When I see a post that is as long as this, I think wow, someone is sure passionate about something. However, after reading it, it is really quite clear your post is crap. Let's look at the meat of your argument while trying to take out the obviously subjective language (certainly your point can survive that, right?):
Premise 1: The Japanese had established an HDTV standard prior to 1989
Premise 2: In the 1990s, the Americans developed an HDTV standard based on digital techniques.
Premise 3: Once the HDTV standard based on digital techniques was established, the Japanese (and the Koreans) commercialized the technology.
Your primary conclusion is that it is NOT true that The foreigners claim that foreign brainpower helped the USA to leap ahead of Japan. (note how you neatly care to disregard the requirement of defining the term "leap ahead")
Your second conclusion is, using the example of India, that the US will out-commercialize any Indian invention. Why would the US all of a sudden become *better* at implementation when they stop hiring H1-B's?
You make no sense. I really take offence at the fact that you pass yourself off as a reporter, yet cannot even write a decent post.
The fact of the matter is, you are a xenophobe. H1B is a perfectly fine way for an individual's talent to be used NOW to the betterment of the individual (who may have access to money and work conditions not currently available) and to the corporation who can choose someone based on how well they can perform vs. where they were born. Frankly, from this article, I have the firm impression that you are a lazy American that thinks showing up for work deserves a 6 figure salary.
Internal combustion engines, on the other hand, are a completely different kettle of fish. (Actually, I doubt a kettle of fish would get you very far.)
Hmmmm, maybe if it were a steam engine. . . makes a tasty snack, too.
Well, you obviously solved that situation. Aren't we glad we vented?
Why are you at all concerned what moderators make anything? Are you worried that people that browse at +2 won't see something that is important, nay vital, to their well-being and social education?
Now go read at -1 or 0 or +5 for all it matters, and be on your way.
Only problem with that strategy is that some states require visually inspecting the VIN number before doing certain things, like affixing a state inspection sticker, applying for a title, and taking a driving test. Other things, I'm sure. Some states, upon ownership changing, require the person handling it to visually inspect the vin number on the dash and compare it to the one on the body.
The only real solution to this (besides using thumbprint locks or other hi-tech measures) is to abstract the lock code from the VIN number.
Tape is easily removable when you are already inside the car. The point was to thwart obtaining it from the outside. They have to get inside the car to remove the tape.
A user calls, tells you they got an email that said they had sent out this Sobig thing to this person they never even heard of. Help desk is the first people they call and they should get a response that lets them know that they may see a lot of these, but here's how it works, the virus takes two random names from someone's address book, puts one as the sender and the other as the recipient. They don't have the email, but someone that has them in their address book does.
This takes about 30 seconds and I haven't met a single person that couldn't understand that unless they don't understand To: and From: in which case they obviously don't have email of any kind.
Are you saying it is beyond the abilities of a $10/hr person to explain that? Maybe you are saying that help desk SHOULDN'T explain anything to the user. A call center that can't handle this in under a minute is truly worthless. Yep, definitely a tier 2 job. Hell, "Call the CTO!" "I don't care, wake him!"
Maybe the point is you *haven't* seen a properly managed call center, staffed appropriately.
BTW, I was busy trolling today, don't be upset. I'm having fun at how many people I can irk with the simple beginning of "it's ok to have an anti-virus product that passes on viruses to others while protecting you." I mean come on, it would take all of a day to write the patch to disable automated responses when it is obvious that it is pointless to do so. Have a nice day. Don't be mad; just smile and take it like a man. Read my sig and groan.:)
If you can handle a ratio that high, then I suggest that writing a memo detailing the issue and maybe having it sent out by the CEO so that it gets read wouldn't be too difficult to imagine?
Seriously, if you have a ratio that high with windows machines (of course they are windows, cause that is what this whole thing is about, right?) then you can't handle a significant outage at all. You either have extremely good processes in place with some talented people or have gotten lucky. I don't, however, think you run a normal ratio?
If a 50KB virus gets sent out to an average of 15 people, in only 6 generations that would be 50*15 + 50*15*15 + 50*15*15*15, etc = 50(15^1 + 15^2 + 15^3 + 15^4 + 15^5 + 15^6) = total cost of 610,212,000KB or ~610GB
Double the size of each would be ~1,200GB
I say that isn't a huge impact because changing the number of people exploited by only 1 because they got scared and saw it first and reacted in time = 807,031,400KB or ~807GB
The impact of DOUBLING the payload maybe only affected the total cost by about 1.3, not 2. Now take into account fact that most AV vendors don't send the whole email, but instead about 2k, then you have a much less of an issue.
