My computer illiterate friend was hit by the KAK worm virus. It executes an ActiveX control that was incorrectly marked safe-for-scripting by MS. This control allows the calling program to write to the hard disk.
It was a non-destructive virus that works on a calendar, so my friend didn't even know he had it on his computer. The e-mail it came in had no attachments. Just the HTML code in the signature that ran the virus (note that the code was invisible when viewing the message by normal means).
He ended up sending the virus to several people, and me and him had a hell of a time with a couple of other people who thought he did it intentionally (it's a long story about how I managed to get involved, e-mail me if you want to hear it).
Now it's MS's fault that such bugs were in place to begin with. It was my friend's fault that HTML was the set message sending format (the virus won't work with plain text messages). It was also my friends fault that he had no anti-virus software running, and his security settings were too low to catch the virus. And it was also his fault for never applying the patch from MS that keeps the virus from being able to run.
However, he was simply using the default settings because he didn't know how to change them. He never knew about a patch (and even if he did, he wouldn't be able to apply it).
I know one thing for sure is that he didn't intentionally send the virus to anyone. He never opened an attachment. He never saw a warning message.
The reason I'm writing this is because I saw a post or two saying that people who open a virus attachment after seeing a warning message are spreading the virus intentionally. Not all viruses are in the form of an attachment.
And finally, to those of you who are going to say something to the effect of: "You friend must have done it on purpose, because he's too stupid to be using a computer in the first place." Well I say "Get real." Not everyone can be a 733t h4>And I'll say it myself, he is extremely stupid with his computer. But that's no reason to say he must have intentionally propagated the virus if he opened it to begin with. Even with all this talk on the news about viruses being attached to your e-mail, it still doesn't sink into non-computer-nerds.
So what's the solution? I'd say we need to spend more effort on finding the original maker of the virus. But of course, that's not completely fair, because some people don't make viruses maliciously (some may do it for the hell of it and never expect it to be released into the word).
Maybe we should just investigate someone who sends a virus by looking at their history. If they're completely computer illiterate, they probably didn't mean to send it. Otherwise, investigate it a little closer. And finally, take it to court if it looks necessary.
Remember the Sega 32X? They stopped supporting it shortly after it came out. Remember the Sega CD? They stopped supporting it shortly after it came out. Remember the Sega Saturn? They stopped supporting it shortly after it came out. You know the Sega Dreamcast? I'm surprised they're still supporting it.
You know the Sony Playstation? They're still supporting that puppy with excellent games (in fact, they've lowered the prices on them so much they're all almost a steal). And guess what, the Sony Playstation games will still be supported on the Playstation 2.
The point I'm trying to make here is that Sega has had a history of poor support for their systems. Who cares about how superior their hardware is or isn't whenever their support sucks. Sony, on the other hand, has had a history of excellent support for their systems.
And Microsoft? Who knows. We haven't seen how well they do with consoles (they might surprise us all). Every argument I've read for or against them thus far has been based on speculation alone.
I started programming when I was 12. I got myself a book on ANSI C called Type and Learn C by Tom Swan. I'm sure it's a bit dated now, though.
When I was 14, I started in with C++. I've never owned a book on C++ and got all the info I needed off the web. I'm seventeen now and still learning and doing.
I never did anything but copy a few example BASIC programs from a book before I started with C. So the point I'm trying to make is: It probably isn't necessary to start them with a simpler language.
When they get the C syntax down and the basic stuff like conditionals, data types, pointers, arrays, etc., you may want to introduce them to C++. The reason being so they don't get too acquainted with C programming paradigms.
I've read about and experienced the rough transition to object oriented programming from too much procedural programming experience. That's the reason why many people say one should learn C++ from the start and skip learning C before hand.
I disagree with that, though; as many things are easier to learn when you're not concerning yourself with abstract objects and the like. Of course, that's just my opinion. I don't want to start a holy war here. I also wouldn't let them get to acquainted with the standard C library. That seemed to make it difficult for me to learn the standard C++ library (STL, streams, etc.).
