Too much free competition. They can give out as many 'free looks' as much as they want - but this is the internet, and all it takes for me to look somewhere else is a bit of typing and the enter key.
I'm sure it would cost the multi-national company with a stockpile of lawyers much more than the single person who is trying to defend himself.
The company can afford it, he can't.
Companies often pay up when its other companies who can do even more damage. If you want to see a great example, find out what happened to the person who patented the windscreen wiper design we all use today.
...from working in ANY ICT related industry - especially development ones - is that there is no such thing as "Knowing enough" or "Too much knowledge"
Going on that, make them choose the full course - it'll show them the hard work, dedication and speed of learning which will be expected from them for the rest of their career.
As we get more technology and more patents, there are more lawsuits - which is more money wasted on lawyers.
Eventually we'll reach a point where a company only produces one product, then spends the rest of its life defending itself from lawsuits. And this will be good for the consumers of course.
Technology marches on.
Iran should all buy Macs
on
Stuxnet Worms On
·
· Score: 1, Flamebait
Firstly, ISPs can (and might) monitor your traffic.
Secondly, I think a simple filter (a known botnet controller IP turning up in your packets raising a flag) - won't be intrusive.
Also, regarding your comment about firewalls and virus-scanners - it'd teach people to use them. I know lots of people who have no Virus Scanner, or have a really old version which expired after 30 days 2 years ago.
Also, isn't port 25 the one used for email sending? How would that work?
That said, since 80 and 443 are used for HTTP - I don't think you can have anything listening on those ports (the OS shouldn't let you, since its a reserved range, and since you're a client, you can't put a listener if you haven't called for a GET), so the control messages won't ever arrive. I am not sure about this though - anyone enlighten me?
Yes its true that it can be abused, and the video that you just downloaded 'magically' contains a virus that only the RIAA and your ISp can find out - but if there's a proper standards test (hell, even packet sniffing will sort that out) - then yes please.
But what we'd need is a standard test. No assumptions.
Because not all of the population of China and Russia are botnet controllers. You are overgeneralising here. I hope you're joking - but my sarcasm meter is broken.
Firstly, people who are infected often spread the infection amongst other computers, using the social aspect. Maybe you won't open an email from someone you don't know, but your best friend?
Secondly, you're protecting them as much as you're protecting yourself - if they buy something online, their details might be stolen.
Thirdly, they might not realise, and spread the virus anyway through other means, but disconnection makes it sure.
Fourthly, even if your computer is uber-filtered, DDOS attacks, spam sending and other nasties can be done using a botnet, so even if you're not part of it, there's no way around that.
While you're there, throw them a lot of information about why they should have an anti-virus - why they should scan regularly, and while downloading from 'that shady place' is a bad idea.
Maybe it'll stick once they realise they have no internet.
I'm pretty sure that terrorists who have surface to air missiles handy don't need all this information. And I'm pretty sure that they could just as easily write their own programs which do the same thing, it doesn't take much computation to work out speed (with two images of which you know the time difference).
Ah well, at least there's a good excuse to reduce personal freedom now.
Very well, I recognise that there is that exception.
However, technically the defence industry depends on the government's policies - which in turn depends on other corporations AND the people who voted them into power.
So while there is no direct link, there is still a ripple effect. If the US had moved towards more renewable energy policies - chances are the war in Iraq would not have happened for example.
Companies depend on selling their products to the masses. Therefore, you may not realise it, but we actually hold the key to destroying them if we wanted to. The problem is that people are undirected, they do not wish to take a stand. It is only the chosen few who actually become 'leaders' , and usually they start doing what suits THEM instead of what suits the masses.
When the masses stop being controlled by the media, and are able to THINK - and decide that they do want change, and realise that THEY hold the power - then the world will change dramatically.
But that's never going to happen, so I guess we're stuck in this hellhole.
People are used to microsoft. Its a recognised brand name - irrelevant of how good/bad it is.
If a leader decides that their underlings will use this 'new-fangled' leenux instead of what everyone else always uses, people get scared of the change and react badly to it.
