No they can't. That's a court's job, and courts have inevitably come down on the side of copyleft being completely enforceable when it's actually gone that far.
I noticed just today that Windows 7 was NOT using the standard EUI-64 (derived from MAC address) data in their auto-configured IPv6 addresses. Instead, the addresses seemed to be randomly generated. Maybe someone at Microsoft understood this issue ahead of time.
What? Microsoft understood something?! What are you thinking?! Of course they didn't understand it.
What really happened is that Microsoft either couldn't figure out how to generate an IP address including the MAC, or they didn't even read the RFC, and don't realize that's what's supposed to happen.
You're really good at putting words in people's mouths, then accusing them of being immature based on those words.
Never once did I say everyone has to drive as I do. Never once did I say I was the best driver in the world.
The direction my comment was going, which you completely misread, is that we've got way more morons on the road than good drivers, because driver testing sucks. Were we to get rid of the worst 90% of drivers, would mistakes still happen? Sure. But the type of mistake that a good driver makes is totally different than a crappy driver makes.
When a good driver realizes they're at the intersection they want to turn left at, but they're in the right hand lane, they modify their plan on the fly to drive past the intersection, and either turn around, or go around the block.
When a crappy driver realizes they're at the intersection they want to turn left at, but they're in the right hand lane, they do one of several things: - blast across multiple lanes of traffic without looking. - stop, with their left turn signal on, completely blocking traffic until someone lets them into the next lane...repeated for each lane. - turn left from one of the straight through lanes.
I've seen all of these, and every time I think the driver should be banned for life. Not because they made the initial mistake, but rather how they were incapable of reacting to it in a safe way.
The problem is, no driver testing checks for things like this. All instructions are given explicitly: "Turn left here.....change lanes here....parallel park here." You don't have to think to pass a driver's test. You just have to be able to physically perform the maneuvers. In other words, a shell script could do it. You're basically a robot reacting to button presses.
Ok...I'll give you that. I'm pretty sure all county roads in both Lambton and Middlesex are 90. Provincial highways in both counties are still 80.
I'm pretty sure I've seen other 90 limit county roads in the area, outside these two counties, but I can't remember where.
I grew up about 5 miles south of that first one just outside of Inwood, though, so I know the area, speed limits, and, most importantly, speed traps pretty well.:)
And now I live in London, so I'm pretty well acquainted with both counties.
Its not the excessive speeding that politicians are worried about their genius, its the sudden stop when a reckless driver careens into a minivan full of kids and moms.
You are either really young or very stupid.
And you're an obnoxious ass, but I don't let that bother me.
Not young. Not "get off my lawn" old, but certainly not young. Two kids, own my house...you figure it out. And as for stupid? No. 140+ IQ.
If the politicians are concerned about the reckless driver careening into said minivan, I have one question for them:
Why is your driver testing so crappy that said moron managed to get a driver's licence?
Consider this scenario:
Take away any single traffic law...
-Wait for traffic to clear before turning left.
-Stop for red lights.
-Drive on the right side of the road.
Doesn't matter which one. Just take one away, and assume that all other laws are followed perfectly. Then picture what our roads will be like without that single law.
People turning left across traffic? Chaos, accidents, death.
People not stopping for red lights? Chaos, accidents, death.
People driving wherever they want on the road? Chaos, accidents, death.
Now....take away speed limits. Again, assume that all other laws are followed to a T.
What happens?
Well.....nothing. Everybody gets where they're going faster, is all.
There are only two things speed can actually do related to accidents.
1. Make an accident worse that was going to happen anyway. 2. Be a catalyst to an accident, due to not having time to react to avoid someone doing something stupid.
Either way, something else has to happen in order for speed to be related to an accident.
So, we can lower speeds, and eliminate some accidents, and lessen the severity of some more, but still leave some exactly as they were. Or, we can eliminate the other stupid driving problems, and eliminate _all_ accidents completely.
Why the hell are we going after speed limits so hard?
