Microsoft's whole approach to security is backwards. And so is the approach of Symantec and Macafee and the rest... not to mention the EC and everyone who thinks antitrust is even applicable to this whole commotion.
They think they can add security on, like a product. You can't. You have to design it in. If you had a building with no locks on the doors you wouldn't keep casual visitors out by adding guards before you'd even tried adding locks, even if carrying cards or keys was "inconvenient". So why does Microsoft think they can add security to Internet Explorer that way?
The whole basis of Microsoft's approach to the Internet is fundamentally wrong. They can't fix it by adding products. They can only fix it by ripping out most of the desktop-browser integration they fought the DoJ to a standstill over in the Clinton and first Bush administrations, and making the browser responsible for never allowing an untrusted object out of the sandbox, no matter what. Even if sandboxes are "slow" and installing plugins are "inconvenient".
Same with Windows networking, CIFS, CIFS-authentication for HTTP, and everything else they've done to lower the barriers between local and remote resources. Those barriers, those locked doors, are there for a reason.
If history is any indication, MS will stick with it, keep improving their offerings, and eventually have something that appeals to the lowest common denominator on the market.
If history is any indication, MS will abandon it for something else when they think it convenient, just like they're doing with Plays For Sure.
Wouldn't you consider it more of a duty to report something grossly wrong with the way the government is being operated, even if the government tells you not to?
Um, yes, that was my point. The thing is, if there is something wrong with the way the government is being operated, you're likely to suffer negative consequences after you report it... you're not going to expect the government to save you from the government?
Must a government rely on a system of martyrs to be accountable?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson.
I say it again - the government should not exist for its own right. It exists for the people.
I can't disagree, and I'm sure Thomas would say the same thing were he alive today (assuming someone got him out of the ground at Monticello in time, of course).
The latest version from the Berkeley boys, nvi, is quite capable of holding its own with vim and does a better job of making its extensions (like "undo") feel like part of the normal command set. It's simply a more accurate implementation.
I've been using vi for a quarter of a century now, and have used vim and other clones like stevie and elvis when they were the only option. All but elvis have had me occasionally tripping over my fingers as their command structure didn't quite follow the original.
The receipts are user verifiable, after being printed out, but before the two layers are separated, and the voter gives one key to the voting place, and keeps the other.
What purpose does that serve?
That just upgrades it from "worse than useless" to "useless". It's probably not a danger, but it serves no useful purpose for verification because without all the votes for a region you can't do a recount.
If you were asked to keep a secret by the government that resulted in the fleecing of millions of taxpayers, would you? how about if it was something that had resulted in one or more deaths? would you keep it secret, then?
Civil disobedience is always an option, and what makes civil disobedience honorable is accepting the consequences of being caught.
where do you draw the line between what the state has a right to hide and what it must not?
The conscience and moral character of the whistleblowers.
The only problem is that no legislation mandating electronic voting systems includes or speaks to any provisions requiring permanent paper receipt printing capability.
Do not use the word "receipt" in this context. A receipt is something that you take with you, as a personal record of a transaction. A receipt is worse than useless here... you don't WANT people to be able to show the party bosses that they voted the "right way".
What is needed is a "permanent paper ballot capability", where the ballots are retained at the voting place and serve as the primary official paper (ahem) trail.
Format. Sure, mp4 is the flavor of the month now but what's next? I can always re-rip a CD (been there, done that) into the newer better format but my $.99 music is stuck for life.
I burn my purchases as audio CDs. Always.
Now there's no more reason to worry about the flavor of the month. Plus, that's my backup.
You can ****ing say **** on Usenet too. Hell, I'm the first person to say **** on Usenet (google for it) in a post to fa.sf-lovers. I can say **** if I want, I choose not to unless I'm good and mad.
UNIX has finer grained security than Apple's using. It's easy enough to set it up so that you have people with printer rights, backup rights, and so on. Windows has even finer grains, though they're clumsier to use because they don't have setuid.
