So I guess now, when some criminal shoots up an innocent bystander in the middle of the street, the cops aren't allowed to arrest him, because anything they saw is private?
WTF?
No expectation of privacy in a public street. Even at 4 AM.
You're not getting what I mean. I'm not meaning web/javascript popups that come up when you're browsing pr0n. I'm talking about the popup balloon indicators from the system tray, that come from programs already running on your computer.
They're afraid that something already running on their computer will install malicious software, without realizing that if this is the case, they're already infected.
You can say what you want about it being a weakling's Rugby, but I still think (American) Football would be really hard to play without using your feet.
By that logic, baseball, tennis, cricket, and even golf should all be renamed to football, and badminton should probably be renamed to footcock.
You're assuming that the police won't just come in with a warrant and seize everything, essentially shutting the business down until they realize they can't find what they're looking for. Which could take years.
Anyone will be available to connect, and the data will be on a cloud services. This was people can work, transfer via the cloud and no one will care if anyone is infected because it will only impact their devices. The cloud will manage any scanning needed.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life. Thinking like this is why there are nearly twice as many breached customer records as there are people in the US.
Imagine you've got a customer service manager, that has access to the entire customer database (which is stored "in the cloud"), because of their job position. Their personal laptop gets infected with a piece of data stealing malware. But..it doesn't matter, because it'll only infect their device, right? The cloud makes sure no database gets infected with malware, so it's perfectly safe, right? Now, you discover that the malware infecting the customer service manager's computer steals data and sends it off to a server in Russia. Your entire customer database has been forwarded to criminals, without the cloud noticing a single virus.
But (and my apologies) if this were a car, then similar expectations should exist such that a crash at any speed should be survivable and that the engine should never be able to overheat.
A car crash isn't really a good analogy for this situation, because that entails the car body absorbing several orders of magnitude more energy in a half a second than the vehicle's engine is capable of putting out during that same time period.
But, provided the engine cooling system is working properly, it should, in fact, never be able to overheat. The cooling system of a car should have enough capacity to cool the engine indefinitely at wide open throttle, in the most extreme environmental conditions the vehicle is likely to encounter. That means in temperatures of 115 F, with a tailwind, and still with cooling capacity to spare. If it can't, I'd say your car has a serious design flaw.
Use process explorer to find the owning process of the updater window. Then, viewing properties of that program will show you the parent process. This might give you a hint as to where it's being started from.
They aren't full-auto, though, and check for updates relatively seldom. And when Joe User sees a "please shutdown your browser to install update" right in the middle of his browsing session, he's going to click "nah, postpone" and forget all about it. Until next time the prompt pops up... in the middle of his browsing session. The Flash updater is notoriously lame, not offering a "retry" button.
The Flash updater runs at logon. I've never seen it pop up in a browsing session. I've seen it dozens of times pop up when the computer is first turned on. Considering that it takes all of 15 seconds to run, it's hardly excusable to do it later, when it won't even require a reboot at that point.
"can replace in use files" - I'll try to be reasonable here and ask this out of curiosity: I haven't fully used linux in years - are you telling me you can update the kernel live while logged in and without rebooting? If that's the case that's just damned impressive.
He said he was a devout christian. Their religion tells them not to care whether something is natural or good by its own. What matter is what the scriptures say, or what they can read them to say in the case of evangelists, or what the pope-...-priest/tradition says, in the case of catholics.
That's not Christianity. That's control of the masses that power hungry, holier-than-thou jerks frequently try to portray as Christianity. And since most people get everything they know - weather, politics, celebrity gossip, religion - from 30 second sound bites, they get away with it, because the vast majority don't know any better.
The Bible doesn't condemn sex. It celebrates it. Even oral sex, which most of those power hungry, holier-than-thou jerks say is straight from the devil himself.
There are certainly limitations on it, but they're meant to prevent the cheapening of the act, rather than as random control freakery. Car analogy time: That limited edition Porsche 996 GT3 RS is a fantastic car, which would be a great gift to receive from your parents for your graduation/wedding/promotion/divorce/death/whatever. But if they gave one out to everybody, and your entire street had one parked in every driveway, along with every other neighbourhood you visited, it wouldn't be as cool, would it? Your car would be the exact same as if you were the only one to have one, but it would be run of the mill boring, because you could never win a drag race against your neighbour anymore.
That's pretty much how the Bible treats sex. It's not something to be handed out to every Tom, Dick and Harry (Harriet?) because it's an incredible gift, meant to help build relationships.
...<sudden revelation>
That's actually where a lot of people screw up in what they think the Bible says about a subject. They get all hung up on the act itself; do this, don't do that, (can't you read the sign?). The Bible doesn't care about individual acts, for the most part. There's even a scripture that states everything is permissible. It then goes on, however, to say that not everything is beneficial. The Bible doesn't concentrate on acts, because it's more about relationships. If some act, sexual or otherwise, will build your relationships with your spouse, or those around you, then it's good. If it will harm or destroy those relationships, then it's bad. The exact same act can fall into either one of these categories, depending on the people in those relationships, and interconnections between them.