I think I'd make sure they've got pointers down before you show them C++. Pointers are hard enough to learn (IMO), because a person often doesn't understand why they're needed at first. And then you start trying to explain to them the differences and similarities between pointers and references and when to use one or the other and it all comes crashing down.:-) Once again, though, that's just my experience. Please don't flame me if you've been coding since you were 6 months old and found pointers to be the easiest thing to grasp.:-)
And lastly: If they use Win98 exclusively, then I'd get them a copy of Visual C++ 6. It's a nice IDE with an easy-to-use but relatively powerful debugger. It can do simple, singe-file based projects just as well as it does large projects. And the Windows console subsystem makes the programs seem like they're running under DOS (so they don't have to make "hello world" show up in a window:-). I also think it would be good since they're already familiar with the Windows environment, and they wouldn't need to worry about doing trivial OS tasks. Just make sure they stay away from all that MFC and "ClassWizard" crap.:-)
I don't think I'd even mention the existence of Visual Basic to them.:-)
I wonder if setting up a satellite-based ISP on a boat or something in international waters would work.
Whoever owns the satellite will shut you down. The same concept discussed in post #127 applies here.
Even if you own the satellite, whichever backbone you connect into will pull your plug.
It seems we're slowly losing our freedoms these days. Put the frog in hot water, and it jumps out. Put the frog in cold water and heat it up slowly, and it will cook to death.
Most important, the dispute could influence who gains control of the human genetic blueprint and all the medical miracles that it is expected to generate: the public or a few drug and biotech companies.
It seems to me that this is going to be a problem no matter who wins this case. I know one thing for sure: I certainly wouldn't want a private corporation owning the genetic blueprint.
The article says "the public", but I don't think this would work. It would probably be the government who actually controls this stuff. That would be okay, but I'd much rather have some kind of international organization controlling it.
In my opinion, the federal government has full rights to the machine (because of the grants). It would just be nice if the technology / information could be shared equally with the entire world.
Of course, there's always the possibility that the government may lose this case. It would really suck to have some mega-corporation controlling the future of genetic technology.
Those who work at Microsoft are just trying to make ends meet. They do what their employer tells them, so they'll get a paycheck.
That may seem morally wrong to some of you, but I've found it's actually the way life is for most people (outside of the radical anti-MS / pro-Linux people).
Many people hate their employers, and Microsoft employees have even more reason to hate theirs. But that doesn't mean they can do anything about it. And that doesn't mean they can just quit their job and say to hell with their families and bills.
And they certainly shouldn't be punished for doing what's best for themselves and their families.
I don't want to get a flame war started here, but I'm afraid this is gona' piss a lot of people off...
Many people are in the software industry to make money. That may sound evil to a lot of/. readers, but it really isn't. The same America which provides our covenanted First Amendment rights also provides us with a free-market economy.
As a result of this type of system, the people end up running the economy. The only way to make money is to cater to the people. If the people choose to use an MS platform, then software companies who want to make money MUST make Windows versions of their apps top priority.
If the number of Linux and Windows users was switched, then Linux versions of software would be available first/only.
Now I'm not saying MS isn't wrong in doing what they're doing. I believe they are a monopolistic company with too much control over our free-market economy.
But that's beside the point.
The point I'm trying to make is that software developers who develop for Windows are just trying to make ends meet. They're not trying to feed the company. They're not trying to stomp out MS's competition.
In fact, I personally find the Win32 API annoying beyond all recognition. I hate it and MS's business practices. However, I develop for windows as a priority because it's what everyone uses.
I know that if everyone stopped writing Win32 software, then MS would be screwed. But that's never going to happen. MS will have to fall by some other means. Then developers will stop writing for Windows.
However, some blame can be shifted onto the departments deploying the MS products. They should recognize what the problems are with the software and inform the users.
They should also disable the feature in Outlook that allows it to automatically run VB scripts.
Outlook also, by default, displays an informative warning when clicking on an attachment. It explains the possibility of a virus and gives the user the option of opening it or saving it to disk. Unfortunately, the user can disable this warning by un-checking the little box at the bottom of the warning dialog.
Back to the point, though: The people deploying the MS products can disable automatic script execution as well as disable the running of scripts all together.
It's accessible through the menus in Internet Exploder: Tools -> Internet Options -> Security (tab) -> Custom Level (button).
I don't know about everyone else, but I instinctively go to the options menu every time I get a new piece of software up and running. You'd think these people who supposedly have degrees in this stuff would be able to figure out how to do something as simple as disabling script execution.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but without the Z-Buffer, 3D graphics in general wouldn't be where it is today.
How's my programming? Call 1-800-DEV-NULL
FYI: That number goes to a disconnected Avis Rent-A-Car line.
Has a phone number ever been slashdotted?