The interesting portion is that by wasting a little extra bandwidth at the beginning, I was hinting at the fact that you could reduce either the branch factor or the number of total generations.
What I think is crap is that there are people whose job is Email Administrator (talk about your niche) that would have twice as much crap to deal with. OMG, it is soooo hard to right a 5XX DENY rule when you see the FROM: of a message is from "exchangeserver@xxxxxx.org" or somesuch.
Agreed and that is a legitimate exploit. This does not account for a significant portion of the virus vector as MOST vendors send synopsis email back (in my experience)
grr, it is a big deal when user's keep calling the help desk wasting tech time asking what they are about, that they never sent that person a message, etc, etc...
It is their JOB to demystify computers, these boxes that turn otherwise intelligent people into kindergarteners. They should also in almost no time TURN off the problem by filtering out these messages.
Frankly, the arrogant attitude amazes me... that's the one time in help desk world when you are appreciated: when you can explain something that is "weird" or confusing to a user.
I personally received 423 advertis^H^H^Hbounces during the outbreak. I only received 366 copies of Sobig.F.
I don't see why you think that these numbers need to be related. The 423 were from when a message was sent with you as a from: (and was stopped) and the 366 were where you were the to:
Say what you want, but sending any sort of notification based on a known forged address is not just a case of ignorance. The AV vendors were fully aware that the headers were forged. They should have tailored their signatures to account for this and exempt these messages from notification. The fact that they didn't tells me that they considered it a free shot at email marketing...otherwise known as SPAM. I don't think a case can be made that they did this deliberately since the product was already configured to send the alerts. However, they were more than willing to look the other way while their products marketed themselves. The possibility that they were too short sighted to see this problem ahead of time remains a possibility, but that carries other implications that I really don't want to get into.
I'm not sure what the AV companies were thinking. You may be right on this point. I'm not comfortable taking a "feature" (it was intended that way for years) and exploiting it puts the burden of SPAM on the AV companies.
Now, if they came out with a free upgrade TOMORROW that fixes both the default behavior and figures out when it should or shouldn't tell the sender would that be soon enough for you to prove they are trying to work on this? It *is* a major product. Remember that when you complain today.
ok, who am I trying to fool? They won't, they are, and viruses will continue, it's in their best interest, they wrote em, right?
And the people that sell bullets to cops have the intent of them being fired at people. The issue is that the original model of notifying the sender worked and that AV vendors haven't bothered to update their models. Their code is being exploited, not enabling. Somebody said hey, I can use this behavior to my advantage.
*sigh* I really hate Ashcroft and the whole Bush administration. I just heard on the radio that 7/10 Americans think that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 hijackings. Ashcroft hinting that hackers caused the power grid is reprehensible.
No, I think it is perfectly normal for a clueless person to make a configuration without thinking ten steps down the road (or even two) what the ramifications are. Terrorism is too strong a word for that.
Gonna have to disagree with your conclusion. When you have x^y where x is the size/impact of a single letter and y is the branching factor (average number of recipients per message) than (x+1)^y isn't a great difference. You see what I am saying?
No, the math's still off. If x is the so big rate,
Ok, your hypothetical is wrong, not what I was saying. X is the impact or cost of a single sobig email. This is how much? 600k? if for EACH sobig email X there is a "random" message saying "You sent spam" which cost about 2k, the total impact is X + epsilon which I indicated as 1, a small constant. Instead of 600K it is 602K. Please note that I am not even going to bother figuring in the cost of building/tearing down TCP/IP etc as you aren't concerned when one big image is split into multiple images on a web page are you?
I think we need to look only at the normal case where for every sobig message sent that is "caught" an email is sent out. What I really wanted to point out wasn't when a bounce message is infectios (cause I agree wholeheartedly that sending that "back" infectable is dumb) but the case where a legitimate attempt to say "hey, there's and issue" is a couple KB is attempted.
What does one do if they think they have a virus? If they are in a corporate environment, they ping the help desk (and that would be ONCE per person, regardless of the number of emails they get).
Yeah, and in a large environment of thousands of people, that's *exactly* what the help desk needs. Trust me, I know some of these people, and it's driving them nuts.
