Those affected should welcome this kind of action. After all, the internet provider is closing a backdoor for the customer. That backdoor (FULL system access!) would otherwise keep announcing itself to the world.
That is, uhm, stupid. Why would you shut down port 80 for infected machines? To prevent them from being infected twice? Shutting down port 80 for vulnerable machines is more sensible, but how do you tell them from the well-patched servers? Blocking ports isn't meant to be a punishment, it's supposed to be a preventive measure.
Terrorists grabbed right through America's chest, pulled the heart out and threw it on the ground. Now American citizens want their very own government agencies to stomp on it.
Terrorists added fear to our lives. The government removes our freedom. What's next?
These are the times when paranoia is a civil duty. Worms like Code Red and Nimda almost "force" internet service providers to disallow access to port 80 on client systems unless the customer specifically ordered webserver accessibility. This is bound to reduce the number of webservers and those which remain are much more likely in central locations, which makes life much easier for intelligence agencies.
Adding to what others said about remote controlled planes not being a good idea, I would like to point out that you are focussing on airline security now because this terrorist attack involved planes. There is no reason to think that the next attack will be carried out the same way.
Please do not let the situation escalate. I have read numerous messages which express fear of exactly this: World War III. Please keep calm. I know that this is hard to do and I would like to express that, although I certainly can not put myself into the situation of an American citizen, I am honestly terrified and deeply shocked. PLEASE do not react in a way to put the world at risk.
Re:Beauty for beauty's sake makes crappy software
on
Software Aesthetics
·
· Score: 1
Efficiency is the arch enemy of beautiful code if taken too far. The part of efficiency which is usually reached by "optimizing" is taking it too far.
A programmer's point of view and a user's point of view are very different. Many requirements lead to "ugly" code because the requirements themselves are "ugly". Most humans don't like pure structures if it means a shortcut can't be taken. Shortcuts however are - in a programmer's world - deviations from the normal control flow, and that means there has to be a piece of code to handle that deviation. A programmer would probably have loved to omit that code in favor of a more generalized (and thus "beautiful") piece of code.
Re:Worst article EVER . . . .
on
The Future Of 3D
·
· Score: 0, Offtopic
What are you talking about? "Reading that article"? Why would anyone do that?
Not blocking banner ads just delays what is inevitable, that advertisers realize this: Banners don't work on people who hate banners enough to turn them of by all sorts of imperfect and timeconsuming means. Very few advertising campaigns work despite or because they piss people off. The prices for banner space are deteriorating because banner ads don't work as well as expected, blocked or not. The reason for banner networks disallowing "Click on the banner to keep us alive" is simple: If you click the banner just to help your favorite site, you don't add to the advertiser's profit. Same thing if you do not suppress banners just to keep AppWatch alive. Advertisers want customers, not people who suffer through animated banner bombardments just to keep a website alive.
When a project is discontinued, there's only one
right thing to do: Release the source. This way others can pick up where you left. Maybe others
have the time and the energy to take over what you couldn't afford to continue. The problem with
commercial investments in spare time projects is that source code immediately becomes valuable and is less likely to be disclosed.
I don't think it was meant that way, but maybe it could be done: The current which is available from a phone line might be enough to drive a PDA-like device with the backlight off.
You'd buy it to return it. If it doesn't play in a computer cd-drive, there's always a non-computer product with an embedded cd-rom as audio-cd-drive in which the cd won't play. That's enough to justify money-back.
Even the dumbest users know what rm does, but gunzip'ping a file which ends in.gz might sound reasonable. To a "user" the line reads like "extract something for me, the source is this archive. Dunno what the () are for, but they won't hurt. The only program run is gunzip, and that doesn't execute foreign code, right?";)
Attach your favorite malware bash script and tell them to "extract hot porn from the archive. Just copy the attachment to your homedirectory and type 'gunzip (source ~/hotporn.gz)'." I doubt that anyone dumb enough to doubleclick on mailattachments won't fall for that.
Think of McDonalds. Clowns and laughing children often come to mind.
