The results are tweaked slightly depending on what region of the world you're accessing the site from. The US results are the ones listed in the article.
Regarding your search, though.....that "why so expensive? - Games for Windows Live" link is interesting. You should read it.
It's a guy asking on the Windows Live Games forum why Macs are so expensive.
For the Mac result: On bing US, it's the first result. On bing UK, it's the third.
However, seeing as the Mac result mentions Windows in the text, it doesn't surprise me that it shows up in Google's first page. The difference is, Google shows you what you're actually looking for first (the first 4 results), rather than doing some shenanigans that basically say: "That's not what you really meant to search for....you're looking for this unrelated thing over here....."
With Bing, 3 of the top 5 results are about why Macs are expensive, and only 1 is related to Windows, and only tangentially at that, as it's dealing with Windows hosting providers, rather than Windows itself.
With Google, 4 of the top 5 are dealing with the expense of MS Windows, and the other (5th place) is about vinyl windows being expensive.
The vinyl windows listing is on both Google and Bing, so that's obviously an easy mistake to make, which I could perfectly understand even without checking the results.
So the top 5 results for this query (Why is windows so expensive):
Bing: Mac pricing X 3 Windows web hosting X 1 Vinyl windows X 1
Google: Windows pricing X 4 Vinyl windows X 1
Make a little more sense why people are bitching about it now?
This is all from US versions of both sites. The Canadian version of Google lists the exact same top 5 as the US version, but Bing Canada is on crack. The same search comes up with:
1. Vinyl Windows 2. Macs are expensive. 3. Why is healthcare expensive on Youtube. 4. Why is OSS commercial software expensive. 5. Is Windows getting more expensive?
Incidentally, if you read this last link, it's an article that states that Windows is selling for roughly the same price now as Windows 98 did, so accounting for inflation, it's actually cheaper. Go figure.
But there is the fact that a single user cannot bork a system for other users. That certainly counts for something.
And the simple fact of marketshare means that Linux will not be targetted in this way for the forseeable future.
And as to deleting data, I haven't run across malware for years that does this. Usually it tries to embed itself into the system somewhere, and steal information. The "deltree C:\WINDOWS" comment was to simplify the payload for explanation. But an embedded info-stealing payload would be difficult to write for Linux, because there are so many variations. It would essentially have to be downloaded as source and compiled on the system. But if/home and/tmp are mounted noexec, then it makes it difficult for the malware to then run. The user can't put it anywhere else, and it can't execute to run from those locations. It could be called directly by the shell, but again, there are several different shells for Linux, with no guarantee of any given one being installed on a system.
Possible? Certainly. But much less likely, for a number of reasons.
I can't say that I remember seeing it myself, but I definitely heard it from numerous independent sources. However, it could still be a vicious anti-Microsoft rumour started by free software zealots from before the dawn of time.
I seem to remember the implication being that it was around VS 4 or 5, but I could be mistaken.
In the EULA for some versions of Visual Studio (don't know about current ones, as I don't have.NET, and no plans to get it) there was a clause stating you could not use VS to develop any software which competed with Word, Excel, Office, and a few other Microsoft products.
On the one hand, they could say "The GPL is viral! Booga booga booga!"
On the other hand, they'd also have to say "We broke the law. We have no respect for other's copyrights; only our own. We only follow our legal obligations when under threat of lawsuit."
Considering how often in the past they've said that the GPL is viral, they probably figured more damage would be done by admitting the second, than the improvement in the FUD machine by restating the first for the hundredth time.
Microsoft didn't release the code by choice. They released it after somebody figured out that they were violating the terms of the GPL, and made what essentially amounted to legal threats.
Now, the fact that Microsoft, with their huge warchest and armies of lawyers, simply caved, rather than trying to weasle out of it and drown the opponents in legal bills, points to Microsoft's opinion of the GPL's legal status.....which is to say, rock solid. If it was as flakey and contradictory as they've claimed in the past, they would have fought it. They didn't, because they know they would have lost badly.
If the HD cable is on backwards, the drive won't spin up. You should be able to hear this (or...not hear this) which will give you a clue. On some HD controllers, the drive activity light stays on solid, too.
If the floppy cable is on backwards, the activity light will stay on solid.
However, if you can't get a POST screen, the first thing you should be doing is checking the memory. Remove it completely, turn the machine on, and see if you get memory error beeps. If you do, it's probably the memory. If not, it's something else.
