When you say.NET, you seem to be referring to the.NET initiative, a company-wide push for XML web services. This is separate from the.NET framework, which is what the virus is about.
The.NET framework is an executable platform, with an intermediate language runtime (much like Java bytecode). This is the platform the virus was found on. For compatibility, a 5 byte stub of native code is used to start the execution of MSIL code. The virus infects this stub. You could compare this to a 'java' virus that infected your JVM.
In contrast, the.NET initiative has its own problems. It seems like that's what you're thinking of - the issues with Passport, etc. That's a separate issue and it deserves a lot of evaluation before it's declared a safe platform for storing sensitive information.
Wow.. I guess anyone can stretch ANY point to fit ANY conclusion, if you ask the audience to disregard the gaping holes in your argument. I can't believe I'm having an argument with someone who thinks there's no difference between spam and P2P.
The amount lost due to unsolicited emailing (and I strongly object to the use of the word 'spamming') is negligible.
Didn't I just explain how this isn't true? Lost productivity, abuse desks, bandwidth.. these are real costs! P2P costs bandwidth too, but users agree to the cost of an ISP before they sign up! You are NEVER agreeing to receive spam, just by signing up for an ISP.
The anti-spammers only want you to be able to use APPROVED hardware and software (search for CanyonCreek), which would prevent unsolicited bulk emailing.
I think it's safe to say you're a spam-friendly twit.. first of all you got the name wrong - it's CYBERCREEK. I can see you're very familiar with all the aspects of the case. Mr. Chickenboner (Andy Brunner) sold spamware, software with NO REDEEMING value. I fully support his right to sell his spamware however - it's his 1st amendment right. I am strongly against any law banning spamware. HOWEVER - I strongly support blackholing the fucker from the Internet and getting his accounts killed. MOST ISPs prohibit spam support in their AUP. There is nothing wrong with blackholing him either - it is completely your ISPs choice whether to allow you to get to his site, and it is his ISP's choice whether or not to drop him.
Also, I have yet to hear of someone trying to ban "spam hardware". Try again.
If you'd like to make a blackhole list, and try to block users/ISPs who use P2P, feel free. Of course you won't get a single ISP to subscribe to your list. I'm sure the record companies would be happy to support your efforts, though.
I think the point was, VCR's have a built-in RF modulator. So your DVD goes to the VCR's input, and you hook your VCR up to your TV through coax. Then when you want to watch a DVD you push your VCR's 'input' button, and set your TV on channel 3/4. This would work perfectly if it weren't for macrovision. Incidentally macrovision isn't implemented on the DVD disc itself - in order to get a CSS license, DVD hardware makers MUST implement macrovision on all outputs.
What the hell are you? Do you actually work for the content industry?
You're really, REALLY stretching it with that analogy. Let's see:
A sysadmin's job is to keep systems up, running, and available. Spam can flood e-mail systems enough to make them completely unavailable to legitimate users. Spam costs companies billions of dollars in lost productivity, system downtime, abuse staff, and bandwidth. Pretty much everyone is against spam, except a handful of people (called spammers).
A composer's job is to write music. The composer will receive a small royalty each time an album is sold with their song on it, each time the song gets radio airplay, etc. The artist will get a larger, but still small chunk. The recording company will get most of the money.
The amount lost due to unauthorized copying (and I strongly object to the use of the word 'piracy') is negligible. CD sales went up during the year Napster became popular.
It seems like you forgot that many, many artists and composers completely support file sharing. The only people who object, the true 'pirates' who want to destroy your fair use rights, stifle creativity, and cram a steady flow of corporate BULLSHIT music down your ears, are the RECORD COMPANIES.
Don't believe me? The record companies only want you to be able to use APPROVED hardware and software (search for SSSCA), which would prevent unauthorized copying. It would also destroy the computer industry as we know it, but they're not concerned about that. The record companies pushed for legislation that would allow them to HACK into your computer in order to delete your MP3's. Now tell me. Are these really the good guys?
Hey, I never said there was something wrong with MS rigging that poll! Well you completely changed the subject, so here goes..
There's no such thing as an insurmountable force, both in nature or the market
Come on. You can't blame MS's competitors for their dominance. There were and are plenty of companies whose #1 target is MS' market share in the PC market. I'm restricting my argument to PC because that's the only place they could be considered an 'insurmountable force' as you put it.