(Yes, this is very general, and there are more issues than just this oversimplification, but for the most part, that's it.)
It's a NIC. Do you really think someone who's so concerned about privacy is going to give a crap about the $12/$35 it'll cost to replace an under warranty wired/wireless NIC _if_ it dies?
Besides the fact that MAC addresses are not globally unique, regardless that they should be in theory, and the only thing that can track them is the subnet you actually connect to, which isn't discoverable to the TOR exit node......
This conversation is stupid. MAC addresses are not a privacy issue, unless you're connected to a subnet that you're not supposed to be, and doing something stupid.
The advent of spelling checker allows semi-retarded people to appear marginally intelligent. Except in cases like these. Without spelling checker, Timothy would be fucking things up every third word.
Really? That reads like one of those Google search results where some bot on a clickthrough search site fits a common search query into the phrase "Find _____ on eBay!"
Find start date of WWI on eBay! Find natural hair colour Britney Spears on eBay! Find Microsoft Exchange vulnerability on eBay!
Slashdot Mirror
It's also illegal to abuse a witness and smash their cellphone. What's your point?
So I guess now, when some criminal shoots up an innocent bystander in the middle of the street, the cops aren't allowed to arrest him, because anything they saw is private?
WTF?
No expectation of privacy in a public street. Even at 4 AM.
Don't be a douche.
Yeah, but flaming a troll is OK, in my books.
Not that my comment was the best flame, by any means.....
Well, that's what the developers get for shitty coding practices, and that's what the users get for relying on software written by (an) idiot(s).
I've never heard someone complain that source code wasn't released for Windows software.
That's because nobody provided source code to Microsoft for Windows under the GPL, dumbass.
You're not getting what I mean. I'm not meaning web/javascript popups that come up when you're browsing pr0n. I'm talking about the popup balloon indicators from the system tray, that come from programs already running on your computer.
They're afraid that something already running on their computer will install malicious software, without realizing that if this is the case, they're already infected.
You can say what you want about it being a weakling's Rugby, but I still think (American) Football would be really hard to play without using your feet.
By that logic, baseball, tennis, cricket, and even golf should all be renamed to football, and badminton should probably be renamed to footcock.
Virtual machines? Seriously?
I love how these idiots think throwing technology at it will fix the problem.
How exactly is a virtual machine supposed to prevent a keylogger on the VM host from capturing passwords in the VM?
Dual booting won't solve anything by itself, either, because there's no reason an infected home OS can't install malware into the business OS.
You're assuming that the police won't just come in with a warrant and seize everything, essentially shutting the business down until they realize they can't find what they're looking for. Which could take years.
Anyone will be available to connect, and the data will be on a cloud services. This was people can work, transfer via the cloud and no one will care if anyone is infected because it will only impact their devices. The cloud will manage any scanning needed.
This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard in my life. Thinking like this is why there are nearly twice as many breached customer records as there are people in the US.
Imagine you've got a customer service manager, that has access to the entire customer database (which is stored "in the cloud"), because of their job position. Their personal laptop gets infected with a piece of data stealing malware. But..it doesn't matter, because it'll only infect their device, right? The cloud makes sure no database gets infected with malware, so it's perfectly safe, right?
Now, you discover that the malware infecting the customer service manager's computer steals data and sends it off to a server in Russia. Your entire customer database has been forwarded to criminals, without the cloud noticing a single virus.
Oops.
But (and my apologies) if this were a car, then similar expectations should exist such that a crash at any speed should be survivable and that the engine should never be able to overheat.
A car crash isn't really a good analogy for this situation, because that entails the car body absorbing several orders of magnitude more energy in a half a second than the vehicle's engine is capable of putting out during that same time period.
But, provided the engine cooling system is working properly, it should, in fact, never be able to overheat. The cooling system of a car should have enough capacity to cool the engine indefinitely at wide open throttle, in the most extreme environmental conditions the vehicle is likely to encounter. That means in temperatures of 115 F, with a tailwind, and still with cooling capacity to spare.
If it can't, I'd say your car has a serious design flaw.
backs up her computer more frequently than most people,
So...she's done it once?
Why do governments love chasing what they can't catch?
Because then they can continually ask for more money to catch it. Duuh.
, or habitually hit Cancel when a prompt-to-update appears "because it's too much trouble right now", they have only themselves to blame.
That's nothing. I regularly run across people who cancel out of auto updates because "I think it might be installing a virus."
W....T....F?
Use process explorer to find the owning process of the updater window. Then, viewing properties of that program will show you the parent process. This might give you a hint as to where it's being started from.