It's a dead simple check to do, and it would be the first thing I tried after powering on the machine, and getting no video signal. In this case, it would have been obvious that the memory wasn't seated properly before removing it, so I would have found it in minutes.
I'm guessing you're probably European, or you mostly drive import cars.
Most North American cars, (and possibly Australian, too, as they're mostly made by GM and Ford) have been able to be locked from the inside without the key. Flip the lock switch (or push the button, on the really old cars), close the door, and the car is locked.
The original Mini from 1959, and a few other early European cars, and most current Asian ones (don't know when they started doing it, though) won't let you do that. Lock the door from the inside when it's open, and close the door, and the lock disengages. Some won't even let you move the switch to the lock position when the door is open.
This second type would be impossible for the police to lock without keys. The first wouldn't. I'm guessing that it was one of the first type.
I'm glad I'm not in Canada, because Rogers is either phenomonally stupid or a bunch of lying asshats.
Or both.
This is the ISP that regularly monitors customer traffic. How do I know? They send you an email if your computer gets infected with an IRCbot. How would they know you're infected, without monitoring traffic from your computer?
Do you think Bell and Rogers should invest some of the money into increasing bandwidth that they oversold thousand times over, instead of.... lobbing politicians?
I don't know about you, but I kind of like the idea of lobbing politicians. Kind of like dwarf tossing, only less politically incorrect.
Running your own web server for example is not covered under a residential class service, even though it will work technically, you have not signed up for providing a commercial service for that price.
That would depend on who your provider is, wouldn't it? A webserver on Teksavvy residential service is completely allowed. Bell, on the other hand, doesn't support it. That's not to say they won't let you do it....just that if it causes problems, they'll tell you off.
The default for uTorrent is to open only 90 connections. Total. Across all torrents.
Anybody who's got 1000's of outgoing connections has either radically screwed with their settings without having a clue what they're doing, or has a dozen or so computers on a local network, all running uTorrent.
Either that, or they're running uTorrent, Limewire, eMule, and every other P2P client on one computer at the same time.
In all of the above cases, the user is a moron, who has no clue how computers actually work. But they probably think "Hey! I'm 1337! I have a home network!"
I mean sure there is occasionally some journalist that actually tries to report the truth, but it's really no secret that more often it's about luring readers to see the ads using sensational headlines and too often just plain lies.
Well, the journalists have probably figured out that plain lies works for the advertisers, so they figure they'll get in on the act, too...
"You guys"? You must think I'm British. Why would you think that? Oh....you saw my URL, and assumed London = London, England.
You do realize there are cities called London in various other countries throughout the world, yes? In fact, there are 46 settlements of various sizes named London on 6 continents.
Perhaps you went through the American school system, also?
All the issued signed keys are still valid. That's the problem.
There's no way to now invalidate a signed key that was issued with this CA. Normally you can revoke a certificate, so it's no longer accepted. OpenVPN, for example, allows this, because you can set it to check a Certificate Revocation List. Any employee gets fired, certificate gets compromised, or whatever, and you add it to the CRL, and that client can no longer connect.
Right now, if they find that a health card was issued fraudulently, or for some reason should be invalid, there's no way to invalidate it (assuming that each card has it's own certificate....I haven't RTFA). Obviously, this is a significant security problem.
Generating a new CA, and issuing new certificates is the only way to fix this problem. But it still assumes that everybody who needs to verify one of these old certs actually _removes_ the old CA from their certificate store, instead of just adding the new one. The chances of this actually happening properly are probably less than nil.
You're fat and lazy because you're simple minded. And if you weren't so simple minded, you'd be able to figure that out.
Me, I'm Canadian with British parents. So apparently I'm exact and punctual while stealing booze, but I apologize politely to the shopkeeper for swiping it.....
Slashdot Mirror
Change your region in the top right corner on the bing.com site, and you'll get different results immediately.
The results are tweaked slightly depending on what region of the world you're accessing the site from. The US results are the ones listed in the article.
Regarding your search, though.....that "why so expensive? - Games for Windows Live" link is interesting. You should read it.
It's a guy asking on the Windows Live Games forum why Macs are so expensive.
Then why does Google give you what you're actually searching for?
Besides....I don't know about you, but I don't usually search for pricing on Macs with the phrase "Why is Windows so expensive."
By your logic, if I search for "Why are taxes so high?" I should get a bunch of results about drug-laden teenagers at parties....
For the Mac result:
On bing US, it's the first result. On bing UK, it's the third.