The strongest and most blatant anticompetitive tactic they have taken is their agreements with OEM's. They have used their position as the #1 OS manufacturer to force themselves in the door to the browser and office suite markets as well as insure that theirs was the only OS shipping on new computers. Are you saying this is perfectly OK? Are you totally against antitrust laws?
the industry would do well to come up with it's own solutions to a monopolistic "checkmate", instead of relying on the talent of it's lawyers it should rely on the strength of it's programmers and engineers.
Actually MS is not being sued by their competition for antitrust violations. They are being prosecuted by several US state AG's.
The industry can be summed up so succinctly: PATHETIC.
You're misunderstanding me. I never said it was immoral, or disapproved of MS's corporate mentality. As a corporation they're entitled to their own culture, as is your company and mine. All I did was make an observation about the tactics they seem to be encouraging their employees to use. Their sales force clearly takes a proactive approach when they see a threat in any sector, whether it's OS, database, handhelds, or distributed application platform (in this case). They are quick to emphasize their competitors' flaws, and their goal is clearly victory no matter what it takes. Just read the leaked linux e-mails for proof of that.
What probably happened is, some MS sales guy stumbled across the poll so he drafted an e-mail entitled "PLEASE STOP AND VOTE FOR.NET!" This goes along with the take-no-prisoners attitude that has been seen coming from MS execs like that sales guy who wrote the "kill linux" e-mails. So the e-mail makes the rounds, everyone at MS clicks over to the poll and votes for.NET. Nothing major, just shows you why web polls can't be trusted.
I seriously doubt that this was organized by anyone high level at MS.. probably just a salesman who thought it would be a good idea to get everyone to vote in the poll.
You could always reply to the spamcop report and show the recipient the e-mail they sent when they went through your confirmed opt-in procedure. Unfortunately many marketers don't use confirmed opt-in, which opens you and your customers to a lot of misunderstanding. If you can prove to someone (complainant, or your ISP) when they subscribed to your newsletter you'll save yourself some grief.
Changing the names of newsletters / businesses will also get you complaints. Say your company made widgets, and I as a consumer of widgets subscribed to your "Widget news and deals" newsletter. The widget biz turns sour and you get eaten up by a sprocket company. Now I receive "Sprocket Center" every day and I'm left wondering when I subscribed to it.
Last, the vast majority of "corporate / mainsleaze" spam I get is just that, spam. Let's say I signed up for some service that was giving out free money back in the.com hey days.. I specifically told them I didn't want any e-mail. The company goes bust, my e-mail address gets bought and sold a few times, and someone's database conversion 'forgets' that I unchecked the 'spam me' box. It happens. If your company bought "opt-in" e-mail addresses to put on your list, it's likely your list is dirty.
I believe everyone needs a hobby, and these anti-spam people are no exception
For many it's no hobby. Some are sysadmins, network admins, abuse staff. This is their job, and their systems are being abused by thieves. By organizing against spammers they are doing a service to the entire Internet community and they should be commended, not called 'vigilantes.'
When you describe any group (anti-spam, linux users, bow hunters) as 'these people' it tends to set them off too.
He seemed to have made an honest attempt to ensure that only HR Departments receieved his mail.
Still spam. After he made his 'honest' attempt to target his spam, he made another 'honest' attempt to harass people who reported him to his ISP. What are you saying they did wrong? Should they have not reported him?
Hey, at least you didn't say "just hit delete" anywhere in your post..
I do have a local news server, and I am on ATT broadband. It's news.ne.mediaone.net. It sucks. It keeps messages for about a day, it drops messages, and it's slow. That doesn't prove anything, just responding to your point about local news.
I've been pleasantly surprised recently.. I'm on ATT broadband and I get a pretty consistent 1500kbps down/250kbps up connection. I am in an ex-mediaone area, so other ATT areas could be different.
Of course customer support might as well be handled by gorillas with phone scripts.. it's still that bad.
The upload cap sucks, but I have to say - 3GB per 3 days of USENET is not unreasonable. If you subscribe to a PAY USENET service, there's still a cap on downloads for a set time period. People leech warez and porn off USENET all day, and your ISP (or other provider) can't support that without imposing some sort of limitation. A typical pay service is $10/month and lets you download say, 8GB a month such as newshosting.com.