And you still have pretty much a root vs user model in both. On the Mac you only get privileges when you need them, on Windows you have to have them all the time, but either way splitting things up further requires a knowledgable system administrator to run things, because eventually you get some program that doesn't have quite the privileges it needs, and your choices come down to griping or charging off hell-for-leather into rootsville.
They could, but as I said less money coming in from ads means less money going to the shows as well, this could have effects such as fewer niche shows and lower budgets for other shows.
Or more shows that people want enough to actually pay for, and fewer shows designed to be a non-distracting backdrop for the advertising.
And it could well be that there really isn't that much demand for television once it's not propped up by unavoidable adverts, and the industry is due for a shake-up and retrenchment.
The fact is that to deliver watchable television we need some kind of business model.
The business model they have now doesn't necessarily deliver watchable television. Perhaps pay-per-view with a basic "20 hours of premium" built in to the $40 a month, and you can buy extra hours of premium. That model works well for the cellphone companies.
Now people can drop the ad part of the package which means the old model delivers less revenue regardless.
On the other hand I don't care about the superbowl but I've been more interested in the Superbowl halftime ads than just about anything else on TV in the past few years.
It's not necessarily a problem that the old model delivers less revenue. That;s a problem with the old model, but the smart folks who create the old model product just have to apply their well-paid brains to something new... not just propping up the old.
This is exactly the type of comment in these discussions that irritates me, no useful content...
That's why I'm not in advertising, because I'm not all that good at it. The message is that the business model for television they're trying to defend is broken, so asking how they can make it work is asking the wrong question. The right question is... what's the industry doing to find a business model that works better?
I did get your eyeballs, though. I guess that's something... it's certainly in line with the old business model. Let me get back to you on the new one, once I figure it out...
There's a great security T-shirt out there that carries the slogan "Once you're penetrated, you're ****ed" (except with the canonical 4LW instead of ****).
Once an attacker has gained the ability to run unrestricted code on your computer, they can cause you grief even if they have no ability to install applications, install kernel components, run as root or Administrator, or even access the network. Being able to prevent applications from gaining extra privileges is good, at least it makes the cleanup easier, and possibly limits exposure to one account (though anyone who had an account on a shared timesharing system in college knows that's not guaranteed). But for most people, that account has everything they care about on the computer anyway, so once they're penetrated they're ****ed.
Apple needs to make the following changes to reduce the probability of penetration here.
1. Don't treat files (like, say, installers) as "safe". Treat applications that operate on files as "safe" or "unsafe", with "safe" limited to applications that are designed to deal with untrusted files.
2. INSTALLERS AREN'T DESIGNED TO DEAL WITH UNTRUSTED FILES. Don't run an installer automatically.
3. The user is allowed to shoot himself in the foot, but he has to actually pick up the gun and aim it aware that it might go off. It doesn't go in the bathroom cabinet with the hair dryer.
Don't mix untrusted and trusted files by default... downloads go in a "Downloads" folder, not on the desktop. Don't automatically install downloaded files, let the user request that. Don't run helper applications that are selected for the Finder or Windows Explorer, keep a separate list of helpers for web browsers and mail software...
PS: Mozilla folks: the same issue applies to XPI. You've got a big red tag on XPI installer saying 'THIS IS A GUN', but you're still leaving it in the bathroom cabinet next to the hair dryer. Cut that out.
If you saw these shows as a kid, you fell in love with them because of the memorable characters, engaging plots, the strong moral messages, and (yes) a sense of wonder at the imaginative settings, creatures, and situations. Seriously. You fell in love with these shows because you liked them -- don't try to intellectualize your way out of it now that you're all growed up.
I liked the later Star Trek better than the original, and I was already all growed up before TNG came out. I like Pertwee better than Baker, and I liked them both better than the original Trek even though Trek had much better special effects.
So, no, it's not the cheese. But it's not the cheesy dialog, hokey plots, and dubious morality. I mean, really, the Federation was just the British Empire retouched with the self-serving isolationism-when-convenient manifest destiny of 20th century America. And the hypocrisy of the "Prime Directive... unless it gets in the way of the plot" bugged me even as a kid.
