Bikers have concealed melee wepons or small arms; gamers don't.
Of course. Gamers tend to carry their huge 14 foot long plasma cannon rifles right out in the open, because they're usually protected by multi-layer self-powered shielded body armour, so nobody can touch them, anyway.
You come to the defence of the American auto industry, and you'll be flamed and modded down by a bunch of fanatics who brag about the legendary quality and safety of Toyota, and how the Americans will never have anything even close to their reliability.....:-/
Internet Explorer can run any ActiveX control. Many Microsoft-signed controls get run automatically when requested, even with security settings set to disable automatic running of ActiveX.
For example ?
Take a look in the addin configuration for Internet Explorer 7 or 8.
There's a specific list of addins that run without requiring permission.
There is not a shred of evidence that suggests the bug resulted *because* MS was trying to preserve backwards compatibility.
As it happens, there was no development done on that specific component and thus a bug in the version 1.0 got carried forwarded to Version 6.0. This is *not* because of backwards compatibility.
Excuse me?
A security bug in the DOS VM isn't due to backwards compatibility requirements?
The need for the DOS virtual machine to exist AT ALL, is due to the requirement for backwards compatibility.
There's a difference between running third party plugins, and running operating system components.
Internet Explorer can run any ActiveX control. Many Microsoft-signed controls get run automatically when requested, even with security settings set to disable automatic running of ActiveX.
The Windows OS comes with hundreds of ActiveX controls, all of which can have security problems, and can affect any file on the system, given appropriate access rights.
This is all in a default Windows install.
Other browsers and third party plugins aren't even in the same league.
You don't need Internet Explorer to run an ActiveX control, as they're supported natively by the system. Without UAC on Vista/7, ActiveX controls in IE run at the same privilege level as any other user process, because they actually DO run natively on the system.
A mid 80s domestic could have had a similar electronic ignition module on the engine. But that's not the actual engine control computer - it's a few solid state bits and the ignition coil.
The computer that actually sends the signal to fire the thing is still under the dash.
Although you might be right with it being an optional component, but since it's tied into airbags, ignition, and probably other systems, I doubt you could just unplug the module and the car would still run properly.
But then, I had to replace the computer in my Camaro a little while ago, and there was a different computer for the automatic transmission version than the manual version. Not just an extra module plugged in, but the wires that went to the transmission to control shifts on the automatic didn't even have a connector to plug into on the manual transmission computer.
I've seen a case where disconnecting a seized up rear wiper motor caused the car to miss and run roughly. On a car without OnStar, it's probably got some kind of bus terminator type thing that plugs in instead of the OnStar module, if it's not a completely different (maybe internally modular, but still different) computer.
Although, since this is purely speculation - although based on experience - I could be completely wrong, and you could just unplug the separate and nicely labelled OnStar module with the cable running to the engine computer that's labelled "Unplug this cable here to disable OnStar."
I'd be willing to bet that the OnStar system is controlled by the same computer that controls your ignition, fuel injection, and transmission shift points.
Meaning....cut power to OnStar, and the car won't start.
Cutting the antennas might be the only way to do it.
Every relatively modern car I've ever seen has had the engine computer located under the dash.
The only exception to this that I've seen is my brother's 1977 Mercury Monarch, which has an electronic ignition module mounted on the inside of one fender. The rest of the system, though, - fuel, timing, etc. - is all old school. Carburetor, distributor, etc.
You're an AC. I don't really give a crap what you perceive to be my embarrassment. I get joking. I've got one of the best senses of humour of anybody I know. Unfortunately, with the way the comment was worded, it did not come across as tongue-in-cheek. It came across as "any female part that doesn't directly give me (implied: sexual) pleasure is unnecessary." That's not tongue-in-cheek. That's rude, sexist, and selfish.
Or course it has no logical connection to what you said. This is politics we're talking about. It has no logical connection to anything.
There are useless laws, and they should be repealed, but then the powers that be couldn't use them to harass political opponents when they needed something, so they'll never disappear.
The writers of the Constitution knew there would be corruption, stupid laws, and the like. That's why they wrote the Constitution the way they did. So stupid laws and corruption would have their impact severely limited.
3. "It" isn't important enough, no. But when some political opponent decides he doesn't like you, it's irrelevant as to how important "it" is. What matters is that they can use "it" to make you disappear from whatever political circle they don't want you in.
4. Most jurors have no clue what jury nullification is, let alone that they're allowed to do it.
And anybody who posts on facebook about their sex life and leaves it open to the public, rather than just friends, is an idiot.
Now, you'll find it hard to commit almost any crime completely in the privacy of your home, in such a way no outside information will point to it
Oral sex is a criminal offence in something like 21 different states. Crime? Check. Privacy of my home? Check. No outside information points to it? Check.
Done by the vast majority of couples, married or not, at some point in their relationship? Check.
See? Everybody's a criminal. The only reason this doesn't get prosecuted more often is: 1. It's stupid. 2. It's difficult to catch somebody doing it without illegally gathering evidence.