Lambton and Middlesex Counties are both 90 km/h for all (most?) county roads. Provincial highways that didn't get downloaded under Harris are still 80 km/h. But all the roads that changed to county ownership immediately went up to 90, with no changes to the road at all, and guess what? Accident rates didn't budge.
Oh, I realize it's probably signed very well (don't live in the area, but I have looked at your helpfully provided pics. Thanks.) but this is idiot drivers we're talking about.
I was heading toward a construction zone a couple of years back....orange signs and pylons all over the place. And I mean the big 4 foot tall pylons, not the little megaphone shaped ones.... My lane keeps going, the next one to me ends. Guy driving beside me in the ending lane while we pass the first construction sign...no change in speed.
Second construction sign...no change in speed. Lane closure ahead sign...no change in speed.
We were no more than 70 feet from hundreds of orange markers when this guy suddenly slams on his brakes and cranks the wheel over to get in behind me. There was no traffic ahead of us, and on a perfectly straight, level road, so nothing at all blocking his view. You could see the amount of orange from a kilometer back. But this guy waits until the last possible second to react, and react violently.
I can only assume that he didn't see any of it. But he had to be watching the road, or he wouldn't have stayed in his own lane for that long.
It has been proven many times over, the slower you go in a built up area, the less critical and minor accidents occur.
Among all drivers? Or only the crappy ones?
All those studies are biased in their selection, in that only people who get into accidents are selected.
They don't prove that accidents happen because of speed. They prove that people who are likely to get into accidents are more likely to get into accidents at higher speeds. They demonstrate nothing about drivers who are not likely to get into accidents in the first place.
Roads are built to code, they are designed to handle cars at the speed politicians have set with a margin for idiots.
That's what they want you to think. But consider this:
Roads were designed and speed limits set in most cases over 50 years ago, when cars were much larger and heavier, in a lot of cases had 4 wheel drum brakes (read: can't stop for shit) poorer tires, poorer handling, poorer visibility, etc.etc.etc. Now, we have smaller cars, 4 wheel anti-lock disc brakes, traction control, proximity warning systems, low profile tires and improved suspensions for better handling, acres of canopy glass....and piles of stuff I haven't thought of.
Now....with all those changes, you're telling me that the maximum safe speed on a given roadway hasn't changed at all in 50 years?
Yes, there are more cars on the road now, too, but freeways have also been widened in most cases since then.
Let's look at it another way:
In SW Ontario, there are a lot of county roads that have speed limits of 90 km/h. These roads have driveways, stop signs, intersections, no minimum speed limits, and allow bicycles, tractors, and other slow moving traffic, not to mention having opposing traffic only 3-4 feet away in the opposing lane, moving at a relative 180 km/h.
You can get onto a freeway, and eliminate all those dangers, and it significantly increases the safe speed you can drive, to.....100 km/h.
So, you get rid of all that stuff, and it's only safe to drive 10 km/h faster? Who's kidding who?
Probably at least some of those scars are from people who didn't see the advisory sign, and didn't notice the corner until they'd already hit the wall.....
In Ontario, they're ridiculously low, too. Generally what I do is double it and add 10, and then you're taking the corner at a reasonable speed for dry pavement conditions, but not pushing really hard.
I've seen advisory speeds for 30 km/h. Yes, 30 _kilometres_ per hour. That's 18.5 MPH. This corner:
has such an advisory speed. I've successfully taken it, without undue stress, at 80 km/h in several different full size GM vehicles, none with sport suspension, or any particular handling prowess. And this is without leaving my lane, too.
I'm sure if I took it in a sports car I could easily do it at 100, and an original rubber ball suspension Mini would probably be able to take it at 130 or so. But the legal speed limit on this road is only 80 km/h (50 MPH). So the local government is setting the maximum speed limit at the speed that this corner (the tightest on this stretch of road) can be taken at, then lowering the advisory speed for this corner by over 60%.
The slow, oblivious drivers never look in their mirrors, so a light on your front plate would never be seen. Likely they don't even know your car is there.