Name one PC activity that cannot be performed with any Mac application.
Bah. I'm sure you'll say, "but I'm not a gamer, games suck anyway." but here goes.
Max Payne
Civ III
Return to Wolfenstein
Yes, Mac users are consistently shafted when it comes to quality and on-time game releases. Also, I hope you're not getting an iMac for the video chipset.. Geforce2 MX isn't exactly cutting edge any more, not to mention only 128MB of RAM on the low end model.
Another activity that can't be performed, would be using a mouse with more than one button.
Come on.. rc5 as a benchmark? It wasn't written as a benchmark, it measures NOTHING that could actually be considered productive in the real world. Apple has fallen back on a single Photoshop benchmark for YEARS. Back in reality, PC photoshop is now faster than G4 photoshop for MOST tasks, as well as the hands down winner for games, and do I have to mention application support?
If you bought a computer because it was faster at RC5 you have problems.. seriously..
There Steve goes again..
on
New iMac Announced
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Throwing that word around.. the word is supercomputer. Every damn Apple ad, every new machine they launch is called a supercomputer. It's got the same old, clunky 800 mhz G4 processor, which they have the nerve to call 'pentium-crushing'? AMD and Intel have processors running at 2+ times that clock speed.. gimme a break.
Am I the only one who's bothered when Apple says with a straight face, "The PowerPC G4 with Velocity Engine can perform complex calculations two to four times faster than processors found in run-of-the-mill PCs"? I'm sure they're still using their old, tired Photoshop benchmarks to back up those statements. Only Apple could get away with calling an 800Mhz G4 a 'pentium crushing' 'supercomputer.'
They even mention Quake on the page.. how about they pit that puny Geforce2 MX against a real PC? Let's see.. lowest iMac has 700mhz CPU, 128MB RAM, 40GB HD, CD-RW, flat panel. You can get an AthlonXP system with all that, and money to burn on a Geforece3 card. Then see which one is the 'supercomputer'.
Mind if i ask what school you went to? Basically I dropped out of UMass because I couldn't do the math and physics reqs (5 math, 2 physics courses for a cmpsci degree). I'm pretty much done with the actual CS track though. They don't offer a CIS degree.
Free music doesn't have to have a price.. it's not like there is some kind of trade-off between free music and spyware, dictated by the laws of physics. As a user and a software developer, I think spyware is unethical and I won't support its use or use it on my computers. There's perfectly good peer to peer software that doesn't have spyware (Morpheus) so that's what I use..
As I look through this list, it appears some of this year's winners, really haven't done anything groundbreaking in 2001. It appears they have been selected based on older achievements.
Names such as Bob Metcalfe, Shawn Fanning, and Linus Torvalds stand out.
Metcalfe, since his retirement from 3Com, really hasn't done anything useful. He's made a lot of money as a columnist, which really isn't deserving of a "World Technology Award," especially when he makes bold predictions of the internet's demise, and Linux being old technology. I know, those examples didn't happen in 2001, but to be honest I haven't paid attention to him much in 2001.
Shawn Fanning.. in the beginning of 2001, I don't think Napster was completely deactivated, but I'm pretty sure it was crippled beyond usefulness by all the record-company imposed filters. Furthermore, he had the idea first. It wasn't a new idea, or something that nobody else would have come up with, and he certainly didn't do the best implementation of peer to peer. If he had to win at all, it should have been in 2000, if not 1999. By the end of 2001, Napster had become totally irrelevant.
And last, Linus Torvalds.. What he did is remarkable, but it seems kind of arbitrary picking 2001 as the year to give him a prize. I don't know about this one, maybe he deserved it. But why 2001?
Slashdot Mirror
When you say .NET, you seem to be referring to the .NET initiative, a company-wide push for XML web services. This is separate from the .NET framework, which is what the virus is about.
.NET framework is an executable platform, with an intermediate language runtime (much like Java bytecode). This is the platform the virus was found on. For compatibility, a 5 byte stub of native code is used to start the execution of MSIL code. The virus infects this stub. You could compare this to a 'java' virus that infected your JVM.