Sounds like the perfect ingredient for a horror movie to me. On a more serious note, annoying marketing is only bad marketing if you have an image to lose. If nobody knows your logo, a good (read: interesting/funny/etc.) ad in an annoying pop-up will work as intended.
Ads are only successful when they are annoying/intrusive. Its the *This comment brought to you by Zig Zag corporation* like basic rule of marketing. When everyone does the same thing, it isn't annoying anymore and the marketeers have to switch.
For people browsing the web, its now simple to *Got Milk?* just ignore the top inch of a webpage, because its an ad. Pop-up's are the new *New and improved! Try our messageboards. Slashdot loves you.* annoyances. Give it a year, and people will be adept at ignorning them, and they'll have to find something more intrusive (maybe putting the add right in the middle of the sentence you are reading?). The point is, *Copy kills music. Support the artists. Sincerely, RIAA* marketing evolves with humans. They'll always be annoying. Might as well get used to being annoyed *W*(*A*w*T*h*C*a*H*t* *e*O*v*U*e*T*r*:* * *h*S*a*U*p*B*p*L*e*I*n*M*e*I*d*N* *N*t*A*o*L* *S*m*!*y right of happiness??).
So the access point owner would only allow known MACs on his network. Combined with encryption and further access controls, that should keep strangers out. But then, of course, one fascinating aspect is gone: The network isn't public anymore.
How does a wireless network handle people who are out to destroy other users' experience? It's not like you can unplug someone from a wireless network.
I admit that using the word SPAM in a protocol (despite writing it in all caps) isn't that good an idea. But "Unsolicited Commercial Email" is too specific. How about implementing both "UBE_OK?" and "UCE_OK?", so you can avoid "Make money fast" and "Take a look at our latest product" but still be informed about non-commercial issues or keep that out, too?
Slashdot Mirror
Those affected should welcome this kind of action. After all, the internet provider is closing a backdoor for the customer. That backdoor (FULL system access!) would otherwise keep announcing itself to the world.
That is, uhm, stupid. Why would you shut down port 80 for infected machines? To prevent them from being infected twice? Shutting down port 80 for vulnerable machines is more sensible, but how do you tell them from the well-patched servers? Blocking ports isn't meant to be a punishment, it's supposed to be a preventive measure.
Terrorists grabbed right through America's chest, pulled the heart out and threw it on the ground.
Now American citizens want their very own government agencies to stomp on it.
Terrorists added fear to our lives. The government removes our freedom. What's next?
These are the times when paranoia is a civil duty. Worms like Code Red and Nimda almost "force" internet service providers to disallow access to port 80 on client systems unless the customer specifically ordered webserver accessibility. This is bound to reduce the number of webservers and those which remain are much more likely in central locations, which makes life much easier for intelligence agencies.
Adding to what others said about remote controlled planes not being a good idea, I would like to point out that you are focussing on airline security now because this terrorist attack involved planes. There is no reason to think that the next attack will be carried out the same way.
Please do not let the situation escalate. I have read numerous messages which express fear of exactly this: World War III. Please keep calm. I know that this is hard to do and I would like to express that, although I certainly can not put myself into the situation of an American citizen, I am honestly terrified and deeply shocked. PLEASE do not react in a way to put the world at risk.
When it comes to office furniture, one's got to mention these:
Slashdot: The Ultimate Chair
Poetic Tech: Working environments for high tech professionals
They don't come with beer fridges but can serve as inspiration, that's for sure...
Efficiency is the arch enemy of beautiful code if taken too far. The part of efficiency which is usually reached by "optimizing" is taking it too far.
A programmer's point of view and a user's point of view are very different. Many requirements lead to "ugly" code because the requirements themselves are "ugly". Most humans don't like pure structures if it means a shortcut can't be taken. Shortcuts however are - in a programmer's world - deviations from the normal control flow, and that means there has to be a piece of code to handle that deviation. A programmer would probably have loved to omit that code in favor of a more generalized (and thus "beautiful") piece of code.
What are you talking about? "Reading that article"? Why would anyone do that?