In that case, rocket launchers, machine guns, or some other type of offensive weaponry behind the headlights would be much more effective. Think early James Bond, or XXX. (Not porn, you bunch of wankers. The Vin Diesel movie!)
make all legislators, state and local, wear those garish advertisement suits (like the Nascar idiots).
That's not advertising, it's sponsorship. Entirely different thing, just like campaign contributions and bribery.
So, those "garish advertisement suits" should clearly show every company who's money the politico thinks is more important than his constituents opinions.
Sounds like a great idea. People will know who to blame when things go sideways.
Funny, the first thing I thought of when I saw that quote:
'From Verizon's perspective, the last thing you want is for another generation of consumers to be conditioned to the idea that data is always going to be uncapped.'"
was this:
"From Verizon's perspective, the last thing you want is for another generation of consumers to be conditioned to the idea that they might actually get something in return for all the money they give us."
Do people with iPads still type slower on its virtual keyboard than you write in your little notebook,
Are you kidding? Virtual keyboards are the worst thing ever for typing speed. Without the physical feedback, you can't even tell if you're hitting the key properly without watching the keyboard all the time, or waiting until you've made a mistake, and having to go back and fix it. Without a real, physical keyboard, you can't touch type at all, and that's the fastest way to type.
I figured it would be all the time they spent on Facebook, instead of studying, learning, being kids, and whatever we used to do when a computer cost six grand.
PS. Get off my lawn.
(Yeah, yeah...I was lucky to have a computer at any price. You had to build your own abacus from a kit that cost ten grand.....no..wait...you had to carve your own abacus kit bits with stone tools.....no...wait.....you had to wait for the primordial soup to simmer before trees even existed...)
If a bad patch is released, that blue-screens 10% of home user systems, what the heck difference does it make whether it was released on the second Tuesday of the month, or the last Friday? It's still going to blue-screen the machines, because home users - surprise, surprise - don't test patches before they're auto installed.
And as far as the 300 people in the fictitious org continually testing and retesting... Do you not have to test if patches are released once a month? Or did you just not read a thing of what I posted? Those who wish to schedule updates on a once a month basis already have the tools from Microsoft to do it. Why should Microsoft then delay updates to those who _don't_ want to schedule updates, just because the whiners are too lazy to use the tools already provided? Sure, if they needed to do full testing of every single patch that comes out, it's a lot of work. But they could make the choice to do it once a month, rather than every 2-3 days, if patches were released with no schedule. That's their choice. But it's not a decision that I would make, and I don't have the option of doing what I want, because of Microsoft's stupid patch release schedule.
In the worst case scenario of non-scheduled patches, you're right: the organization can never patch up to date. But with scheduled updates, they can never patch up to date, either, because they test everything after it's released. Not only that, but they don't even have the option of staying up to date without testing, because Microsoft holds onto patches for as long as a month, because some whiney blowhard doesn't want to have to deal with WSUS.
Then you tell me to "STFU and stop blaming the cautious among us." In my opinion, "the cautious among us" are the ones that apply security updates as soon as possible, so some chinese/russian/whatever hacker can't get into my system tomorrow. You're leaving it open, because "this patch might damage my precious uptime!" That's not cautious, that's lame.
And if your in-house apps are so fragile that any given security patch might cause them to completely fall over broken, then you need to fire your programmers, and do some hiring. The only reason a patch should break an app like that is if it's fixing a design flaw of Windows, rather than a programming error. And the number of design flaw patches for Windows is minuscule. The only one I remember in recent memory was this one:
and you still have to actually enable the new functionality by a registry edit. Not exactly something that's going to randomly bork dozens of well-written internal apps.
But that's their choice. If everybody else wants to be secure, they can be, and to hell with the whiney "we can't do this more than once a month, because we're incompetent" corporations. Those corporations can queue updates themselves, if they want. Everything released in the last month gets tested.
Everybody else should have the option of installing the updates as soon as they're finished.
But, as usual, the security-idiot blowhards get to dictate policy for the rest of the world.