They aren't full-auto, though, and check for updates relatively seldom. And when Joe User sees a "please shutdown your browser to install update" right in the middle of his browsing session, he's going to click "nah, postpone" and forget all about it. Until next time the prompt pops up... in the middle of his browsing session. The Flash updater is notoriously lame, not offering a "retry" button.
The Flash updater runs at logon. I've never seen it pop up in a browsing session. I've seen it dozens of times pop up when the computer is first turned on. Considering that it takes all of 15 seconds to run, it's hardly excusable to do it later, when it won't even require a reboot at that point.
"can replace in use files" - I'll try to be reasonable here and ask this out of curiosity: I haven't fully used linux in years - are you telling me you can update the kernel live while logged in and without rebooting? If that's the case that's just damned impressive.
Yes, you can.
He said he was a devout christian. Their religion tells them not to care whether something is natural or good by its own. What matter is what the scriptures say, or what they can read them to say in the case of evangelists, or what the pope-...-priest/tradition says, in the case of catholics.
That's not Christianity. That's control of the masses that power hungry, holier-than-thou jerks frequently try to portray as Christianity. And since most people get everything they know - weather, politics, celebrity gossip, religion - from 30 second sound bites, they get away with it, because the vast majority don't know any better.
The Bible doesn't condemn sex. It celebrates it. Even oral sex, which most of those power hungry, holier-than-thou jerks say is straight from the devil himself.
There are certainly limitations on it, but they're meant to prevent the cheapening of the act, rather than as random control freakery.
Car analogy time: That limited edition Porsche 996 GT3 RS is a fantastic car, which would be a great gift to receive from your parents for your graduation/wedding/promotion/divorce/death/whatever. But if they gave one out to everybody, and your entire street had one parked in every driveway, along with every other neighbourhood you visited, it wouldn't be as cool, would it? Your car would be the exact same as if you were the only one to have one, but it would be run of the mill boring, because you could never win a drag race against your neighbour anymore.
That's pretty much how the Bible treats sex. It's not something to be handed out to every Tom, Dick and Harry (Harriet?) because it's an incredible gift, meant to help build relationships.
That's actually where a lot of people screw up in what they think the Bible says about a subject. They get all hung up on the act itself; do this, don't do that, (can't you read the sign?). The Bible doesn't care about individual acts, for the most part. There's even a scripture that states everything is permissible. It then goes on, however, to say that not everything is beneficial.
The Bible doesn't concentrate on acts, because it's more about relationships. If some act, sexual or otherwise, will build your relationships with your spouse, or those around you, then it's good. If it will harm or destroy those relationships, then it's bad. The exact same act can fall into either one of these categories, depending on the people in those relationships, and interconnections between them.
(Yes, this is very general, and there are more issues than just this oversimplification, but for the most part, that's it.)
It's a NIC. Do you really think someone who's so concerned about privacy is going to give a crap about the $12/$35 it'll cost to replace an under warranty wired/wireless NIC _if_ it dies?
Besides the fact that MAC addresses are not globally unique, regardless that they should be in theory, and the only thing that can track them is the subnet you actually connect to, which isn't discoverable to the TOR exit node......
This conversation is stupid. MAC addresses are not a privacy issue, unless you're connected to a subnet that you're not supposed to be, and doing something stupid.
>luck directly into the son.
You think that "look" and "luck" are homophones? Really?
You're concerned about "look" and "luck", but not "two" and "to"? Really?
That being said, look/luck depends where you're from, and hence, what accent you speak with.
The advent of spelling checker allows semi-retarded people to appear marginally intelligent. Except in cases like these. Without spelling checker, Timothy would be fucking things up every third word.
Really? That reads like one of those Google search results where some bot on a clickthrough search site fits a common search query into the phrase "Find _____ on eBay!"
Find start date of WWI on eBay!
Find natural hair colour Britney Spears on eBay!
Find Microsoft Exchange vulnerability on eBay!
Did you're mom ever tell you knot two luck directly into the son?
FTFY.
Canada has a government?!
More like student council.
Heh. Just about as mature, too. :)
From page source:
<title>
YouTube
- Rick Astley - Never Gonna Give You Up
</title>
The perl GET command is a wonderful thing.
Honestly, I was expecting goatse. I never figured Osama was a Rick Astley fan...
Symantec security response is very good for technical details about malware. For infection rates, though, it's virtually useless.
For example, this is the same section from Symantec's site about the Stuxnet worm:
* Wild Level: Low
* Number of Infections: 0 - 49
* Number of Sites: 0 - 2
* Geographical Distribution: Low
* Threat Containment: Easy
* Removal: Easy
It matches your OSX worm example exactly. So according to Symantec, your OSX worm is just as damaging and widespread as Stuxnet.