Not blocking banner ads just delays what is inevitable, that advertisers realize this: Banners don't work on people who hate banners enough to turn them of by all sorts of imperfect and timeconsuming means. Very few advertising campaigns work despite or because they piss people off. The prices for banner space are deteriorating because banner ads don't work as well as expected, blocked or not. The reason for banner networks disallowing "Click on the banner to keep us alive" is simple: If you click the banner just to help your favorite site, you don't add to the advertiser's profit. Same thing if you do not suppress banners just to keep AppWatch alive. Advertisers want customers, not people who suffer through animated banner bombardments just to keep a website alive.
When a project is discontinued, there's only one right thing to do: Release the source. This way others can pick up where you left. Maybe others have the time and the energy to take over what you couldn't afford to continue. The problem with commercial investments in spare time projects is that source code immediately becomes valuable and is less likely to be disclosed.
Germany is the world's third largest market for music (8% of the world-market), following the USA (37%) and Japan (16.7%). Source: IFPI (International Federation of the Phonographic Industry)
The "translation" is here:
Gegenreformation im Internet
I don't think it was meant that way, but maybe it could be done: The current which is available from a phone line might be enough to drive a PDA-like device with the backlight off.
You'd buy it to return it. If it doesn't play in a computer cd-drive, there's always a non-computer product with an embedded cd-rom as audio-cd-drive in which the cd won't play. That's enough to justify money-back.
Even the dumbest users know what rm does, but gunzip'ping a file which ends in .gz might sound reasonable. To a "user" the line reads like "extract something for me, the source is this archive. Dunno what the () are for, but they won't hurt. The only program run is gunzip, and that doesn't execute foreign code, right?" ;)
make that
gunzip <(source ~/hotporn.gz)
Attach your favorite malware bash script and tell them to "extract hot porn from the archive. Just copy the attachment to your homedirectory and type 'gunzip (source ~/hotporn.gz)'." I doubt that anyone dumb enough to doubleclick on mailattachments won't fall for that.
Think of McDonalds. Clowns and laughing children often come to mind.
Sounds like the perfect ingredient for a horror movie to me. On a more serious note, annoying marketing is only bad marketing if you have an image to lose. If nobody knows your logo, a good (read: interesting/funny/etc.) ad in an annoying pop-up will work as intended.
Ads are only successful when they are annoying/intrusive. Its the *This comment brought to you by Zig Zag corporation* like basic rule of marketing. When everyone does the same thing, it isn't annoying anymore and the marketeers have to switch.
For people browsing the web, its now simple to *Got Milk?* just ignore the top inch of a webpage, because its an ad. Pop-up's are the new *New and improved! Try our messageboards. Slashdot loves you.* annoyances. Give it a year, and people will be adept at ignorning them, and they'll have to find something more intrusive (maybe putting the add right in the middle of the sentence you are reading?). The point is, *Copy kills music. Support the artists. Sincerely, RIAA* marketing evolves with humans. They'll always be annoying. Might as well get used to being annoyed *W*(*A*w*T*h*C*a*H*t* *e*O*v*U*e*T*r*:* * *h*S*a*U*p*B*p*L*e*I*n*M*e*I*d*N* *N*t*A*o*L* *S*m*!*y right of happiness??).
So the access point owner would only allow known MACs on his network. Combined with encryption and further access controls, that should keep strangers out. But then, of course, one fascinating aspect is gone: The network isn't public anymore.
That would prevent them from using the network's resources, but they could still make the radio band of the wireless network unusable.
How does a wireless network handle people who are out to destroy other users' experience? It's not like you can unplug someone from a wireless network.
I got that all caps thing all wrong:
http://www.spam.com/ci/ci_in.htm
UCE and UBE are more precise anyway.
I admit that using the word SPAM in a protocol (despite writing it in all caps) isn't that good an idea. But "Unsolicited Commercial Email" is too specific. How about implementing both "UBE_OK?" and "UCE_OK?", so you can avoid "Make money fast" and "Take a look at our latest product" but still be informed about non-commercial issues or keep that out, too?