It's the baby duck syndrome. It's "there's nothing better on TV, so we're going to call this great". That's all.
How about "I'm paying forty bucks a month for my cable bill, and wasn't that supposed to let them get by without ads?"
How about "I'm only paying for my cable bill because Roadrunner is faster than DSL, I haven't watched TV in 10 years?"
How about "I don't care what business model they use, because I don't care if they stay in business?"
How about "Isn't it their job to figure out how to make me want to watch it?"
How about "These are supposed to be the smartest and best motivators on the planet, and they can't figure out how to motivate me to watch their ad?"
They're already begrudging the 20-22 minutes of non-advertising they have to show in each half an hour of eyeball time. They don't need excuses to cut into it, they do it anyway. Turn off your non-interactive video-game and go outside. Or at least play some Katamari Damarci.
If I had either SMTP or HTTP it would take me no more than a few days to get the other, and that's if I had to write the proxy myself, using nothing but an Apple ][ and a 300 baud modem. In Forth. Without a language card. On a MONOCHROME monitor. Uphill. In the snow. Both ways.
How about Usenet? Do I get NNTP? Gopher? FTP? Telnet? UUCP?
Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft's whole approach to security is backwards. And so is the approach of Symantec and Macafee and the rest... not to mention the EC and everyone who thinks antitrust is even applicable to this whole commotion.
They think they can add security on, like a product. You can't. You have to design it in. If you had a building with no locks on the doors you wouldn't keep casual visitors out by adding guards before you'd even tried adding locks, even if carrying cards or keys was "inconvenient". So why does Microsoft think they can add security to Internet Explorer that way?
The whole basis of Microsoft's approach to the Internet is fundamentally wrong. They can't fix it by adding products. They can only fix it by ripping out most of the desktop-browser integration they fought the DoJ to a standstill over in the Clinton and first Bush administrations, and making the browser responsible for never allowing an untrusted object out of the sandbox, no matter what. Even if sandboxes are "slow" and installing plugins are "inconvenient".
Same with Windows networking, CIFS, CIFS-authentication for HTTP, and everything else they've done to lower the barriers between local and remote resources. Those barriers, those locked doors, are there for a reason.
If history is any indication, MS will stick with it, keep improving their offerings, and eventually have something that appeals to the lowest common denominator on the market.
If history is any indication, MS will abandon it for something else when they think it convenient, just like they're doing with Plays For Sure.
Wouldn't you consider it more of a duty to report something grossly wrong with the way the government is being operated, even if the government tells you not to?
Um, yes, that was my point. The thing is, if there is something wrong with the way the government is being operated, you're likely to suffer negative consequences after you report it... you're not going to expect the government to save you from the government?
Must a government rely on a system of martyrs to be accountable?
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson.
I say it again - the government should not exist for its own right. It exists for the people.
I can't disagree, and I'm sure Thomas would say the same thing were he alive today (assuming someone got him out of the ground at Monticello in time, of course).
if vote buying was something people were interested in, it would already be happening.
Vote coercion is already happening.
And why do you think that would be a problem?
Because vote coercion (more commonly intimidation than outright vote buying) is a real problem.
So, why isn't anyone doing this?
They are.
The latest version from the Berkeley boys, nvi, is quite capable of holding its own with vim and does a better job of making its extensions (like "undo") feel like part of the normal command set. It's simply a more accurate implementation.
I've been using vi for a quarter of a century now, and have used vim and other clones like stevie and elvis when they were the only option. All but elvis have had me occasionally tripping over my fingers as their command structure didn't quite follow the original.
"Plays for sure.... psyche!"
"Plays for now."
"Plays for as long as we feel like it."
"Sure it plays. Trust us."
Yes, when I say "receipt", I don't mean it as something someone takes with them
Then don't use the term "receipt".
Say or write "ballot". The paper is the ballot, the electronic vote counter is just a convenience.