.NET initiative has its own problems. It seems like that's what you're thinking of - the issues with Passport, etc. That's a separate issue and it deserves a lot of evaluation before it's declared a safe platform for storing sensitive information.
The
In contrast, the
Wow.. I guess anyone can stretch ANY point to fit ANY conclusion, if you ask the audience to disregard the gaping holes in your argument. I can't believe I'm having an argument with someone who thinks there's no difference between spam and P2P.
The amount lost due to unsolicited emailing (and I strongly object to the use of the word 'spamming') is negligible.
Didn't I just explain how this isn't true? Lost productivity, abuse desks, bandwidth.. these are real costs! P2P costs bandwidth too, but users agree to the cost of an ISP before they sign up! You are NEVER agreeing to receive spam, just by signing up for an ISP.
The anti-spammers only want you to be able to use APPROVED hardware and software (search for CanyonCreek), which would prevent unsolicited bulk emailing.
I think it's safe to say you're a spam-friendly twit.. first of all you got the name wrong - it's CYBERCREEK. I can see you're very familiar with all the aspects of the case. Mr. Chickenboner (Andy Brunner) sold spamware, software with NO REDEEMING value. I fully support his right to sell his spamware however - it's his 1st amendment right. I am strongly against any law banning spamware. HOWEVER - I strongly support blackholing the fucker from the Internet and getting his accounts killed. MOST ISPs prohibit spam support in their AUP. There is nothing wrong with blackholing him either - it is completely your ISPs choice whether to allow you to get to his site, and it is his ISP's choice whether or not to drop him.
Also, I have yet to hear of someone trying to ban "spam hardware". Try again.
If you'd like to make a blackhole list, and try to block users/ISPs who use P2P, feel free. Of course you won't get a single ISP to subscribe to your list. I'm sure the record companies would be happy to support your efforts, though.
The question is how can you come up with something which will remain even after an analogue broadcast?
You can't! The content industry has lost touch with reality.. just read my sig!
I think the point was, VCR's have a built-in RF modulator. So your DVD goes to the VCR's input, and you hook your VCR up to your TV through coax. Then when you want to watch a DVD you push your VCR's 'input' button, and set your TV on channel 3/4. This would work perfectly if it weren't for macrovision. Incidentally macrovision isn't implemented on the DVD disc itself - in order to get a CSS license, DVD hardware makers MUST implement macrovision on all outputs.
Oh come on.
What the hell are you? Do you actually work for the content industry?
You're really, REALLY stretching it with that analogy. Let's see:
A sysadmin's job is to keep systems up, running, and available. Spam can flood e-mail systems enough to make them completely unavailable to legitimate users. Spam costs companies billions of dollars in lost productivity, system downtime, abuse staff, and bandwidth. Pretty much everyone is against spam, except a handful of people (called spammers).
A composer's job is to write music. The composer will receive a small royalty each time an album is sold with their song on it, each time the song gets radio airplay, etc. The artist will get a larger, but still small chunk. The recording company will get most of the money.
The amount lost due to unauthorized copying (and I strongly object to the use of the word 'piracy') is negligible. CD sales went up during the year Napster became popular.
It seems like you forgot that many, many artists and composers completely support file sharing. The only people who object, the true 'pirates' who want to destroy your fair use rights, stifle creativity, and cram a steady flow of corporate BULLSHIT music down your ears, are the RECORD COMPANIES.
Don't believe me? The record companies only want you to be able to use APPROVED hardware and software (search for SSSCA), which would prevent unauthorized copying. It would also destroy the computer industry as we know it, but they're not concerned about that. The record companies pushed for legislation that would allow them to HACK into your computer in order to delete your MP3's. Now tell me. Are these really the good guys?
Hey, I never said there was something wrong with MS rigging that poll! Well you completely changed the subject, so here goes..
There's no such thing as an insurmountable force, both in nature or the market
Come on. You can't blame MS's competitors for their dominance. There were and are plenty of companies whose #1 target is MS' market share in the PC market. I'm restricting my argument to PC because that's the only place they could be considered an 'insurmountable force' as you put it.