Even trying to explain to my sister why she should give Ubuntu a try was a problem for me, let alone trying to get a large group of (non-techy) people to make the switch.
Then once the smallest problem crops up, people would go "Why did you switch to such a rubbish system? We should have gone Microsoft" - again irrelevant of the change in problem amount.
I personally do believe in a Technocratic system of government - but that's beside the point.
The problem is this:
People start companies to earn money. They take care of their clients because it earns them more money, and they provide a quality service for the same reason.
Now if a company decides to write the rules - without having to stick its head out - and when it already dominates the market - what do you think its going to be in aid of? Are the movie companies going to draft a law which reduces their profits?
No way.
Everyone pulls towards their interests. Now capitalism has the happy effect of "The needs of the rich outweigh the needs of the many", and when you give power to people who want money - they will/NOT/ produce any bills which do not suit them.
More likely that you'd be speaking Russian actually.
The interesting line which stopped at Germany was because the allies and the soviets reached there at pretty much the same time. If the Allies didn't have enough troops then it'd be likely that the line would have been pushed back even further.
That said, the importance of the US during the war is greatly essagerated by the media. During the cold war movies which DIDN'T portray the US as 'saving the world' were deemed possibly-communist and banned or worse.
I agree with you 100%. At least if your superior and your superior's superior are/were developers, they'll have a more realistic approach to what you're doing.
The place that I work at is like that, and its much more refreshing than a clueless manager whipping his peons to get them to do 'magic' which will make the shareholders happy.
Slashdot Mirror
I fully agree with this. Now tell that to the rest of the few million idiots and we should be a-ok.
Too much free competition. They can give out as many 'free looks' as much as they want - but this is the internet, and all it takes for me to look somewhere else is a bit of typing and the enter key.
It'll mean people will visit once, then leave.
When people want more security on their facebook, they usually mean protection from Facebook and other corporations - not passwords themselves.
How about fixing the lack of privacy instead?
I'm sure it would cost the multi-national company with a stockpile of lawyers much more than the single person who is trying to defend himself.
The company can afford it, he can't.
Companies often pay up when its other companies who can do even more damage. If you want to see a great example, find out what happened to the person who patented the windscreen wiper design we all use today.
...from working in ANY ICT related industry - especially development ones - is that there is no such thing as "Knowing enough" or "Too much knowledge"
Going on that, make them choose the full course - it'll show them the hard work, dedication and speed of learning which will be expected from them for the rest of their career.
Of course they are. They've been driving forward innovation in the fields of lawsuits and "Getting a permanent lawyer's job".
As we get more technology and more patents, there are more lawsuits - which is more money wasted on lawyers.
Eventually we'll reach a point where a company only produces one product, then spends the rest of its life defending itself from lawsuits. And this will be good for the consumers of course.
Technology marches on.
Everyone knows Macs don't get viruses
</sarcastic joke>
Firstly, ISPs can (and might) monitor your traffic.
Secondly, I think a simple filter (a known botnet controller IP turning up in your packets raising a flag) - won't be intrusive.
Also, regarding your comment about firewalls and virus-scanners - it'd teach people to use them. I know lots of people who have no Virus Scanner, or have a really old version which expired after 30 days 2 years ago.
Also, isn't port 25 the one used for email sending? How would that work?
Couldn't you DDOS over those two ports?
That said, since 80 and 443 are used for HTTP - I don't think you can have anything listening on those ports (the OS shouldn't let you, since its a reserved range, and since you're a client, you can't put a listener if you haven't called for a GET), so the control messages won't ever arrive. I am not sure about this though - anyone enlighten me?
Slippery slope argument doesn't always work.
Yes its true that it can be abused, and the video that you just downloaded 'magically' contains a virus that only the RIAA and your ISp can find out - but if there's a proper standards test (hell, even packet sniffing will sort that out) - then yes please.
But what we'd need is a standard test. No assumptions.
. . .
Because not all of the population of China and Russia are botnet controllers. You are overgeneralising here. I hope you're joking - but my sarcasm meter is broken.
You're not exactly 100% right.
Firstly, people who are infected often spread the infection amongst other computers, using the social aspect. Maybe you won't open an email from someone you don't know, but your best friend?
