.)
I'm all for stiff punishments. Heck, I think some of our punishments need to be stiffer. But this isn't a case where one is required. Punishment should be used not only to convict a single person of something but also as a deterrent to others.
Putting this guy in prison will do nothing but punish a guy and his family who are already being punished. And _IF_ he was convicted, it wouldn't make any difference in our society. It would not prevent one single accidental shooting in the future. This case and the results will be largely forgotten in a month's time when our next celebrity is making headlines over some scandal or another. Cases like this are "Oh, it would never happen in MY house". And no matter how severe you make the punishment for what has happened here, people will still live their lives with that thought in the head. "Oh, it would never happen in my house. Never." Blaming this guy for the accidental shooting would be just as effective as blaming Nintendo for making guns seem appealing to little 3 yr olds.
That being said, I think there should be an investigation into this. My kids are 4 and 6 and I think either one of them would have a a difficult time squeezing a trigger. In fact, I know my 6 yr old would since she had to have help squeezing the trigger of an unloaded.22 at a firing range. Judge me if you want, but I believe in education over avoidance.
I've been having trouble with our "Freedom of Speech" the past few years. And it all started, for me, with the ruckus over Eminem (Not Eminem himself). Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always kind of thought that when the Forefathers of the US put the Freedom of Speech in Bill of Rights, they were thinking that it is the inalienable rights of the citizens of the US to speak out against it's government, that the government or other institutions should not be able to tell the public what they can and can not say.
But... and perhaps this started with 2 Live Crew, though that was so long ago, I scarcely remember... it seems to me that today's younger generations are twisting the Freedom of Speech to mean that they have the freedom to swear and insult. In the days of our Forefathers, if someone spoke out and said something, they were allowed to but there came a certain degree of accountability. If you spoke up back then, people knew you. Your words were immediately associated with you and you were held accountable. There was not even a glimmer of an idea that some teenager in the back corner of the family room with a little electronic box (electronic? What's that?) would be able to instantly, anonymously and baselessly insult and defame someone else without any sense of repercussions.
In 'Ye Olden Days' you could send anonymous letters to the local newspaper. However, it had to pass the editor. He would read the anonymous article and decide whether or not the words would be worth the cost of the ink. Today, while some sites have such checks, most are just 'Click and Post' commentary. And I personally think in an era where 14-yr-old children are walking through the mall with parent-provided Blackberries, accountability should be more important than ever. Sure, go ahead and speak your opinions. It's your right. But be ready for the repercussions.
I've been reading slashdot for a while and I've avoided commenting because... I'm not a nerd. I'm a geek. Which my friend always find annoying because 'back in his day' nerd and geek were the same thing.
I've been into computers for over 10 years now and while I know far more than the average user, I don't know enough to hold a flame to many nerdier folk.
However. I've dealt with enough real life cases in computer security/maint to know that the average user doesn't care about a process. They don't want to hear about it being a process. They view the computer as a glorified telephone/television combo. They just want to be able to power up, do what they want and log out. The average user these days isn't going to spend time to learn about how to properly protect themselves online because they have other things to do.
To expand on a car analogy someone else used...
Likening computer security to a car would mean comparing it to car security. While some people might take their cars to a car audio shop to get a security system installed, most will just buy their car from the dealer and just want to push the button and have their car secured. Even if they won't always push the button. Unless they're in an 'unsafe' neighborhood.
What the average user doesn't understand is that every time the get online they're in an unsafe neighborhood. They don't know it and they're not going to do the research to find out. They're not reading/. They don't see comments about Security being a process and not a product. They just want to start up the computer and feel safe that their security system is working. They're not going to search online to find the best anti-virus product(s) available. They're not going to look for reviews of 16 anti-virus programs reviewed. They quite simply don't care and don't feel that they should have to care.
What good is firewall software if the user has no clue whether to allow a process access to the internet or not, but since it just popped up while they were installing something new, they allow it anyways? The firewall/software does nothing for them.
And before someone brings up the Linux solution. I love Linux. I use it. It is NOT user friendly though. With all the different flavors around, the *cough* average user would just rub their temples in frustration and stick with Macrohard products. And if they did pick a Linux distro, they would have to pray that all the components in their computer are compatible. I've installed linux on multiple systems (which previously ran some variation of winblows) and every system has had at least one piece of hardware that didn't have a driver available.
So, to make a long story short (TOO LATE) computer security for the average person will never happen. The only way to make computers secure for the average user to make the internet secure. The only way to make the internet secure is to allow your local ISP to start white-listing/black-listing sites, thus dictating where you can and can not go. And that's never going to happen. Or at least, we hope it doesn't.
Slashdot Mirror
Thirty-two miles, begin your descent to...
Recalculating...
When I was stationed at a base in Kuwait back in '98, the recreation center had a number PS's and Nintendo 64's. There were also several computer games accessible through the base network (nothing like fragging the base commander in Quake 2 to lift your spirits) and a surprisingly extensive video library (though all VHS). Updating the systems to PS3s and XBoxes just makes sense in my book. I'm just a little surprised they haven't purchased more Zunes as this would give each remote base a virtual library soldiers could access without having to move a ton of books to each base.