My computer illiterate friend was hit by the KAK worm virus. It executes an ActiveX control that was incorrectly marked safe-for-scripting by MS. This control allows the calling program to write to the hard disk.
It was a non-destructive virus that works on a calendar, so my friend didn't even know he had it on his computer. The e-mail it came in had no attachments. Just the HTML code in the signature that ran the virus (note that the code was invisible when viewing the message by normal means).
He ended up sending the virus to several people, and me and him had a hell of a time with a couple of other people who thought he did it intentionally (it's a long story about how I managed to get involved, e-mail me if you want to hear it).
Now it's MS's fault that such bugs were in place to begin with. It was my friend's fault that HTML was the set message sending format (the virus won't work with plain text messages). It was also my friends fault that he had no anti-virus software running, and his security settings were too low to catch the virus. And it was also his fault for never applying the patch from MS that keeps the virus from being able to run.
However, he was simply using the default settings because he didn't know how to change them. He never knew about a patch (and even if he did, he wouldn't be able to apply it).
I know one thing for sure is that he didn't intentionally send the virus to anyone. He never opened an attachment. He never saw a warning message.
The reason I'm writing this is because I saw a post or two saying that people who open a virus attachment after seeing a warning message are spreading the virus intentionally. Not all viruses are in the form of an attachment.
And finally, to those of you who are going to say something to the effect of: "You friend must have done it on purpose, because he's too stupid to be using a computer in the first place." Well I say "Get real." Not everyone can be a 733t h4>And I'll say it myself, he is extremely stupid with his computer. But that's no reason to say he must have intentionally propagated the virus if he opened it to begin with. Even with all this talk on the news about viruses being attached to your e-mail, it still doesn't sink into non-computer-nerds.
So what's the solution? I'd say we need to spend more effort on finding the original maker of the virus. But of course, that's not completely fair, because some people don't make viruses maliciously (some may do it for the hell of it and never expect it to be released into the word).
Maybe we should just investigate someone who sends a virus by looking at their history. If they're completely computer illiterate, they probably didn't mean to send it. Otherwise, investigate it a little closer. And finally, take it to court if it looks necessary.
// Spunkee
Remember the Sega 32X? They stopped supporting it shortly after it came out. Remember the Sega CD? They stopped supporting it shortly after it came out. Remember the Sega Saturn? They stopped supporting it shortly after it came out. You know the Sega Dreamcast? I'm surprised they're still supporting it.
You know the Sony Playstation? They're still supporting that puppy with excellent games (in fact, they've lowered the prices on them so much they're all almost a steal). And guess what, the Sony Playstation games will still be supported on the Playstation 2.
The point I'm trying to make here is that Sega has had a history of poor support for their systems. Who cares about how superior their hardware is or isn't whenever their support sucks. Sony, on the other hand, has had a history of excellent support for their systems.
And Microsoft? Who knows. We haven't seen how well they do with consoles (they might surprise us all). Every argument I've read for or against them thus far has been based on speculation alone.
// Spunkee
I started programming when I was 12. I got myself a book on ANSI C called Type and Learn C by Tom Swan. I'm sure it's a bit dated now, though.
When I was 14, I started in with C++. I've never owned a book on C++ and got all the info I needed off the web. I'm seventeen now and still learning and doing.
I never did anything but copy a few example BASIC programs from a book before I started with C. So the point I'm trying to make is: It probably isn't necessary to start them with a simpler language.
When they get the C syntax down and the basic stuff like conditionals, data types, pointers, arrays, etc., you may want to introduce them to C++. The reason being so they don't get too acquainted with C programming paradigms.
I've read about and experienced the rough transition to object oriented programming from too much procedural programming experience. That's the reason why many people say one should learn C++ from the start and skip learning C before hand.
I disagree with that, though; as many things are easier to learn when you're not concerning yourself with abstract objects and the like. Of course, that's just my opinion. I don't want to start a holy war here. I also wouldn't let them get to acquainted with the standard C library. That seemed to make it difficult for me to learn the standard C++ library (STL, streams, etc.).