It is the JOB of people manning a help desk to correctly educate the users. It takes me as an outside consultant about 1 minute to explain it for even the dumbest users and nobody would run more than 50:1 user:hd ratio. A major virus breaks out, the phone is tied up for an hour. That is COMPLETELY acceptable.
If they are a home user, they make sure they have updated virus software. If they are clueless, then they will take it somewhere and get anti-virus software installed.
And if they were already up-to-date, then they just paid money for nothing. And once they get up-to-date and know they're OK, and they keep getting messages, they learn to ignore them. So when another message comes out that they're not prepared for, they think they are.
Updating your virus software costs nothing. And if you need to pay because you don't have it, then are you saying that people should NOT have the latest AV SW?
Yes, they don't understand when 50 emails come in saying they have a virus when they really don't... but they need to be responsible for finding out what this SoBig thing is, and every search engine and geek cousin or hired help knows.
When looking at a virus that is spreading not linearly, but geometrically, this double-sized payload begins to have little total impact.
Nope. Because the bounce rate is simply a linear factor of (market share of idiot AV vendor) * (virus propogation rage). So if the virus goes geometric, so does the bounce rate.
Gonna have to disagree with your conclusion. When you have x^y where x is the size/impact of a single letter and y is the branching factor (average number of recipients per message) than (x+1)^y isn't a great difference. You see what I am saying?
I suggest that at the very least, users get the message that there is something going on (even it it isn't there particular machine that is affected)
That's *NOT* a good thing. If users get appropriate info, fine. But telling someone to upgrade when they could be just fine isn't good. People will start taking computers in for repair when they don't need them. Confusing people with constant virus warnings will make them blase about it and leave them with less information than they had before.
What does one do if they think they have a virus? If they are in a corporate environment, they ping the help desk (and that would be ONCE per person, regardless of the number of emails they get). If they are a home user, they make sure they have updated virus software. If they are clueless, then they will take it somewhere and get anti-virus software installed. which is what we really want. There is crappy software that is vulnerable, and if you run windows, you MUST run some kind of AV and update patches, etc. If they are confused or blase about having a virus, screw em. That is like keeping an open SPAM relay.
It really isn't all that big of a deal. As said earlier, at MOST 1 email is generated. This effectively doubles the impact of something like SoBig. When looking at a virus that is spreading not linearly, but geometrically, this double-sized payload begins to have little total impact. We aren't talking MB of data, we're talking a couple KB per message.
I suggest that at the very least, users get the message that there is something going on (even it it isn't there particular machine that is affected) and, knowing general users, they make admins aware: "What's this? Is this bad?!?" and anything to draw attention at the early stages of an outbreak (hmmm, maybe I should install patches) is a Good Thing(tm).
Slashdot Mirror
fershizzle. . .
Or 30 slashdot readers hit reload every 10 seconds to see how fast the counter increases ;)
Michael Robertson, is that you?
Remember kids, vote early and often!
Please do not use any more Monty Python humor. That wasn't in the least bit funny. John Clease is coming to kick your ass.
The first person to mention SPAM on this thread I am going to fucking go beserker on.
Premise 1: The Japanese had established an HDTV standard prior to 1989
Premise 2: In the 1990s, the Americans developed an HDTV standard based on digital techniques.
Premise 3: Once the HDTV standard based on digital techniques was established, the Japanese (and the Koreans) commercialized the technology.
Your primary conclusion is that it is NOT true that The foreigners claim that foreign brainpower helped the USA to leap ahead of Japan. (note how you neatly care to disregard the requirement of defining the term "leap ahead")
Your second conclusion is, using the example of India, that the US will out-commercialize any Indian invention. Why would the US all of a sudden become *better* at implementation when they stop hiring H1-B's?
You make no sense. I really take offence at the fact that you pass yourself off as a reporter, yet cannot even write a decent post.
The fact of the matter is, you are a xenophobe. H1B is a perfectly fine way for an individual's talent to be used NOW to the betterment of the individual (who may have access to money and work conditions not currently available) and to the corporation who can choose someone based on how well they can perform vs. where they were born. Frankly, from this article, I have the firm impression that you are a lazy American that thinks showing up for work deserves a 6 figure salary.
don't you mean "through the fly" ?
Why are you at all concerned what moderators make anything? Are you worried that people that browse at +2 won't see something that is important, nay vital, to their well-being and social education?
Now go read at -1 or 0 or +5 for all it matters, and be on your way.
This takes about 30 seconds and I haven't met a single person that couldn't understand that unless they don't understand To: and From: in which case they obviously don't have email of any kind.
