The system would have to support unicode. And even then you will run into problems with other servers as far as unicode support. Unicode support in things like URL's and email addresses is not consistent across all systems, and since many systems will receive emails from this system, you really shouldn't take that risk. It would be nice if there were universal support, but there simply isn't yet.
Exactly, there is a pretty explicit step that involves allowing them this access when setting up MSSE. It is the same thing they use to collect information on new threats and improve the software.
If I am to understand that you are saying antivirus is pointless, then I disagree. I do agree with some of your points on other ways to mitigate risks. However, VM is not viable for majority of users because VMs haven't mastered the pass through needed for some important hardware. It is also a conceptual layer of abstraction that many lay users will find too confusing. Eventually everything they have is installed in the VM. You can't expect them to constantly make good decisions about how to separate programs into separate VMs They get a virus, and their VM is toast, well they used the VM all the time, so that's about the same as loosing everything on their computer anyway. Besides, many applications are already using app level visualization to isolate threats and render them ineffective. Not only do malware writers have to find a vulnerability in the browser, they also have to find a vulnerability in the sandboxing. Hence, when a vulnerability is released, it has limited effectiveness without also a vulnerability that allows breaking out of the sandboxing. Trying to find both in the same time period that are unknown/unfixed is more challenging. Same reason why flash is sandboxed in chrome. Java plugin, unfortunately, is not sandboxed, and thus recent exploits are not limited by sandboxing in Chrome.
This goes to why it is probably more important that vulnerabilities be patched quickly and effectively and provide encouraging channels for early private disclosure of vulnerabilities.
"while Norton, or McAfee, or AVG, or ANY AV product I run across the infected machine says the coast is clear." You got to the fire too late. The house is already burned down. You can't reasonably expect AV to find a virus after the fact. Hence the reason scanners are usually ineffective. This is why most AV has hooks(AKA realtime protection) into low level OS where every file access/execute is monitored, to prevent the malware from even being executed and infecting the system. Once it infects a system and gains enough access, it can take a wide variety of steps to hide itself from other processes, and then after-the-fact scans won't find it. However, most scareware I've encountered, isn't that sophisticated. They don't make money off longterm infections the way botnets do. They only need to go as far as getting on the system and hoping the user is stupid enough to buy the scareware when they start getting prompts/reboots. They don't make the effort to hide, because to any trained individual, it's obvious from the prompts that it is infected. Run malwarebytes to remove it, and they never have a problem again.
This is like saying we should abolish all laws because some laws do not stop crime 100% of the time. Heck, laws, which are supposed to prevent things far worse than a computer virus, probably don't have the success rate of MSSE.
Now I'm not making excuses for MSSE, I think protecting against 0-day threats is indeed important, and it is a very challenging problem indeed. There was a time when heuristic analysis was not part of AV products. You simply hoped that they would release an update fairly quickly, and the automatic updates would pick it up before the 0-day made it to you.
What if 100,000 people used in the North America, and that is more than any other AV product in North America, but in China 5,000,000 use Chinese National AV Protection service(I made the name up) and no one uses MSSE outside of N America. So then MSSE wouldn't hold the title of "in the world" now would it?
So they are stating: 1) It is the most popular security suite in North America. 2) It is the most popular security suite in the world.
These things are not mutual, so it makes sense to state both. They are independent, and one does not imply the other.
There's only one thing worse than a grammar Nazi, and that's a grammar Nazi that doesn't know grammar.
That is not what it is saying at all. It is a compound sentence that is stating two things:
1) It is the most popular security suite in North America. 2) It is the most popular security suite in the world.
These things are not mutual, so it makes sense to state both. It could be the most popular in the N America, but some other AV product in China could be even more popular and hold the rank of "most popular in the World". Now I'm sure some people would say why then doesn't it fairly list off dozens of other countries, etc. I'm not going to get into all that.
1) Some 3D glasses use polarization to achieve this, but lots of sunglasses are polarized and have nothing to do with 3D. 2) In fact polarized sunglasses usually have both lenses oriented in the same direction, instead of being orthoganal, and as such would not work with a 3D display. 3) Even if you were using glasses poloarized for 3D, the discussion at hand still has nothing to do with 3D because the OP seemed to imply he's talking about a regular display. After all Visual Studio is not an app that is displayed in 3D. We are talking about a regular display. Unless you have a 3D display, a 3D application, and have set the display in 3D mode, then as far as those glasses are concerned, they are just regular polarized glasses. Now if the OP misunderstood the original discussion and enabled 3D on his display, if it supports it, then that is a result of the same confusion you have.