I think I'd make sure they've got pointers down before you show them C++. Pointers are hard enough to learn (IMO), because a person often doesn't understand why they're needed at first. And then you start trying to explain to them the differences and similarities between pointers and references and when to use one or the other and it all comes crashing down. :-) Once again, though, that's just my experience. Please don't flame me if you've been coding since you were 6 months old and found pointers to be the easiest thing to grasp. :-)
And lastly: If they use Win98 exclusively, then I'd get them a copy of Visual C++ 6. It's a nice IDE with an easy-to-use but relatively powerful debugger. It can do simple, singe-file based projects just as well as it does large projects. And the Windows console subsystem makes the programs seem like they're running under DOS (so they don't have to make "hello world" show up in a window :-). I also think it would be good since they're already familiar with the Windows environment, and they wouldn't need to worry about doing trivial OS tasks. Just make sure they stay away from all that MFC and "ClassWizard" crap. :-)
I don't think I'd even mention the existence of Visual Basic to them. :-)
Good luck!
// Spunkee
I wonder if setting up a satellite-based ISP on a boat or something in international waters would work.
Whoever owns the satellite will shut you down. The same concept discussed in post #127 applies here.
Even if you own the satellite, whichever backbone you connect into will pull your plug.
It seems we're slowly losing our freedoms these days. Put the frog in hot water, and it jumps out. Put the frog in cold water and heat it up slowly, and it will cook to death.
We're the frogs.
// Spunkee
It seems to me that this is going to be a problem no matter who wins this case. I know one thing for sure: I certainly wouldn't want a private corporation owning the genetic blueprint.
The article says "the public", but I don't think this would work. It would probably be the government who actually controls this stuff. That would be okay, but I'd much rather have some kind of international organization controlling it.
In my opinion, the federal government has full rights to the machine (because of the grants). It would just be nice if the technology / information could be shared equally with the entire world.
Of course, there's always the possibility that the government may lose this case. It would really suck to have some mega-corporation controlling the future of genetic technology.
// Spunkee
Damn right!
It's not the people who work there that are evil (not the employees, Bill, or even the lawyers).
It's the corporation as a whole and the ever-present need / desire to make money.
// Spunkee
Those who work at Microsoft are just trying to make ends meet. They do what their employer tells them, so they'll get a paycheck.
That may seem morally wrong to some of you, but I've found it's actually the way life is for most people (outside of the radical anti-MS / pro-Linux people).
Many people hate their employers, and Microsoft employees have even more reason to hate theirs. But that doesn't mean they can do anything about it. And that doesn't mean they can just quit their job and say to hell with their families and bills.
And they certainly shouldn't be punished for doing what's best for themselves and their families.
// Spunkee
I don't want to get a flame war started here, but I'm afraid this is gona' piss a lot of people off...
Many people are in the software industry to make money. That may sound evil to a lot of /. readers, but it really isn't. The same America which provides our covenanted First Amendment rights also provides us with a free-market economy.
As a result of this type of system, the people end up running the economy. The only way to make money is to cater to the people. If the people choose to use an MS platform, then software companies who want to make money MUST make Windows versions of their apps top priority.
If the number of Linux and Windows users was switched, then Linux versions of software would be available first/only.
Now I'm not saying MS isn't wrong in doing what they're doing. I believe they are a monopolistic company with too much control over our free-market economy.
But that's beside the point.
The point I'm trying to make is that software developers who develop for Windows are just trying to make ends meet. They're not trying to feed the company. They're not trying to stomp out MS's competition.
In fact, I personally find the Win32 API annoying beyond all recognition. I hate it and MS's business practices. However, I develop for windows as a priority because it's what everyone uses.
I know that if everyone stopped writing Win32 software, then MS would be screwed. But that's never going to happen. MS will have to fall by some other means. Then developers will stop writing for Windows.
// Spunkee
However, some blame can be shifted onto the departments deploying the MS products. They should recognize what the problems are with the software and inform the users.
They should also disable the feature in Outlook that allows it to automatically run VB scripts.
Outlook also, by default, displays an informative warning when clicking on an attachment. It explains the possibility of a virus and gives the user the option of opening it or saving it to disk. Unfortunately, the user can disable this warning by un-checking the little box at the bottom of the warning dialog.
Back to the point, though: The people deploying the MS products can disable automatic script execution as well as disable the running of scripts all together.
It's accessible through the menus in Internet Exploder: Tools -> Internet Options -> Security (tab) -> Custom Level (button).
I don't know about everyone else, but I instinctively go to the options menu every time I get a new piece of software up and running. You'd think these people who supposedly have degrees in this stuff would be able to figure out how to do something as simple as disabling script execution.
// Spunkee