The strongest and most blatant anticompetitive tactic they have taken is their agreements with OEM's. They have used their position as the #1 OS manufacturer to force themselves in the door to the browser and office suite markets as well as insure that theirs was the only OS shipping on new computers. Are you saying this is perfectly OK? Are you totally against antitrust laws?
the industry would do well to come up with it's own solutions to a monopolistic "checkmate", instead of relying on the talent of it's lawyers it should rely on the strength of it's programmers and engineers.
Actually MS is not being sued by their competition for antitrust violations. They are being prosecuted by several US state AG's.
The industry can be summed up so succinctly: PATHETIC.
Who.. Sun? Oracle? Netscape? Be specific.
Maybe not a terrorist.. but if you don't drive, then certainly THE TERRORISTS WILL HAVE WON.
You're misunderstanding me. I never said it was immoral, or disapproved of MS's corporate mentality. As a corporation they're entitled to their own culture, as is your company and mine. All I did was make an observation about the tactics they seem to be encouraging their employees to use. Their sales force clearly takes a proactive approach when they see a threat in any sector, whether it's OS, database, handhelds, or distributed application platform (in this case). They are quick to emphasize their competitors' flaws, and their goal is clearly victory no matter what it takes. Just read the leaked linux e-mails for proof of that.
What probably happened is, some MS sales guy stumbled across the poll so he drafted an e-mail entitled "PLEASE STOP AND VOTE FOR .NET!" This goes along with the take-no-prisoners attitude that has been seen coming from MS execs like that sales guy who wrote the "kill linux" e-mails. So the e-mail makes the rounds, everyone at MS clicks over to the poll and votes for .NET. Nothing major, just shows you why web polls can't be trusted.
I seriously doubt that this was organized by anyone high level at MS.. probably just a salesman who thought it would be a good idea to get everyone to vote in the poll.
You could always reply to the spamcop report and show the recipient the e-mail they sent when they went through your confirmed opt-in procedure. Unfortunately many marketers don't use confirmed opt-in, which opens you and your customers to a lot of misunderstanding. If you can prove to someone (complainant, or your ISP) when they subscribed to your newsletter you'll save yourself some grief.
.com hey days.. I specifically told them I didn't want any e-mail. The company goes bust, my e-mail address gets bought and sold a few times, and someone's database conversion 'forgets' that I unchecked the 'spam me' box. It happens. If your company bought "opt-in" e-mail addresses to put on your list, it's likely your list is dirty.
Changing the names of newsletters / businesses will also get you complaints. Say your company made widgets, and I as a consumer of widgets subscribed to your "Widget news and deals" newsletter. The widget biz turns sour and you get eaten up by a sprocket company. Now I receive "Sprocket Center" every day and I'm left wondering when I subscribed to it.
Last, the vast majority of "corporate / mainsleaze" spam I get is just that, spam. Let's say I signed up for some service that was giving out free money back in the
I believe everyone needs a hobby, and these anti-spam people are no exception
For many it's no hobby. Some are sysadmins, network admins, abuse staff. This is their job, and their systems are being abused by thieves. By organizing against spammers they are doing a service to the entire Internet community and they should be commended, not called 'vigilantes.'
When you describe any group (anti-spam, linux users, bow hunters) as 'these people' it tends to set them off too.
He seemed to have made an honest attempt to ensure that only HR Departments receieved his mail.
Still spam. After he made his 'honest' attempt to target his spam, he made another 'honest' attempt to harass people who reported him to his ISP. What are you saying they did wrong? Should they have not reported him?
Hey, at least you didn't say "just hit delete" anywhere in your post..
I do have a local news server, and I am on ATT broadband. It's news.ne.mediaone.net. It sucks. It keeps messages for about a day, it drops messages, and it's slow. That doesn't prove anything, just responding to your point about local news.
I've been pleasantly surprised recently.. I'm on ATT broadband and I get a pretty consistent 1500kbps down/250kbps up connection. I am in an ex-mediaone area, so other ATT areas could be different.
Of course customer support might as well be handled by gorillas with phone scripts.. it's still that bad.
The upload cap sucks, but I have to say - 3GB per 3 days of USENET is not unreasonable. If you subscribe to a PAY USENET service, there's still a cap on downloads for a set time period. People leech warez and porn off USENET all day, and your ISP (or other provider) can't support that without imposing some sort of limitation. A typical pay service is $10/month and lets you download say, 8GB a month such as newshosting.com.