I live in a country (Canada) that uses litres/100km. I can never make sense of it. I know a lower number is better, but is 10 good? Is 5 good?
I still think in MPG, even though Canada's used it for decades. And I'm only 35, so it's not like I used MPG with the rest of the country and just refused to change.
It just makes more sense in my head to measure distance per unit of fuel, rather than fuel per unit of distance.
Slashdot Mirror
No they can't. That's a court's job, and courts have inevitably come down on the side of copyleft being completely enforceable when it's actually gone that far.
I noticed just today that Windows 7 was NOT using the standard EUI-64 (derived from MAC address) data in their auto-configured IPv6 addresses. Instead, the addresses seemed to be randomly generated. Maybe someone at Microsoft understood this issue ahead of time.
What? Microsoft understood something?! What are you thinking?! Of course they didn't understand it.
What really happened is that Microsoft either couldn't figure out how to generate an IP address including the MAC, or they didn't even read the RFC, and don't realize that's what's supposed to happen.
Microsoft understood the issue.
Sheesh.
You're really good at putting words in people's mouths, then accusing them of being immature based on those words.
Never once did I say everyone has to drive as I do. Never once did I say I was the best driver in the world.
The direction my comment was going, which you completely misread, is that we've got way more morons on the road than good drivers, because driver testing sucks. Were we to get rid of the worst 90% of drivers, would mistakes still happen? Sure. But the type of mistake that a good driver makes is totally different than a crappy driver makes.
When a good driver realizes they're at the intersection they want to turn left at, but they're in the right hand lane, they modify their plan on the fly to drive past the intersection, and either turn around, or go around the block.
When a crappy driver realizes they're at the intersection they want to turn left at, but they're in the right hand lane, they do one of several things:
- blast across multiple lanes of traffic without looking.
- stop, with their left turn signal on, completely blocking traffic until someone lets them into the next lane...repeated for each lane.
- turn left from one of the straight through lanes.
I've seen all of these, and every time I think the driver should be banned for life. Not because they made the initial mistake, but rather how they were incapable of reacting to it in a safe way.
The problem is, no driver testing checks for things like this. All instructions are given explicitly:
"Turn left here.....change lanes here....parallel park here."
You don't have to think to pass a driver's test. You just have to be able to physically perform the maneuvers. In other words, a shell script could do it. You're basically a robot reacting to button presses.
Ok...I'll give you that. I'm pretty sure all county roads in both Lambton and Middlesex are 90. Provincial highways in both counties are still 80.
I'm pretty sure I've seen other 90 limit county roads in the area, outside these two counties, but I can't remember where.
I grew up about 5 miles south of that first one just outside of Inwood, though, so I know the area, speed limits, and, most importantly, speed traps pretty well. :)
And now I live in London, so I'm pretty well acquainted with both counties.
Its not the excessive speeding that politicians are worried about their genius, its the sudden stop when a reckless driver careens into a minivan full of kids and moms.
You are either really young or very stupid.
And you're an obnoxious ass, but I don't let that bother me.
Not young. Not "get off my lawn" old, but certainly not young. Two kids, own my house...you figure it out.
And as for stupid? No. 140+ IQ.
If the politicians are concerned about the reckless driver careening into said minivan, I have one question for them:
Why is your driver testing so crappy that said moron managed to get a driver's licence?
Consider this scenario:
Take away any single traffic law...
-Wait for traffic to clear before turning left.
-Stop for red lights.
-Drive on the right side of the road.
Doesn't matter which one. Just take one away, and assume that all other laws are followed perfectly.
Then picture what our roads will be like without that single law.
People turning left across traffic? Chaos, accidents, death.
People not stopping for red lights? Chaos, accidents, death.
People driving wherever they want on the road? Chaos, accidents, death.
Now....take away speed limits. Again, assume that all other laws are followed to a T.
What happens?
Well.....nothing. Everybody gets where they're going faster, is all.
There are only two things speed can actually do related to accidents.