"But Chrome OS, by putting most of a user's applications and data on the Web with some offline capabilities... "
In the wake of the PSN/SOE hack (antiquity of security noted), wouldn't this be a huge red flag for ANY business?
"In tonight's news, hackers managed to infiltrate Google's network and copied hundreds of databases. Some of these databases are already showing up on Wikileaks."
--
"Simmons, where's our payroll report?"
"Sorry sir, but the Google network is still down from the hacker attack."
"That was two weeks ago!"
"Yes sir, they're still rebuilding their security systems. No ETA yet on when the network will be back up."
Oops, you're correct. Thanks for the correction.
If it were possible for me to completely copy the entire recipe of that loaf of bread, replicate it and then give away the bread with minimal effort and at absolutely no cost to me thus putting the bakery that originally made the bread out of business, then yes, I would consider it wrong.
Uh oh. I think you made a mistake trying to bring morality into this. Not that I disagree with you. In fact, I do agree with you. But it's becoming more and more apparent that the idea of morals is waxing among today's generations. Especially among those in the online community. The moral compass of the average teen/20-something these days seems to work like Capt. Sparrow's, "Ooh, look. My moral compass points to what I want. So it must be right."
The idea of morality seems to be lumped as something that society deems how we should act, even though morality was in-part brought about by people who stood outside of early societies. And obviously, if society wants us to act a certain way, we must rage and resist and rebel without thought of whether what we're doing is morally right. Because, "Morality? Psh. Keep your moralities to yourself."
You can point your finger and call someone gutless for their baseless and thin justifications, but the simple fact is they don't and won't care. They're not going to take a deep, hard look at themselves in the mirror and question what they're doing. They're not going to make changes to their lives tonight, tomorrow or anytime in any foreseeable future. They feel justified and will continue to do so until they are actually held accountable. Which is not going to happen in an online environment.
And in 75-100 years, Disney will make a series of movies called 'Pirates of the Aden', depicting romanticized Somali pirates in captured cargo/combat ships searching for a lost treasure of nuclear arms while one of the main characters is haunted and chased by the Ghost of Bin Laden.
I find the claim that they traced it to Texas dubious as well. From what I recall of our (US) military/gov't comms, the most that Iran would have discovered is that the data trail led to a European or Arabian (Israel?) location where we have assets before the trail disappeared when it started bouncing off of secure (about three layers of cryptography) comm satellites. If they were able to trace the data trail through all the satellite jumps it would have led them to Virginia, SC, La or a number of other places other than... Texas. Granted, it's been over twelve years since I was involved in gov't comms, but I would think they would have made things easier since then.
Having said that, if there was a data trail to Texas, I wouldn't put it past some nutjobs in Texas trying something like this and thinking they were being patriotic. But the folks I have in mind wouldn't be working hand in hand with Israel either.
Same here. TFA (or TFB? [blog]) states that Forge can make anything he can imagine and then says he only built a few things. Made me think the blogger just did a quick google search of Forge Inventions and left it at that. It's been ages since I collected, but I seem to recall Forge building items from practically nothing in a matter of moments to provide anything from simple structural supports to weaponry.
Your loss. It was a good read.
What he's saying is that at 1MW, it wouldn't shoot through just a razor, but probably through the wood behind the razor. And the bricks behind the wood. And the cinderblock wall behind the bricks. And the lead statue across the quad and the sign over the diner across the campus. Where he would stop for a burger.
I would have to disagree here. What you're saying is that Internet Service Providers should not be held accountable in any way, shape or form for how their service is used? Every service provider from Electrical to Transportation to Gas stations are responsible for monitoring how their services are used and reporting any illegal activities. But you're suggesting that not only should ISPs not have to monitor their services, but they should be rewarded if they allow their services to be used illegally.
I'm all for our internet freedoms. I don't think certain things on the internet should necessarily be illegal (God I miss acquiring old, hard-to-get singles via old Napster). I want our freedoms to remain intact. But I'm also aware of my responsibilities to keep it that way. And I think ISPs should hold some of that responsibility. If an ISP is willing to blindly allow their customers to use their services however they want, then that ISP should be willing to lose that customer if the service is used irresponsibly.
I would also suggest Comodo. I've been using it non-stop for almost 2 years now and I've been quite pleased with it. I have installed it on friends'/family's computers that had Norton or some other paid subscription AV and they're always amazed when Comodo picks up on a virus on their computer that their AV missed.
And every time it's been NAV, NAV has piped up AFTER Comodo found a virus, like it was saying "Oh yeah, I knew about that virus all along, I just didn't think you wanted to know about it."
How long until the first spoiler sites show up with all the quest info?
And while this sounds rather inventive, if WoW quests (and those doing them) have shown me anything, this will only help to dumb down
"Travel along the road to the north tower and deliver this package the dwarf at the tower."
"Newb tells general, 'Where can I find the dwarf for this quest?'"