My point was, none of them are released yet for Mac while they are all available for PC, Max and Civ for months now.
yah ask any power user if they're using the onboard video of nForce.. you'll get a resounding 'no'. It's underpowered.
Name one PC activity that cannot be performed with any Mac application.
Bah. I'm sure you'll say, "but I'm not a gamer, games suck anyway." but here goes.
Max Payne
Civ III
Return to Wolfenstein
Yes, Mac users are consistently shafted when it comes to quality and on-time game releases. Also, I hope you're not getting an iMac for the video chipset.. Geforce2 MX isn't exactly cutting edge any more, not to mention only 128MB of RAM on the low end model.
Another activity that can't be performed, would be using a mouse with more than one button.
Grr how could i start this again.. i swore off arguing with crazy Mac zealots.. use your inferior computer, see if i care.
Come on.. rc5 as a benchmark? It wasn't written as a benchmark, it measures NOTHING that could actually be considered productive in the real world. Apple has fallen back on a single Photoshop benchmark for YEARS. Back in reality, PC photoshop is now faster than G4 photoshop for MOST tasks, as well as the hands down winner for games, and do I have to mention application support?
If you bought a computer because it was faster at RC5 you have problems.. seriously..
Throwing that word around.. the word is supercomputer. Every damn Apple ad, every new machine they launch is called a supercomputer. It's got the same old, clunky 800 mhz G4 processor, which they have the nerve to call 'pentium-crushing'? AMD and Intel have processors running at 2+ times that clock speed.. gimme a break.
Am I the only one who's bothered when Apple says with a straight face, "The PowerPC G4 with Velocity Engine can perform complex calculations two to four times faster than processors found in run-of-the-mill PCs"? I'm sure they're still using their old, tired Photoshop benchmarks to back up those statements. Only Apple could get away with calling an 800Mhz G4 a 'pentium crushing' 'supercomputer.'
They even mention Quake on the page.. how about they pit that puny Geforce2 MX against a real PC? Let's see.. lowest iMac has 700mhz CPU, 128MB RAM, 40GB HD, CD-RW, flat panel. You can get an AthlonXP system with all that, and money to burn on a Geforece3 card. Then see which one is the 'supercomputer'.
Mind if i ask what school you went to? Basically I dropped out of UMass because I couldn't do the math and physics reqs (5 math, 2 physics courses for a cmpsci degree). I'm pretty much done with the actual CS track though. They don't offer a CIS degree.
From LSSU's 2002 Banished Words List, under the redundancies section -
FOREWARN - "But if not, then warn after the fact."
Please don't use that word any more. It's redundant.
Free music doesn't have to have a price.. it's not like there is some kind of trade-off between free music and spyware, dictated by the laws of physics. As a user and a software developer, I think spyware is unethical and I won't support its use or use it on my computers. There's perfectly good peer to peer software that doesn't have spyware (Morpheus) so that's what I use..
what are you talking about? I run my own Maxtor drive with the noise level set to quiet.. it really works.
As I look through this list, it appears some of this year's winners, really haven't done anything groundbreaking in 2001. It appears they have been selected based on older achievements.
Names such as Bob Metcalfe, Shawn Fanning, and Linus Torvalds stand out.
Metcalfe, since his retirement from 3Com, really hasn't done anything useful. He's made a lot of money as a columnist, which really isn't deserving of a "World Technology Award," especially when he makes bold predictions of the internet's demise, and Linux being old technology. I know, those examples didn't happen in 2001, but to be honest I haven't paid attention to him much in 2001.
Shawn Fanning.. in the beginning of 2001, I don't think Napster was completely deactivated, but I'm pretty sure it was crippled beyond usefulness by all the record-company imposed filters. Furthermore, he had the idea first. It wasn't a new idea, or something that nobody else would have come up with, and he certainly didn't do the best implementation of peer to peer. If he had to win at all, it should have been in 2000, if not 1999. By the end of 2001, Napster had become totally irrelevant.
And last, Linus Torvalds.. What he did is remarkable, but it seems kind of arbitrary picking 2001 as the year to give him a prize. I don't know about this one, maybe he deserved it. But why 2001?