However, seeing as the Mac result mentions Windows in the text, it doesn't surprise me that it shows up in Google's first page.
The difference is, Google shows you what you're actually looking for first (the first 4 results), rather than doing some shenanigans that basically say:
"That's not what you really meant to search for....you're looking for this unrelated thing over here....."
With Bing, 3 of the top 5 results are about why Macs are expensive, and only 1 is related to Windows, and only tangentially at that, as it's dealing with Windows hosting providers, rather than Windows itself.
With Google, 4 of the top 5 are dealing with the expense of MS Windows, and the other (5th place) is about vinyl windows being expensive.
The vinyl windows listing is on both Google and Bing, so that's obviously an easy mistake to make, which I could perfectly understand even without checking the results.
So the top 5 results for this query (Why is windows so expensive):
Bing:
Mac pricing X 3
Windows web hosting X 1
Vinyl windows X 1
Google:
Windows pricing X 4
Vinyl windows X 1
Make a little more sense why people are bitching about it now?
This is all from US versions of both sites. The Canadian version of Google lists the exact same top 5 as the US version, but Bing Canada is on crack. The same search comes up with:
1. Vinyl Windows
2. Macs are expensive.
3. Why is healthcare expensive on Youtube.
4. Why is OSS commercial software expensive.
5. Is Windows getting more expensive?
Incidentally, if you read this last link, it's an article that states that Windows is selling for roughly the same price now as Windows 98 did, so accounting for inflation, it's actually cheaper. Go figure.
Well, not a whole lot, on a poorly set up system.
But there is the fact that a single user cannot bork a system for other users. That certainly counts for something.
And the simple fact of marketshare means that Linux will not be targetted in this way for the forseeable future.
And as to deleting data, I haven't run across malware for years that does this. Usually it tries to embed itself into the system somewhere, and steal information. The "deltree C:\WINDOWS" comment was to simplify the payload for explanation. /home and /tmp are mounted noexec, then it makes it difficult for the malware to then run. The user can't put it anywhere else, and it can't execute to run from those locations.
But an embedded info-stealing payload would be difficult to write for Linux, because there are so many variations. It would essentially have to be downloaded as source and compiled on the system. But if
It could be called directly by the shell, but again, there are several different shells for Linux, with no guarantee of any given one being installed on a system.
Possible? Certainly. But much less likely, for a number of reasons.
No, unfortunately, I don't.
I can't say that I remember seeing it myself, but I definitely heard it from numerous independent sources. However, it could still be a vicious anti-Microsoft rumour started by free software zealots from before the dawn of time.
I seem to remember the implication being that it was around VS 4 or 5, but I could be mistaken.
The vulnerability exists, yes. But I can pretty much guarantee that any payload is only going to target Windows systems.
Sure, they'll be able to get "deltree c:\WINDOWS" or steal_all_your_passwords.exe onto your Linux box, but it will bork when it tries to run.
In the EULA for some versions of Visual Studio (don't know about current ones, as I don't have .NET, and no plans to get it) there was a clause stating you could not use VS to develop any software which competed with Word, Excel, Office, and a few other Microsoft products.
Depends.
On the one hand, they could say "The GPL is viral! Booga booga booga!"
On the other hand, they'd also have to say "We broke the law. We have no respect for other's copyrights; only our own. We only follow our legal obligations when under threat of lawsuit."
Considering how often in the past they've said that the GPL is viral, they probably figured more damage would be done by admitting the second, than the improvement in the FUD machine by restating the first for the hundredth time.
But it is fun to use the same terms against those who have been wailing about stolen IP for years. ;)
Fun, yes. But in the end, it makes us no better than them.
Unless, of course, we're blatantly obvious in our sarcastic use of the term.
"In order to use this software, you must dance like a chicken for 30 seconds," is an example of a EULA. Please explain how it is viral.
Simple.
Avian flu.
You didn't read the article, did you?
Microsoft didn't release the code by choice. They released it after somebody figured out that they were violating the terms of the GPL, and made what essentially amounted to legal threats.
Now, the fact that Microsoft, with their huge warchest and armies of lawyers, simply caved, rather than trying to weasle out of it and drown the opponents in legal bills, points to Microsoft's opinion of the GPL's legal status.....which is to say, rock solid. If it was as flakey and contradictory as they've claimed in the past, they would have fought it. They didn't, because they know they would have lost badly.
My workbench monitor has a standby power light, so no chance of not plugging it in properly, or forgetting to turn it on.