But if someone were to decide to nail someone on political reasons, there's probably an 80-90% chance that they're guilty of this offence, if they're in one of the appropriate states. There are other, equally moronic criminal laws in other states, I'm sure.
No, you shouldn't convict the criminal based on illegally obtained evidence.
The reason for this is simple.
Do you know of every possible statute in your law that could put you behind bars if you violated it? In Canada, we have the Criminal Code, for which most violations have the option of a jail term. There are lawyers who have made it their life's work for decades to work with only the criminal code, and still don't have it all down.
Then on top of that, there are the various tax, anti-terrorist crap, immigration, and other federal laws that could put you in jail. That doesn't even get to the provincial laws that could do the same. The Highway Traffic Act allows for jail terms for various things, although most of them are for obvious stuff like drunk driving, but still...
Then there are municipal laws.
Then there are all the laws at these three levels that could result in a fine, rather than jail time.
Do you know every single one of these laws?
Yeah....right.
The reason illegal evidence is not allowed in court, is that if it were allowed, then every citizen of the entire country would be a criminal, in one way or another, and anyone could be put in jail for political reasons because, with enough digging, it's guaranteed that you'd be able to find something they did that was illegal. The legal system is so horrendously complex, that nobody, anywhere, can know everything there is to know about it.
This goes for politicians, too, because there are known instances where one law contradicts another, and if you uphold one, you have no choice but to break the other.
The US legal system is probably even more complex, being that the country is older, and has more states with their own laws.
Don't pretend that all evidence should be allowed, or all it would take is for somebody to take a disliking to you, and all of a sudden you're in jail for breaking a law nobody knew about, and hasn't been enforced for a hundred years.
If there's reasonable belief that somebody's broken the law, that's one thing. Get a warrant. That's why the system is set up that way. If there's no reason to believe somebody's done something wrong, don't go fishing. Screw off and leave them alone.
Slashdot Mirror
Bikers have concealed melee wepons or small arms; gamers don't.
Of course. Gamers tend to carry their huge 14 foot long plasma cannon rifles right out in the open, because they're usually protected by multi-layer self-powered shielded body armour, so nobody can touch them, anyway.
Oh....you mean in real life..... ....nevermind.
Because politicians - in general - are knee-jerk reactionary idiots.
Not all of them......but certainly most, it seems.
North != South.
In the US schooling system, it just might.... :)
Gotta be careful saying something like that.
You come to the defence of the American auto industry, and you'll be flamed and modded down by a bunch of fanatics who brag about the legendary quality and safety of Toyota, and how the Americans will never have anything even close to their reliability..... :-/
Internet Explorer can run any ActiveX control. Many Microsoft-signed controls get run automatically when requested, even with security settings set to disable automatic running of ActiveX.
For example ?
Take a look in the addin configuration for Internet Explorer 7 or 8.
There's a specific list of addins that run without requiring permission.
There is not a shred of evidence that suggests the bug resulted *because* MS was trying to preserve backwards compatibility.
As it happens, there was no development done on that specific component and thus a bug in the version 1.0 got carried forwarded to Version 6.0. This is *not* because of backwards compatibility.
Excuse me?
A security bug in the DOS VM isn't due to backwards compatibility requirements?
The need for the DOS virtual machine to exist AT ALL, is due to the requirement for backwards compatibility.
Maybe you should think before you type.
You asked for a security problem that resulted from providing backwards compatibility.
I provided you with one.
Now you say it doesn't meet your requirements, due to similar exploits which do not result from backwards compatibility requirements.
Way to move the goalposts after the ball's been kicked.
You should go into politics.
There's a difference between running third party plugins, and running operating system components.
Internet Explorer can run any ActiveX control. Many Microsoft-signed controls get run automatically when requested, even with security settings set to disable automatic running of ActiveX.
The Windows OS comes with hundreds of ActiveX controls, all of which can have security problems, and can affect any file on the system, given appropriate access rights.
This is all in a default Windows install.
Other browsers and third party plugins aren't even in the same league.
4. Backward compatibility, and a zillion features that assume an essentially insecure and trusted
world are a disaster. M$ has no way out.
You can believe that if you want to. If you want others to believe it you have to provide some level of evidence. ;)
http://www.esecurityplanet.com/features/article.php/3860131/article.htm
ActiveX.
You don't need Internet Explorer to run an ActiveX control, as they're supported natively by the system. Without UAC on Vista/7, ActiveX controls in IE run at the same privilege level as any other user process, because they actually DO run natively on the system.
A mid 80s domestic could have had a similar electronic ignition module on the engine. But that's not the actual engine control computer - it's a few solid state bits and the ignition coil.
The computer that actually sends the signal to fire the thing is still under the dash.
Electronic module != Computer.
Although you might be right with it being an optional component, but since it's tied into airbags, ignition, and probably other systems, I doubt you could just unplug the module and the car would still run properly.
But then, I had to replace the computer in my Camaro a little while ago, and there was a different computer for the automatic transmission version than the manual version. Not just an extra module plugged in, but the wires that went to the transmission to control shifts on the automatic didn't even have a connector to plug into on the manual transmission computer.