I don't know who came up with this "receipt" meme, but it's been a very effective tool for the electronic voting enthusiasts to muddy the waters with.
The receipts are user verifiable, after being printed out, but before the two layers are separated, and the voter gives one key to the voting place, and keeps the other.
What purpose does that serve?
That just upgrades it from "worse than useless" to "useless". It's probably not a danger, but it serves no useful purpose for verification because without all the votes for a region you can't do a recount.
The whole "receipt" concept is a red herring.
If you were asked to keep a secret by the government that resulted in the fleecing of millions of taxpayers, would you? how about if it was something that had resulted in one or more deaths? would you keep it secret, then?
Civil disobedience is always an option, and what makes civil disobedience honorable is accepting the consequences of being caught.
where do you draw the line between what the state has a right to hide and what it must not?
The conscience and moral character of the whistleblowers.
Putting security in the client is foolish. Client side security is no security.
The only problem is that no legislation mandating electronic voting systems includes or speaks to any provisions requiring permanent paper receipt printing capability.
Do not use the word "receipt" in this context. A receipt is something that you take with you, as a personal record of a transaction. A receipt is worse than useless here... you don't WANT people to be able to show the party bosses that they voted the "right way".
What is needed is a "permanent paper ballot capability", where the ballots are retained at the voting place and serve as the primary official paper (ahem) trail.
Format. Sure, mp4 is the flavor of the month now but what's next? I can always re-rip a CD (been there, done that) into the newer better format but my $.99 music is stuck for life.
I burn my purchases as audio CDs. Always.
Now there's no more reason to worry about the flavor of the month. Plus, that's my backup.
MIX, BURN, RIP
Back your tracks up to audio CD and they're out of the picture. Or to paraphrase their own advertising: "mix, burn. rip".
Because eMusic is doing the same thing, legally.
On a smaller scale, yes, of course, but it works just as well. Without the guilt. Without supporting the Russian Mafia.
It's not even a ****ing toolkit (which is also not a desktop) like the ****ing **** Gnome and KDE use, it's just a ****ing window manager. Sheesh.
You can ****ing say **** on Usenet too. Hell, I'm the first person to say **** on Usenet (google for it) in a post to fa.sf-lovers. I can say **** if I want, I choose not to unless I'm good and mad.
So get off my fucking back, OK?
UNIX has finer grained security than Apple's using. It's easy enough to set it up so that you have people with printer rights, backup rights, and so on. Windows has even finer grains, though they're clumsier to use because they don't have setuid.
And you still have pretty much a root vs user model in both. On the Mac you only get privileges when you need them, on Windows you have to have them all the time, but either way splitting things up further requires a knowledgable system administrator to run things, because eventually you get some program that doesn't have quite the privileges it needs, and your choices come down to griping or charging off hell-for-leather into rootsville.
They could, but as I said less money coming in from ads means less money going to the shows as well, this could have effects such as fewer niche shows and lower budgets for other shows.
...
Or more shows that people want enough to actually pay for, and fewer shows designed to be a non-distracting backdrop for the advertising.
And it could well be that there really isn't that much demand for television once it's not propped up by unavoidable adverts, and the industry is due for a shake-up and retrenchment.
The fact is that to deliver watchable television we need some kind of business model.
The business model they have now doesn't necessarily deliver watchable television. Perhaps pay-per-view with a basic "20 hours of premium" built in to the $40 a month, and you can buy extra hours of premium. That model works well for the cellphone companies.
Now people can drop the ad part of the package which means the old model delivers less revenue regardless.
On the other hand I don't care about the superbowl but I've been more interested in the Superbowl halftime ads than just about anything else on TV in the past few years.
It's not necessarily a problem that the old model delivers less revenue. That;s a problem with the old model, but the smart folks who create the old model product just have to apply their well-paid brains to something new... not just propping up the old.
This is exactly the type of comment in these discussions that irritates me, no useful content
That's why I'm not in advertising, because I'm not all that good at it. The message is that the business model for television they're trying to defend is broken, so asking how they can make it work is asking the wrong question. The right question is... what's the industry doing to find a business model that works better?