"Newb tells LocalDefense, 'Where can I find the dwarf for this quest?'"
"Newb whispers you, 'Do you know where I can find the dwarf for this quest?'"
"You whisper Newb, 'It's in the quest info, plain as day.'"
"Newb whispers you, 'Can you take me?'"
(The above hypothetical conversation was cleaned up for legibility. Actual conversations would require heavy deciphering.)
I'm all for stiff punishments. Heck, I think some of our punishments need to be stiffer. But this isn't a case where one is required. Punishment should be used not only to convict a single person of something but also as a deterrent to others.
.22 at a firing range. Judge me if you want, but I believe in education over avoidance.
Putting this guy in prison will do nothing but punish a guy and his family who are already being punished. And _IF_ he was convicted, it wouldn't make any difference in our society. It would not prevent one single accidental shooting in the future. This case and the results will be largely forgotten in a month's time when our next celebrity is making headlines over some scandal or another. Cases like this are "Oh, it would never happen in MY house". And no matter how severe you make the punishment for what has happened here, people will still live their lives with that thought in the head. "Oh, it would never happen in my house. Never." Blaming this guy for the accidental shooting would be just as effective as blaming Nintendo for making guns seem appealing to little 3 yr olds.
That being said, I think there should be an investigation into this. My kids are 4 and 6 and I think either one of them would have a a difficult time squeezing a trigger. In fact, I know my 6 yr old would since she had to have help squeezing the trigger of an unloaded
I've been having trouble with our "Freedom of Speech" the past few years. And it all started, for me, with the ruckus over Eminem (Not Eminem himself). Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always kind of thought that when the Forefathers of the US put the Freedom of Speech in Bill of Rights, they were thinking that it is the inalienable rights of the citizens of the US to speak out against it's government, that the government or other institutions should not be able to tell the public what they can and can not say.
But... and perhaps this started with 2 Live Crew, though that was so long ago, I scarcely remember... it seems to me that today's younger generations are twisting the Freedom of Speech to mean that they have the freedom to swear and insult. In the days of our Forefathers, if someone spoke out and said something, they were allowed to but there came a certain degree of accountability. If you spoke up back then, people knew you. Your words were immediately associated with you and you were held accountable. There was not even a glimmer of an idea that some teenager in the back corner of the family room with a little electronic box (electronic? What's that?) would be able to instantly, anonymously and baselessly insult and defame someone else without any sense of repercussions.
In 'Ye Olden Days' you could send anonymous letters to the local newspaper. However, it had to pass the editor. He would read the anonymous article and decide whether or not the words would be worth the cost of the ink. Today, while some sites have such checks, most are just 'Click and Post' commentary. And I personally think in an era where 14-yr-old children are walking through the mall with parent-provided Blackberries, accountability should be more important than ever. Sure, go ahead and speak your opinions. It's your right. But be ready for the repercussions.
I've been reading slashdot for a while and I've avoided commenting because... I'm not a nerd. I'm a geek. Which my friend always find annoying because 'back in his day' nerd and geek were the same thing.
/. They don't see comments about Security being a process and not a product. They just want to start up the computer and feel safe that their security system is working. They're not going to search online to find the best anti-virus product(s) available. They're not going to look for reviews of 16 anti-virus programs reviewed. They quite simply don't care and don't feel that they should have to care.
I've been into computers for over 10 years now and while I know far more than the average user, I don't know enough to hold a flame to many nerdier folk.
However. I've dealt with enough real life cases in computer security/maint to know that the average user doesn't care about a process. They don't want to hear about it being a process. They view the computer as a glorified telephone/television combo. They just want to be able to power up, do what they want and log out. The average user these days isn't going to spend time to learn about how to properly protect themselves online because they have other things to do.
To expand on a car analogy someone else used...
Likening computer security to a car would mean comparing it to car security. While some people might take their cars to a car audio shop to get a security system installed, most will just buy their car from the dealer and just want to push the button and have their car secured. Even if they won't always push the button. Unless they're in an 'unsafe' neighborhood.
What the average user doesn't understand is that every time the get online they're in an unsafe neighborhood. They don't know it and they're not going to do the research to find out. They're not reading
What good is firewall software if the user has no clue whether to allow a process access to the internet or not, but since it just popped up while they were installing something new, they allow it anyways? The firewall/software does nothing for them.
And before someone brings up the Linux solution. I love Linux. I use it. It is NOT user friendly though. With all the different flavors around, the *cough* average user would just rub their temples in frustration and stick with Macrohard products. And if they did pick a Linux distro, they would have to pray that all the components in their computer are compatible. I've installed linux on multiple systems (which previously ran some variation of winblows) and every system has had at least one piece of hardware that didn't have a driver available.
So, to make a long story short (TOO LATE) computer security for the average person will never happen. The only way to make computers secure for the average user to make the internet secure. The only way to make the internet secure is to allow your local ISP to start white-listing/black-listing sites, thus dictating where you can and can not go. And that's never going to happen. Or at least, we hope it doesn't.