1. Make an accident worse that was going to happen anyway.
2. Be a catalyst to an accident, due to not having time to react to avoid someone doing something stupid.
Either way, something else has to happen in order for speed to be related to an accident.
So, we can lower speeds, and eliminate some accidents, and lessen the severity of some more, but still leave some exactly as they were.
Or, we can eliminate the other stupid driving problems, and eliminate _all_ accidents completely.
Why the hell are we going after speed limits so hard?
Lambton and Middlesex Counties are both 90 km/h for all (most?) county roads. Provincial highways that didn't get downloaded under Harris are still 80 km/h.
But all the roads that changed to county ownership immediately went up to 90, with no changes to the road at all, and guess what? Accident rates didn't budge.
So..you suspect exaggeration, do you?
Well:
Courtright line. Runs east-west just south of Inwood:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=inwood+ontario&sll=49.891235,-97.15369&sspn=25.940006,86.572266&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Inwood,+Lambton+County,+Ontario&ll=42.805626,-81.982405&spn=0.003597,0.010568&t=h&z=17&layer=c&cbll=42.80563,-81.982196&panoid=5eA9yjZd-xLJQCzE-oqPjw&cbp=12,83.29,,0,5
Petrolia Line. Runs east-west through Petrolia:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=6544+petrolia+line&sll=42.805626,-81.982201&sspn=0.003629,0.010568&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=6544+Petrolia+Line,+Brooke-Alvinston,+Lambton+County,+Ontario+N0N+1K0&ll=42.879093,-81.982298&spn=0.007186,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.879091,-81.982178&panoid=J1boEWzIiyGeKuVRn1E02g&cbp=12,88.56,,0,5.55
Nauvoo Road. Runs north-south through Alvinston. Might need to go fullscreen to see this one, as the sign is a little further away:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=3000+Nauvoo+Road,+Ontario&sll=42.879093,-81.982169&sspn=0.007249,0.021136&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=3000+Nauvoo+Rd,+Brooke-Alvinston,+Lambton+County,+Ontario+N0N+1A0&ll=42.805556,-81.869752&spn=0.007194,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.805938,-81.869748&panoid=0PbyjNlJ6ESz5OlXiCY4Pw&cbp=12,195.39,,0,3.26
Glendon Drive. Heads east out of Glencoe, eventually reaching London:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=3986+Glendon+Drive,+Ontario&sll=42.805933,-81.869752&sspn=0.007257,0.021136&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=3986+Glendon+Dr,+Southwest+Middlesex,+Middlesex+County,+Ontario+N0L+1M0&ll=42.75853,-81.702383&spn=0.0072,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.758668,-81.702192&panoid=Wus3PZtNFatzgf1OpaokkQ&cbp=12,79.71,,0,5.27
Shaw Road. East of London, runs north-south between highway 2 and the Thames River:
Oh, I realize it's probably signed very well (don't live in the area, but I have looked at your helpfully provided pics. Thanks.) but this is idiot drivers we're talking about.
I was heading toward a construction zone a couple of years back....orange signs and pylons all over the place. And I mean the big 4 foot tall pylons, not the little megaphone shaped ones.... My lane keeps going, the next one to me ends.
Guy driving beside me in the ending lane while we pass the first construction sign...no change in speed.
Second construction sign...no change in speed.
Lane closure ahead sign...no change in speed.
We were no more than 70 feet from hundreds of orange markers when this guy suddenly slams on his brakes and cranks the wheel over to get in behind me.
There was no traffic ahead of us, and on a perfectly straight, level road, so nothing at all blocking his view. You could see the amount of orange from a kilometer back. But this guy waits until the last possible second to react, and react violently.
I can only assume that he didn't see any of it. But he had to be watching the road, or he wouldn't have stayed in his own lane for that long.
It has been proven many times over, the slower you go in a built up area, the less critical and minor accidents occur.
Among all drivers? Or only the crappy ones?
All those studies are biased in their selection, in that only people who get into accidents are selected.
They don't prove that accidents happen because of speed. They prove that people who are likely to get into accidents are more likely to get into accidents at higher speeds. They demonstrate nothing about drivers who are not likely to get into accidents in the first place.