But yes, in a normal environment, I'd probably do that first, too....
If the HD cable is on backwards, the drive won't spin up. You should be able to hear this (or...not hear this) which will give you a clue. On some HD controllers, the drive activity light stays on solid, too.
If the floppy cable is on backwards, the activity light will stay on solid.
However, if you can't get a POST screen, the first thing you should be doing is checking the memory. Remove it completely, turn the machine on, and see if you get memory error beeps. If you do, it's probably the memory. If not, it's something else.
It's a dead simple check to do, and it would be the first thing I tried after powering on the machine, and getting no video signal. In this case, it would have been obvious that the memory wasn't seated properly before removing it, so I would have found it in minutes.
I'm guessing you're probably European, or you mostly drive import cars.
Most North American cars, (and possibly Australian, too, as they're mostly made by GM and Ford) have been able to be locked from the inside without the key. Flip the lock switch (or push the button, on the really old cars), close the door, and the car is locked.
The original Mini from 1959, and a few other early European cars, and most current Asian ones (don't know when they started doing it, though) won't let you do that. Lock the door from the inside when it's open, and close the door, and the lock disengages. Some won't even let you move the switch to the lock position when the door is open.
This second type would be impossible for the police to lock without keys. The first wouldn't. I'm guessing that it was one of the first type.
I'm glad I'm not in Canada, because Rogers is either phenomonally stupid or a bunch of lying asshats.
Or both.
This is the ISP that regularly monitors customer traffic.
How do I know? They send you an email if your computer gets infected with an IRCbot. How would they know you're infected, without monitoring traffic from your computer?
Do you think Bell and Rogers should invest some of the money into increasing bandwidth that they oversold thousand times over, instead of .... lobbing politicians?
I don't know about you, but I kind of like the idea of lobbing politicians. Kind of like dwarf tossing, only less politically incorrect.
And more satisfying.
Running your own web server for example is not covered under a residential class service, even though it will work technically, you have not signed up for providing a commercial service for that price.
That would depend on who your provider is, wouldn't it? A webserver on Teksavvy residential service is completely allowed. Bell, on the other hand, doesn't support it. That's not to say they won't let you do it....just that if it causes problems, they'll tell you off.
The default for uTorrent is to open only 90 connections. Total. Across all torrents.
Anybody who's got 1000's of outgoing connections has either radically screwed with their settings without having a clue what they're doing, or has a dozen or so computers on a local network, all running uTorrent.
Either that, or they're running uTorrent, Limewire, eMule, and every other P2P client on one computer at the same time.
In all of the above cases, the user is a moron, who has no clue how computers actually work. But they probably think "Hey! I'm 1337! I have a home network!"
I mean sure there is occasionally some journalist that actually tries to report the truth, but it's really no secret that more often it's about luring readers to see the ads using sensational headlines and too often just plain lies.
Well, the journalists have probably figured out that plain lies works for the advertisers, so they figure they'll get in on the act, too...
"You guys"? You must think I'm British. Why would you think that? Oh....you saw my URL, and assumed London = London, England.
You do realize there are cities called London in various other countries throughout the world, yes?
In fact, there are 46 settlements of various sizes named London on 6 continents.
Perhaps you went through the American school system, also?
Oh...by the way:
Wooosh.
Come on! He went through the American school system.
It's not his fault. Give the guy a break!
All the issued signed keys are still valid. That's the problem.
There's no way to now invalidate a signed key that was issued with this CA.
Normally you can revoke a certificate, so it's no longer accepted. OpenVPN, for example, allows this, because you can set it to check a Certificate Revocation List. Any employee gets fired, certificate gets compromised, or whatever, and you add it to the CRL, and that client can no longer connect.
Right now, if they find that a health card was issued fraudulently, or for some reason should be invalid, there's no way to invalidate it (assuming that each card has it's own certificate....I haven't RTFA). Obviously, this is a significant security problem.
Generating a new CA, and issuing new certificates is the only way to fix this problem. But it still assumes that everybody who needs to verify one of these old certs actually _removes_ the old CA from their certificate store, instead of just adding the new one. The chances of this actually happening properly are probably less than nil.
You're fat and lazy because you're simple minded. And if you weren't so simple minded, you'd be able to figure that out.
Me, I'm Canadian with British parents. So apparently I'm exact and punctual while stealing booze, but I apologize politely to the shopkeeper for swiping it.....
Yeah...maybe it's a bailout project to make work for all the unemployed lawyers.....