I did get your eyeballs, though. I guess that's something... it's certainly in line with the old business model. Let me get back to you on the new one, once I figure it out...
There's a great security T-shirt out there that carries the slogan "Once you're penetrated, you're ****ed" (except with the canonical 4LW instead of ****).
Once an attacker has gained the ability to run unrestricted code on your computer, they can cause you grief even if they have no ability to install applications, install kernel components, run as root or Administrator, or even access the network. Being able to prevent applications from gaining extra privileges is good, at least it makes the cleanup easier, and possibly limits exposure to one account (though anyone who had an account on a shared timesharing system in college knows that's not guaranteed). But for most people, that account has everything they care about on the computer anyway, so once they're penetrated they're ****ed.
Apple needs to make the following changes to reduce the probability of penetration here.
1. Don't treat files (like, say, installers) as "safe". Treat applications that operate on files as "safe" or "unsafe", with "safe" limited to applications that are designed to deal with untrusted files.
2. INSTALLERS AREN'T DESIGNED TO DEAL WITH UNTRUSTED FILES. Don't run an installer automatically.
3. The user is allowed to shoot himself in the foot, but he has to actually pick up the gun and aim it aware that it might go off. It doesn't go in the bathroom cabinet with the hair dryer.
Don't mix untrusted and trusted files by default... downloads go in a "Downloads" folder, not on the desktop. Don't automatically install downloaded files, let the user request that. Don't run helper applications that are selected for the Finder or Windows Explorer, keep a separate list of helpers for web browsers and mail software...
PS: Mozilla folks: the same issue applies to XPI. You've got a big red tag on XPI installer saying 'THIS IS A GUN', but you're still leaving it in the bathroom cabinet next to the hair dryer. Cut that out.
This must be a list of the 25 worst websites that don't list themselves.
If you saw these shows as a kid, you fell in love with them because of the memorable characters, engaging plots, the strong moral messages, and (yes) a sense of wonder at the imaginative settings, creatures, and situations. Seriously. You fell in love with these shows because you liked them -- don't try to intellectualize your way out of it now that you're all growed up.
I liked the later Star Trek better than the original, and I was already all growed up before TNG came out. I like Pertwee better than Baker, and I liked them both better than the original Trek even though Trek had much better special effects.
So, no, it's not the cheese. But it's not the cheesy dialog, hokey plots, and dubious morality. I mean, really, the Federation was just the British Empire retouched with the self-serving isolationism-when-convenient manifest destiny of 20th century America. And the hypocrisy of the "Prime Directive... unless it gets in the way of the plot" bugged me even as a kid.
It's the baby duck syndrome. It's "there's nothing better on TV, so we're going to call this great". That's all.
Where exactly is the FCC 'censoring big business' by limiting the number of TV stations they can own?
For that matter, isn't corporate personhood the result of government interference in the first place?
How about "I'm paying forty bucks a month for my cable bill, and wasn't that supposed to let them get by without ads?"
How about "I'm only paying for my cable bill because Roadrunner is faster than DSL, I haven't watched TV in 10 years?"
How about "I don't care what business model they use, because I don't care if they stay in business?"
How about "Isn't it their job to figure out how to make me want to watch it?"
How about "These are supposed to be the smartest and best motivators on the planet, and they can't figure out how to motivate me to watch their ad?"
They're already begrudging the 20-22 minutes of non-advertising they have to show in each half an hour of eyeball time. They don't need excuses to cut into it, they do it anyway. Turn off your non-interactive video-game and go outside. Or at least play some Katamari Damarci.
If I had either SMTP or HTTP it would take me no more than a few days to get the other, and that's if I had to write the proxy myself, using nothing but an Apple ][ and a 300 baud modem. In Forth. Without a language card. On a MONOCHROME monitor. Uphill. In the snow. Both ways.
How about Usenet? Do I get NNTP? Gopher? FTP? Telnet? UUCP?
Christ, what a STUPID question.