Roads are built to code, they are designed to handle cars at the speed politicians have set with a margin for idiots.
That's what they want you to think. But consider this:
Roads were designed and speed limits set in most cases over 50 years ago, when cars were much larger and heavier, in a lot of cases had 4 wheel drum brakes (read: can't stop for shit) poorer tires, poorer handling, poorer visibility, etc.etc.etc.
Now, we have smaller cars, 4 wheel anti-lock disc brakes, traction control, proximity warning systems, low profile tires and improved suspensions for better handling, acres of canopy glass....and piles of stuff I haven't thought of.
Now....with all those changes, you're telling me that the maximum safe speed on a given roadway hasn't changed at all in 50 years?
Yes, there are more cars on the road now, too, but freeways have also been widened in most cases since then.
Let's look at it another way:
In SW Ontario, there are a lot of county roads that have speed limits of 90 km/h. These roads have driveways, stop signs, intersections, no minimum speed limits, and allow bicycles, tractors, and other slow moving traffic, not to mention having opposing traffic only 3-4 feet away in the opposing lane, moving at a relative 180 km/h.
You can get onto a freeway, and eliminate all those dangers, and it significantly increases the safe speed you can drive, to.....100 km/h.
So, you get rid of all that stuff, and it's only safe to drive 10 km/h faster? Who's kidding who?
Probably at least some of those scars are from people who didn't see the advisory sign, and didn't notice the corner until they'd already hit the wall.....
In Ontario, they're ridiculously low, too. Generally what I do is double it and add 10, and then you're taking the corner at a reasonable speed for dry pavement conditions, but not pushing really hard.
I've seen advisory speeds for 30 km/h. Yes, 30 _kilometres_ per hour. That's 18.5 MPH.
This corner:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=newbury+ontario&sll=43.260206,-79.932404&sspn=0.472046,1.352692&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Newbury,+Middlesex+County,+Ontario&ll=42.705966,-81.835721&spn=0.007443,0.021136&t=h&z=16&layer=c&cbll=42.706013,-81.835838&panoid=lC7azMErD58DPgRaFESakA&cbp=12,134.74,,0,16.37
has such an advisory speed.
I've successfully taken it, without undue stress, at 80 km/h in several different full size GM vehicles, none with sport suspension, or any particular handling prowess. And this is without leaving my lane, too.
I'm sure if I took it in a sports car I could easily do it at 100, and an original rubber ball suspension Mini would probably be able to take it at 130 or so. But the legal speed limit on this road is only 80 km/h (50 MPH). So the local government is setting the maximum speed limit at the speed that this corner (the tightest on this stretch of road) can be taken at, then lowering the advisory speed for this corner by over 60%.
The slow, oblivious drivers never look in their mirrors, so a light on your front plate would never be seen. Likely they don't even know your car is there.
In that case, rocket launchers, machine guns, or some other type of offensive weaponry behind the headlights would be much more effective. Think early James Bond, or XXX. (Not porn, you bunch of wankers. The Vin Diesel movie!)
That's not advertising, it's sponsorship. Entirely different thing, just like campaign contributions and bribery.
So, those "garish advertisement suits" should clearly show every company who's money the politico thinks is more important than his constituents opinions.
Sounds like a great idea. People will know who to blame when things go sideways.
Funny, the first thing I thought of when I saw that quote:
'From Verizon's perspective, the last thing you want is for another generation of consumers to be conditioned to the idea that data is always going to be uncapped.'"
was this:
"From Verizon's perspective, the last thing you want is for another generation of consumers to be conditioned to the idea that they might actually get something in return for all the money they give us."
There. Fixed that for you.
Do people with iPads still type slower on its virtual keyboard than you write in your little notebook,
Are you kidding? Virtual keyboards are the worst thing ever for typing speed. Without the physical feedback, you can't even tell if you're hitting the key properly without watching the keyboard all the time, or waiting until you've made a mistake, and having to go back and fix it. Without a real, physical keyboard, you can't touch type at all, and that's the fastest way to type.