Are you saying it is beyond the abilities of a $10/hr person to explain that? Maybe you are saying that help desk SHOULDN'T explain anything to the user. A call center that can't handle this in under a minute is truly worthless. Yep, definitely a tier 2 job. Hell, "Call the CTO!" "I don't care, wake him!"
Maybe the point is you *haven't* seen a properly managed call center, staffed appropriately.
BTW, I was busy trolling today, don't be upset. I'm having fun at how many people I can irk with the simple beginning of "it's ok to have an anti-virus product that passes on viruses to others while protecting you." I mean come on, it would take all of a day to write the patch to disable automated responses when it is obvious that it is pointless to do so. Have a nice day. Don't be mad; just smile and take it like a man. Read my sig and groan. :)
Seriously, if you have a ratio that high with windows machines (of course they are windows, cause that is what this whole thing is about, right?) then you can't handle a significant outage at all. You either have extremely good processes in place with some talented people or have gotten lucky. I don't, however, think you run a normal ratio?
If a 50KB virus gets sent out to an average of 15 people, in only 6 generations that would be 50*15 + 50*15*15 + 50*15*15*15, etc = 50(15^1 + 15^2 + 15^3 + 15^4 + 15^5 + 15^6) = total cost of 610,212,000KB or ~610GB
Double the size of each would be ~1,200GB
I say that isn't a huge impact because changing the number of people exploited by only 1 because they got scared and saw it first and reacted in time = 807,031,400KB or ~807GB
The impact of DOUBLING the payload maybe only affected the total cost by about 1.3, not 2. Now take into account fact that most AV vendors don't send the whole email, but instead about 2k, then you have a much less of an issue.
The interesting portion is that by wasting a little extra bandwidth at the beginning, I was hinting at the fact that you could reduce either the branch factor or the number of total generations.
What I think is crap is that there are people whose job is Email Administrator (talk about your niche) that would have twice as much crap to deal with. OMG, it is soooo hard to right a 5XX DENY rule when you see the FROM: of a message is from "exchangeserver@xxxxxx.org" or somesuch.
Agreed and that is a legitimate exploit. This does not account for a significant portion of the virus vector as MOST vendors send synopsis email back (in my experience)
Frankly, the arrogant attitude amazes me... that's the one time in help desk world when you are appreciated: when you can explain something that is "weird" or confusing to a user.
Now, if they came out with a free upgrade TOMORROW that fixes both the default behavior and figures out when it should or shouldn't tell the sender would that be soon enough for you to prove they are trying to work on this? It *is* a major product. Remember that when you complain today.
ok, who am I trying to fool? They won't, they are, and viruses will continue, it's in their best interest, they wrote em, right?
*sigh* I really hate Ashcroft and the whole Bush administration. I just heard on the radio that 7/10 Americans think that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 hijackings. Ashcroft hinting that hackers caused the power grid is reprehensible.
No, I think it is perfectly normal for a clueless person to make a configuration without thinking ten steps down the road (or even two) what the ramifications are. Terrorism is too strong a word for that.
I think we need to look only at the normal case where for every sobig message sent that is "caught" an email is sent out. What I really wanted to point out wasn't when a bounce message is infectios (cause I agree wholeheartedly that sending that "back" infectable is dumb) but the case where a legitimate attempt to say "hey, there's and issue" is a couple KB is attempted.
It is the JOB of people manning a help desk to correctly educate the users. It takes me as an outside consultant about 1 minute to explain it for even the dumbest users and nobody would run more than 50:1 user:hd ratio. A major virus breaks out, the phone is tied up for an hour. That is COMPLETELY acceptable. Updating your virus software costs nothing. And if you need to pay because you don't have it, then are you saying that people should NOT have the latest AV SW?Yes, they don't understand when 50 emails come in saying they have a virus when they really don't... but they need to be responsible for finding out what this SoBig thing is, and every search engine and geek cousin or hired help knows.
Terrorism has INTENT. The behavior you are referring to I think may be better classified as sociopathic.
I am only offended by that comment by today's date. I'm sure I will get over it tomorrow.
I suggest that at the very least, users get the message that there is something going on (even it it isn't there particular machine that is affected) and, knowing general users, they make admins aware: "What's this? Is this bad?!?" and anything to draw attention at the early stages of an outbreak (hmmm, maybe I should install patches) is a Good Thing(tm).
Do you want to continue?
Care to try again?