As others pointed out, the suggestion has nothing to do with 3D, and has more to do with the fact that polarized glasses are good at cutting down glare, at least for sunlight.
Not disagreeing, but I imagine people won't perceive these things as machines. It will be such a gradual adoption. Not many people think of glasses, hearing aids, hip implants, pace makers, etc. as being robot/machine like. Since people generally won't widely use anything until it is comfortable and offers more benefits than hindrances, these products will tend towards designs that are less noticeable. We probably will move towards being cyborgs, but no one will call it that, except for the rare introspective persons who says "Hey, you reallize that we are like cyborgs now.", and everyone will be like "Yeh, I guess so" and then go about their day. It'll be very much like the tricorders in StarTrek that you think "Wow will we ever have something like that?", but today now that we all have handheld computers, no one really makes a big deal about it accept for the occasional reflection someone does.
I wonder if this technique could be used with mosquitoes to find people. I.e. remember them verifying Bin Laden's location using DNA collected from a fake inoculation campaign(I think that was it). Instead this wouldn't require direct contact with someone, but instead capturing local mosquitoes.
Could have both nefarious and benevolent applications.
Only thing is mosquitoes don't travel very far. Which is bad in that you have to travel around and collect mosquitoes from lots of areas, and good in that when you find a match you have a pretty good idea how close you are.
I refuted many of your points already. I didn't cover points where others already had. I've been very direct in countering you and rattling your bullshit with holes.
Not to mention there is a big difference between the Bystander Effect, where no one has the courage to step across the social line of "minding your own business", vs. you, who simply rationalize yourself to a point where you justify wrong doing. One may care, but fail to act, whereas you make a deliberate choice due to your screwed up view of humanity.
You have justified the crime by saying if there is no reward for doing right, and no punishment for doing wrong, then it is justifiable to steal from another person? Keeping a lost wallet, when there is contact information in it, is indeed stealing. You are making a deliberate choice to keep something that could otherwise be placed in the hands of the owner. To basically disregard the negative effect on others for your own gain. You have no idea what kind of difficulties that person might be facing in their life already at the time and you are going to just shovel it on more.
To put it into a better context [of your own screwed up logic] for you, it's like finding a [lone woman] on the ground: you should [take her] to the [hospital], but frankly, aside from the [family and friends of the woman], who cares if you don't? You won't get punished for [raping her], but you might not get rewarded for it, whereas if you [rape her], the reward is guaranteed. After all, "Finders keepers, losers weepers!".
His body double is also named after him as well. In itself having a body double indicates a significant level of paranoia, arguable whether or not it's justified paranoia.
I shelled out for TGE at a time when that was alot of money to me, and alot of time went into learning it. I hated the script, which was about the only thing thoroughly documented. The actual engine itself was poorly documented and questions about the engine usually got no attention. Then when they basically abandoned it and started creating more products instead of improving the existing engine, I had enough. This created fragmentation in the community and help system, such that some people move to other engines and no longer participate in the community of the original engine. Rather than improve the documentation and flesh out the details of the engine architecture over time, attention was turned to other $ generating products with new marketable names.
This really left a bad taste in my mouth. I believe there were other paths they could have taken to making 2D and RTS games easier, in a way that would have leveraged a single core engine to ensure the entire community was focused on improving the core.
Obviously I recognize it's their engine to do with as they please. They claim to be a different kind of company now, and I think some of the moves they've made show this to be potentially genuine, so good luck to them. I think the only thing that would really give me renewed interest is to see them do some self-reflection, publicly admit past problems, and talk about what philosophy they will have going forward to avoid those past problems. Are they going to have a long term commitment to this engine?
No one is shoving it down your throat. You know what Steam is. Don't buy games from it if you don't like risks involved and it leads you to fits of cussing and rage.
I don't like some aspects of the system, but I take the good with the bad. I think they'd be just as successful without the DRM. I buy games through steam just because it's alot simpler than going to the store+having to swap discs everytime I want to play a game. I love being able to sit down and very quickly get into a game without hassle.
If you have the same attitude, you tell all of your repair men and doctors to give up so easily. Sounds like the only thing doomed is you dooming yourself.
Slashdot Mirror
The system would have to support unicode. And even then you will run into problems with other servers as far as unicode support. Unicode support in things like URL's and email addresses is not consistent across all systems, and since many systems will receive emails from this system, you really shouldn't take that risk. It would be nice if there were universal support, but there simply isn't yet.
Already met him when I was a kid, and asked him my silly question in person :)
Software with a "steady cam" feature is a good. It will remove jitter that will occur from holding the camera with your hand.