Holy shit, the parents are responsible?!?!?!
No. RTFA. The parents are NOT responsible. That's the problem. Duh.
I figured it would be all the time they spent on Facebook, instead of studying, learning, being kids, and whatever we used to do when a computer cost six grand.
PS. Get off my lawn.
(Yeah, yeah...I was lucky to have a computer at any price. You had to build your own abacus from a kit that cost ten grand.....no..wait...you had to carve your own abacus kit bits with stone tools.....no...wait.....you had to wait for the primordial soup to simmer before trees even existed...)
This entire post is completely irrelevant shit.
If a bad patch is released, that blue-screens 10% of home user systems, what the heck difference does it make whether it was released on the second Tuesday of the month, or the last Friday?
It's still going to blue-screen the machines, because home users - surprise, surprise - don't test patches before they're auto installed.
And as far as the 300 people in the fictitious org continually testing and retesting...
Do you not have to test if patches are released once a month? Or did you just not read a thing of what I posted?
Those who wish to schedule updates on a once a month basis already have the tools from Microsoft to do it. Why should Microsoft then delay updates to those who _don't_ want to schedule updates, just because the whiners are too lazy to use the tools already provided? Sure, if they needed to do full testing of every single patch that comes out, it's a lot of work. But they could make the choice to do it once a month, rather than every 2-3 days, if patches were released with no schedule. That's their choice. But it's not a decision that I would make, and I don't have the option of doing what I want, because of Microsoft's stupid patch release schedule.
In the worst case scenario of non-scheduled patches, you're right: the organization can never patch up to date.
But with scheduled updates, they can never patch up to date, either, because they test everything after it's released. Not only that, but they don't even have the option of staying up to date without testing, because Microsoft holds onto patches for as long as a month, because some whiney blowhard doesn't want to have to deal with WSUS.
Then you tell me to "STFU and stop blaming the cautious among us."
In my opinion, "the cautious among us" are the ones that apply security updates as soon as possible, so some chinese/russian/whatever hacker can't get into my system tomorrow. You're leaving it open, because "this patch might damage my precious uptime!" That's not cautious, that's lame.
And if your in-house apps are so fragile that any given security patch might cause them to completely fall over broken, then you need to fire your programmers, and do some hiring.
The only reason a patch should break an app like that is if it's fixing a design flaw of Windows, rather than a programming error. And the number of design flaw patches for Windows is minuscule. The only one I remember in recent memory was this one:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/968389
and you still have to actually enable the new functionality by a registry edit. Not exactly something that's going to randomly bork dozens of well-written internal apps.
But that's their choice.
If everybody else wants to be secure, they can be, and to hell with the whiney "we can't do this more than once a month, because we're incompetent" corporations. Those corporations can queue updates themselves, if they want. Everything released in the last month gets tested.
Everybody else should have the option of installing the updates as soon as they're finished.
But, as usual, the security-idiot blowhards get to dictate policy for the rest of the world.
they did some things 40 years ago that even teens today would probably think were really insane.
And probably did them without seatbelts, too....
I always check has codes. Not that they aren't relatively easily worked around, considering most developers are still using MD5.
Unless your MS and you'll do whatever it takes to own the market...
You mean: :)
Unless your MS and youll do whatever it takes.
Or maybe:
Unless my MS what?
I'm not usually such a grammar nazi, but it's kind of unusual to see one incorrect usage, and one correct usage within 4 words of each other.
going from 10 Gallon/Mile to 8 Gallon/Mile
How's your front suspension holding up under that 1650 cubic inch Merlin V12?
I live in a country (Canada) that uses litres/100km. I can never make sense of it. I know a lower number is better, but is 10 good? Is 5 good?
I still think in MPG, even though Canada's used it for decades. And I'm only 35, so it's not like I used MPG with the rest of the country and just refused to change.
It just makes more sense in my head to measure distance per unit of fuel, rather than fuel per unit of distance.