I've seen a case where disconnecting a seized up rear wiper motor caused the car to miss and run roughly. On a car without OnStar, it's probably got some kind of bus terminator type thing that plugs in instead of the OnStar module, if it's not a completely different (maybe internally modular, but still different) computer.
Although, since this is purely speculation - although based on experience - I could be completely wrong, and you could just unplug the separate and nicely labelled OnStar module with the cable running to the engine computer that's labelled "Unplug this cable here to disable OnStar."
I'd be willing to bet that the OnStar system is controlled by the same computer that controls your ignition, fuel injection, and transmission shift points.
Meaning....cut power to OnStar, and the car won't start.
Cutting the antennas might be the only way to do it.
They're not on the engine block.
Every relatively modern car I've ever seen has had the engine computer located under the dash.
The only exception to this that I've seen is my brother's 1977 Mercury Monarch, which has an electronic ignition module mounted on the inside of one fender. The rest of the system, though, - fuel, timing, etc. - is all old school. Carburetor, distributor, etc.
You're an AC. I don't really give a crap what you perceive to be my embarrassment.
I get joking. I've got one of the best senses of humour of anybody I know.
Unfortunately, with the way the comment was worded, it did not come across as tongue-in-cheek. It came across as "any female part that doesn't directly give me (implied: sexual) pleasure is unnecessary."
That's not tongue-in-cheek. That's rude, sexist, and selfish.
Or course it has no logical connection to what you said. This is politics we're talking about. It has no logical connection to anything.
There are useless laws, and they should be repealed, but then the powers that be couldn't use them to harass political opponents when they needed something, so they'll never disappear.
The writers of the Constitution knew there would be corruption, stupid laws, and the like. That's why they wrote the Constitution the way they did. So stupid laws and corruption would have their impact severely limited.
3. "It" isn't important enough, no. But when some political opponent decides he doesn't like you, it's irrelevant as to how important "it" is. What matters is that they can use "it" to make you disappear from whatever political circle they don't want you in.
4. Most jurors have no clue what jury nullification is, let alone that they're allowed to do it.
And anybody who posts on facebook about their sex life and leaves it open to the public, rather than just friends, is an idiot.
Now, you'll find it hard to commit almost any crime completely in the privacy of your home, in such a way no outside information will point to it
Oral sex is a criminal offence in something like 21 different states.
Crime? Check.
Privacy of my home? Check.
No outside information points to it? Check.
Done by the vast majority of couples, married or not, at some point in their relationship? Check.
See? Everybody's a criminal. The only reason this doesn't get prosecuted more often is:
1. It's stupid.
2. It's difficult to catch somebody doing it without illegally gathering evidence.
But if someone were to decide to nail someone on political reasons, there's probably an 80-90% chance that they're guilty of this offence, if they're in one of the appropriate states.
There are other, equally moronic criminal laws in other states, I'm sure.
corrupt politicians...
You repeat yourself, grasshopper....
It's my boss's job to make sure I'm not breaking the law? WTF?
I'm sure he'll be happy to know that.
No...it's your job to make sure you're not breaking the law. Especially when you work in law enforcement.
No, you shouldn't convict the criminal based on illegally obtained evidence.
The reason for this is simple.
Do you know of every possible statute in your law that could put you behind bars if you violated it?
In Canada, we have the Criminal Code, for which most violations have the option of a jail term. There are lawyers who have made it their life's work for decades to work with only the criminal code, and still don't have it all down.
Then on top of that, there are the various tax, anti-terrorist crap, immigration, and other federal laws that could put you in jail. That doesn't even get to the provincial laws that could do the same. The Highway Traffic Act allows for jail terms for various things, although most of them are for obvious stuff like drunk driving, but still...
Then there are municipal laws.
Then there are all the laws at these three levels that could result in a fine, rather than jail time.
Do you know every single one of these laws?
Yeah....right.
The reason illegal evidence is not allowed in court, is that if it were allowed, then every citizen of the entire country would be a criminal, in one way or another, and anyone could be put in jail for political reasons because, with enough digging, it's guaranteed that you'd be able to find something they did that was illegal. The legal system is so horrendously complex, that nobody, anywhere, can know everything there is to know about it.
This goes for politicians, too, because there are known instances where one law contradicts another, and if you uphold one, you have no choice but to break the other.
The US legal system is probably even more complex, being that the country is older, and has more states with their own laws.
Don't pretend that all evidence should be allowed, or all it would take is for somebody to take a disliking to you, and all of a sudden you're in jail for breaking a law nobody knew about, and hasn't been enforced for a hundred years.
If there's reasonable belief that somebody's broken the law, that's one thing. Get a warrant. That's why the system is set up that way. If there's no reason to believe somebody's done something wrong, don't go fishing. Screw off and leave them alone.
In which case it would have been easier to list the necessary parts.
I'll leave that list up to your imagination.
Sarcasm really becomes you.
Oh, I don't put much faith at all into humanity.
Ask my wife. I'm a cynical bastard. :)
Yeah...I got As in chemistry, too. In high school. Nearly 20 years ago.
Hardly touch the stuff, now.