Exactly, there is a pretty explicit step that involves allowing them this access when setting up MSSE. It is the same thing they use to collect information on new threats and improve the software.
If I am to understand that you are saying antivirus is pointless, then I disagree. I do agree with some of your points on other ways to mitigate risks. However, VM is not viable for majority of users because VMs haven't mastered the pass through needed for some important hardware. It is also a conceptual layer of abstraction that many lay users will find too confusing. Eventually everything they have is installed in the VM. You can't expect them to constantly make good decisions about how to separate programs into separate VMs They get a virus, and their VM is toast, well they used the VM all the time, so that's about the same as loosing everything on their computer anyway. Besides, many applications are already using app level visualization to isolate threats and render them ineffective. Not only do malware writers have to find a vulnerability in the browser, they also have to find a vulnerability in the sandboxing. Hence, when a vulnerability is released, it has limited effectiveness without also a vulnerability that allows breaking out of the sandboxing. Trying to find both in the same time period that are unknown/unfixed is more challenging. Same reason why flash is sandboxed in chrome. Java plugin, unfortunately, is not sandboxed, and thus recent exploits are not limited by sandboxing in Chrome.
This goes to why it is probably more important that vulnerabilities be patched quickly and effectively and provide encouraging channels for early private disclosure of vulnerabilities.
"while Norton, or McAfee, or AVG, or ANY AV product I run across the infected machine says the coast is clear."
You got to the fire too late. The house is already burned down. You can't reasonably expect AV to find a virus after the fact. Hence the reason scanners are usually ineffective. This is why most AV has hooks(AKA realtime protection) into low level OS where every file access/execute is monitored, to prevent the malware from even being executed and infecting the system. Once it infects a system and gains enough access, it can take a wide variety of steps to hide itself from other processes, and then after-the-fact scans won't find it. However, most scareware I've encountered, isn't that sophisticated. They don't make money off longterm infections the way botnets do. They only need to go as far as getting on the system and hoping the user is stupid enough to buy the scareware when they start getting prompts/reboots. They don't make the effort to hide, because to any trained individual, it's obvious from the prompts that it is infected. Run malwarebytes to remove it, and they never have a problem again.
This is like saying we should abolish all laws because some laws do not stop crime 100% of the time. Heck, laws, which are supposed to prevent things far worse than a computer virus, probably don't have the success rate of MSSE.
Now I'm not making excuses for MSSE, I think protecting against 0-day threats is indeed important, and it is a very challenging problem indeed. There was a time when heuristic analysis was not part of AV products. You simply hoped that they would release an update fairly quickly, and the automatic updates would pick it up before the 0-day made it to you.
What if 100,000 people used in the North America, and that is more than any other AV product in North America, but in China 5,000,000 use Chinese National AV Protection service(I made the name up) and no one uses MSSE outside of N America. So then MSSE wouldn't hold the title of "in the world" now would it?
So they are stating:
1) It is the most popular security suite in North America.
2) It is the most popular security suite in the world.
These things are not mutual, so it makes sense to state both. They are independent, and one does not imply the other.
There's only one thing worse than a grammar Nazi, and that's a grammar Nazi that doesn't know grammar.
That is not what it is saying at all. It is a compound sentence that is stating two things:
1) It is the most popular security suite in North America.
2) It is the most popular security suite in the world.
These things are not mutual, so it makes sense to state both. It could be the most popular in the N America, but some other AV product in China could be even more popular and hold the rank of "most popular in the World". Now I'm sure some people would say why then doesn't it fairly list off dozens of other countries, etc. I'm not going to get into all that.
Sigh.
This is like saying all black birds are crows.
1) Some 3D glasses use polarization to achieve this, but lots of sunglasses are polarized and have nothing to do with 3D.
2) In fact polarized sunglasses usually have both lenses oriented in the same direction, instead of being orthoganal, and as such would not work with a 3D display.
3) Even if you were using glasses poloarized for 3D, the discussion at hand still has nothing to do with 3D because the OP seemed to imply he's talking about a regular display. After all Visual Studio is not an app that is displayed in 3D. We are talking about a regular display. Unless you have a 3D display, a 3D application, and have set the display in 3D mode, then as far as those glasses are concerned, they are just regular polarized glasses. Now if the OP misunderstood the original discussion and enabled 3D on his display, if it supports it, then that is a result of the same confusion you have.
As others pointed out, the suggestion has nothing to do with 3D, and has more to do with the fact that polarized glasses are good at cutting down glare, at least for sunlight.