Secondly, you're protecting them as much as you're protecting yourself - if they buy something online, their details might be stolen.
Thirdly, they might not realise, and spread the virus anyway through other means, but disconnection makes it sure.
Fourthly, even if your computer is uber-filtered, DDOS attacks, spam sending and other nasties can be done using a botnet, so even if you're not part of it, there's no way around that.
While you're there, throw them a lot of information about why they should have an anti-virus - why they should scan regularly, and while downloading from 'that shady place' is a bad idea.
Maybe it'll stick once they realise they have no internet.
Threatens security?
I'm pretty sure that terrorists who have surface to air missiles handy don't need all this information. And I'm pretty sure that they could just as easily write their own programs which do the same thing, it doesn't take much computation to work out speed (with two images of which you know the time difference).
Ah well, at least there's a good excuse to reduce personal freedom now.
Very well, I recognise that there is that exception.
However, technically the defence industry depends on the government's policies - which in turn depends on other corporations AND the people who voted them into power.
So while there is no direct link, there is still a ripple effect. If the US had moved towards more renewable energy policies - chances are the war in Iraq would not have happened for example.
Something to think about:
Companies depend on selling their products to the masses. Therefore, you may not realise it, but we actually hold the key to destroying them if we wanted to. The problem is that people are undirected, they do not wish to take a stand. It is only the chosen few who actually become 'leaders' , and usually they start doing what suits THEM instead of what suits the masses.
When the masses stop being controlled by the media, and are able to THINK - and decide that they do want change, and realise that THEY hold the power - then the world will change dramatically.
But that's never going to happen, so I guess we're stuck in this hellhole.
People are used to microsoft. Its a recognised brand name - irrelevant of how good/bad it is.
If a leader decides that their underlings will use this 'new-fangled' leenux instead of what everyone else always uses, people get scared of the change and react badly to it.
Even trying to explain to my sister why she should give Ubuntu a try was a problem for me, let alone trying to get a large group of (non-techy) people to make the switch.
Then once the smallest problem crops up, people would go "Why did you switch to such a rubbish system? We should have gone Microsoft" - again irrelevant of the change in problem amount.
I personally do believe in a Technocratic system of government - but that's beside the point.
The problem is this:
People start companies to earn money. They take care of their clients because it earns them more money, and they provide a quality service for the same reason.
Now if a company decides to write the rules - without having to stick its head out - and when it already dominates the market - what do you think its going to be in aid of? Are the movie companies going to draft a law which reduces their profits?
No way.
Everyone pulls towards their interests. Now capitalism has the happy effect of "The needs of the rich outweigh the needs of the many", and when you give power to people who want money - they will /NOT/ produce any bills which do not suit them.
Which is where this fails.
There once was the Golden Rule: Whoever had the gold, made the rules.
See also:
- SLAPP Lawsuit
- RIAA
- MPAA
Lets leave the syntax aside for a moment shall we?
Everyone understood what I meant. What do you want me to call them instead of enumerating all of them?
Alright fine
"The countries from which the troops attacking the Axis from the West of Europe Originated".
There.
More likely that you'd be speaking Russian actually.
The interesting line which stopped at Germany was because the allies and the soviets reached there at pretty much the same time. If the Allies didn't have enough troops then it'd be likely that the line would have been pushed back even further.
That said, the importance of the US during the war is greatly essagerated by the media. During the cold war movies which DIDN'T portray the US as 'saving the world' were deemed possibly-communist and banned or worse.
Patent 5960411
"Method and system for placing a purchase order via a communications network"
I agree with you 100%. At least if your superior and your superior's superior are/were developers, they'll have a more realistic approach to what you're doing.
The place that I work at is like that, and its much more refreshing than a clueless manager whipping his peons to get them to do 'magic' which will make the shareholders happy.
Interestingly enough, the way patents work nowadays amongst large companies is "We won't tell if you don't"
Which means that Xerox won't sue apple because they'll counter-sue on X other patents.
Which also means that pa-and-ma's software development house can't raise its head high enough to avoid getting sued into oblivion.
And this is good for innovation :)