Not disagreeing, but I imagine people won't perceive these things as machines. It will be such a gradual adoption. Not many people think of glasses, hearing aids, hip implants, pace makers, etc. as being robot/machine like. Since people generally won't widely use anything until it is comfortable and offers more benefits than hindrances, these products will tend towards designs that are less noticeable. We probably will move towards being cyborgs, but no one will call it that, except for the rare introspective persons who says "Hey, you reallize that we are like cyborgs now.", and everyone will be like "Yeh, I guess so" and then go about their day. It'll be very much like the tricorders in StarTrek that you think "Wow will we ever have something like that?", but today now that we all have handheld computers, no one really makes a big deal about it accept for the occasional reflection someone does.
"But that isn't going to make any difference if there is nothing to connect it to, now is it?"
Obviously they realize this, hence the very reason for the clause you quoted.
I wonder if this technique could be used with mosquitoes to find people. I.e. remember them verifying Bin Laden's location using DNA collected from a fake inoculation campaign(I think that was it). Instead this wouldn't require direct contact with someone, but instead capturing local mosquitoes.
Could have both nefarious and benevolent applications.
Only thing is mosquitoes don't travel very far. Which is bad in that you have to travel around and collect mosquitoes from lots of areas, and good in that when you find a match you have a pretty good idea how close you are.
Apparently not the only one:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3355921&cid=42463785
I refuted many of your points already. I didn't cover points where others already had. I've been very direct in countering you and rattling your bullshit with holes.
You are just further exemplifying your sociopathy with your self centered devaluing of human life.
Not to mention there is a big difference between the Bystander Effect, where no one has the courage to step across the social line of "minding your own business", vs. you, who simply rationalize yourself to a point where you justify wrong doing. One may care, but fail to act, whereas you make a deliberate choice due to your screwed up view of humanity.
For you to cast aside the importance of her life and well being so casually, shows you are a sociopath.
Nice. Yay for humanity!
You have a funny definition of "legitimate".
You have justified the crime by saying if there is no reward for doing right, and no punishment for doing wrong, then it is justifiable to steal from another person? Keeping a lost wallet, when there is contact information in it, is indeed stealing. You are making a deliberate choice to keep something that could otherwise be placed in the hands of the owner. To basically disregard the negative effect on others for your own gain. You have no idea what kind of difficulties that person might be facing in their life already at the time and you are going to just shovel it on more.
To put it into a better context [of your own screwed up logic] for you, it's like finding a [lone woman] on the ground: you should [take her] to the [hospital], but frankly, aside from the [family and friends of the woman], who cares if you don't? You won't get punished for [raping her], but you might not get rewarded for it, whereas if you [rape her], the reward is guaranteed. After all, "Finders keepers, losers weepers!".
Agreed, that's like stealing someone's purse and then justifying it with "Well they should have held on to it tighter..."
Thanks for that. The world is a better place now. Please follow his next 3 posts to ensure grammar compliance.
Many FOBs can only unlock the door with the manual key, but won't start the car, so you're dead in the water.
His body double is also named after him as well. In itself having a body double indicates a significant level of paranoia, arguable whether or not it's justified paranoia.
I shelled out for TGE at a time when that was alot of money to me, and alot of time went into learning it. I hated the script, which was about the only thing thoroughly documented. The actual engine itself was poorly documented and questions about the engine usually got no attention. Then when they basically abandoned it and started creating more products instead of improving the existing engine, I had enough. This created fragmentation in the community and help system, such that some people move to other engines and no longer participate in the community of the original engine. Rather than improve the documentation and flesh out the details of the engine architecture over time, attention was turned to other $ generating products with new marketable names.
This really left a bad taste in my mouth. I believe there were other paths they could have taken to making 2D and RTS games easier, in a way that would have leveraged a single core engine to ensure the entire community was focused on improving the core.
Obviously I recognize it's their engine to do with as they please. They claim to be a different kind of company now, and I think some of the moves they've made show this to be potentially genuine, so good luck to them. I think the only thing that would really give me renewed interest is to see them do some self-reflection, publicly admit past problems, and talk about what philosophy they will have going forward to avoid those past problems. Are they going to have a long term commitment to this engine?
No one is shoving it down your throat. You know what Steam is. Don't buy games from it if you don't like risks involved and it leads you to fits of cussing and rage.
I don't like some aspects of the system, but I take the good with the bad. I think they'd be just as successful without the DRM. I buy games through steam just because it's alot simpler than going to the store+having to swap discs everytime I want to play a game. I love being able to sit down and very quickly get into a game without hassle.
If you have the same attitude, you tell all of your repair men and doctors to give up so easily. Sounds like the only thing doomed is you dooming yourself.