Why should software be the only consumer or business product where the customer is totally at fault for the products flaws?
Alright -- there are a few problems with what you've said. First of all, there is no such thing as bug-free code. You need to accept this -- because it doesn't matter what you're running, it ain't bug-free. Second, the user is not at fault for their product flaws, but a user is expected to take on some responsibility in the matter. Let's say that my car comes with shitty tires that shred under heavy braking. Let's also suppose that the manufacturer makes a reasonable effort to notify me of a recall. If I disregard the information and my tires shred and I get mamed, whose fault is that? The manufacturer's? I don't think so. I knew better -- and if I didn't, I should have. In both cases, the manufacturer has made a reasonable effort to inform the end user of a product defect and offered a free solution. At what point are you willing to accept responsibilty? If the customer were expected to be totally at-fault for Microsoft's product flaws, the customer would have to pay for minor version upgrades, which they don't.
Now, while Linux, BSD and OS X may also suffer from sloppy coding, none of the other issues apply to them. So it wouldn't matter if Apple or Linux had 100% marketshare, they wouldn't have but a tiny percentage of the problems that Microsoft does with Windows.
But that's simply untrue. Look at bugtraq, my friend. The vulnerabilities out there are actually pretty similar, both in severity and number. It seems like you're really comparing the userbases more than the products themselves -- because you're still only talking results of bugs. Now I believe that Microsoft has owned up to the kitchen-sink approach to running default services is the wrong one. I can't readily link you to an article, but I recall that they've vowed to change what runs by default. So they're behind Linux in this front of security. There are a few reasons. First, RedHat's release cycle has been about every two years. Microsoft is on a 3-5 year release cycle. Second, OSS is able to implement sweeping change faster than commercial software can. Third, Microsoft is not as innovative as they claim -- but we know this. The privelege seperation argument that you make is not really accurate either. Major Linux distros are still running Sendmail and other suid applications by default (Sendmail being the next wuftpd snafu -- what a mess). Now there is some new buffer overflow protection in the new RH kernels, but the overflow protection is somewhat RH specific -- and it's not perfect. Microsoft has also fixed much of their "thoughtless integration and auto-execution" in Outlook. The worms now use social engineering tactics to fool the users into running them. Linux is just as vulnerable, except that the current userbase is more educated. If all of the Windows users move over to *nix, they'd be just as vulnerable.
Now none of this is to say that I trust Microsoft's security. I believe that it largely depends on the obscurity of their source code (in fact, they've even admitted it -- calling on "national security"). But these other problems -- they're just not as exclusive to Microsoft as you suggest.
The real reason windows is so popular is that its so damn easy to write viruses for it.
Just re-read that statement and tell me whether or not it makes sense. Are you suggesting that the vast majority of consumers prefer Windows because it's so easy to write viruses for it? That's absolutely nonsensical. Maybe you meant something else.
Microsoft is responsible for the security of windows and not anyone else just as much as the free software movement is responsible for its security.
Microsoft is responsible for the security of its own computers, nothing more. You are responsible for the security of your own computer, regardless of the OS. The open source community isn't responsible if my computer gets owned. I am.
Am I totally misunderstanding you or are you putting somethign really funny in your pipe?
I'm sure linux virsus could be just as nasty or worse, but they would not have the same global impact and spread like wildfire like windows ones do. Windows 95/98/ME is nothing like a Unix box. And most of the problem systems aren't running XP/2000 yet.
I think that you're contradicting yourself here. This worm is a WindowsXP/2000 worm -- the problem systems are running XP/2000.
Also, if you look at the latest series of outbreaks using email as a vector, Unix is just as vulnerable. User accounts can still spam out and propigate a worm. A user account can also trojan itself (although usually not as root). If someone can trojan a user account, the getting-root part becomes far easier.
Furthermore, the same amount of widespread damage can occur from a user account. A worm can put itself in the user's home directory, and can put it in a user's startup script. The concepts aren't any different. Sure, you don't have access to directly open services below port 1024, but you can sure create an outbound BSD socket. You've still got full outbound network access and if you believe that *nix's networking code is truly faster than that of Windows, then you've got an even more widespread problem.
Finally, most of the attacks that we see (the Sasser Worm is an exception) relies on social engineering to spread. A user has to intentionally launch an application. Again, this takes us back to a user account, but with the latest spam worms, that's all they need.
I just don't see how *nix is any different. Your argument does nothing to support why *nix worms couldn't spread like wildfire like the Windows counterparts do.
Finally, let's get clear on who really is to blame here. People who write malicious code that is designed to spread across the Net and disrupt other people's lives are fucking assholes. It's that simple. You can place the blame on their victims all you want, but when someone steals my car, regardless of whether I left the car door unlocked or not, I'm going to want their head on a stake.
Yes, I agree -- these people are assholes. I think I gave a nod to this in my post. However, I think that the victim does share the blame with the perpetrator in the case of a worm. Through ignorance, the user allows their computer (or computers) to continue to propigation of this worm. If you're gonna drive a car, you'd better understand the rules of the road, and you'd better know how to change a tire if you get a flat. How is the Internet any different? The victim mentality that you try to take on here is kind of bullshit. We live in a world with underirable people. They will never go away -- regardless of enforcement. Now you can either choose to ignore this fact and become a victim, or live vigilantly. It turns out that, when it comes to Internet security, we're all in it together. Worms like this depend on ignorance to spread -- the more ignorant of a population, the faster they spread and the more devistating the effects are. It takes two for this -- the victim is not the asshole, but the victim clearly shares the responsibility.
And patching 5000 machines in a corporate environment takes lots of testing to avoid killing a critical app
You make a good point. For some groups, these patches take their toll, and they're certainly an exception. I don't claim to be a security expert -- but surely there's a way to help slow the spread of such a worm across an internal network (I've already seen snort rules that can take care of it). The fact is that something can be done, and to do nothing out of fear that something will be broken is clearly not the solution -- because doing nothing has turned out to be just as much of a liability as acting too soon.
However, you do have a valid point. There are always exceptions. Maybe the linked article found them all. Personally, I doubt that these issues were all due to the fact that a network was too large to act quickly enough.
LSASS listens to the internet, and you can't tell it not to. This isn't a problem for people running behind NATs or in otherwise secure networks, but for the general public, this is a stupid thing to have on by default, and AFIAK you can't turn it off, you can only block it...As far as the MS firewall, the reason it doesn't get used much is that it completely lacks the ability to open up a port that you want open: it's all or nothing.
I only looked into the MS Firewall a little and I felt that there are better apps out there that are freely available (like Zone Alarm, etc). Broadband networks are dangerous -- probably the most targeted networks out there (by script kiddies). I don't mean to sound like an elitist, I understand that not everybody knows how to protect themselves, but it's a dangerous world. Users absolutely need some kind of firewall protection -- whether it's NAT or something local to stop unwanted packets (I prefer both, actually).
The fact is that alot of OS'es have unnecessary ports open - Microsoft isn't hte only one -- RedHat does the same thing (although RH9 seemed to be a bit better than previous versions). You're right though -- Microsoft is particularly bad about this.
If I had more time, I'd dig around and find the article where Microsoft promised to shut off unnecessary services (by default) in future versions of their OS -- I know I'd read about it somewhere. I guess in this case, it's too little, too late.
It's funny how articles claim that the worm has caused all kinds of damages -- from banks to postal systems, to transit systems. The tone of the article seems to lay blame largely upon the worm itself. This is absolute horseshit. If users (and IT personnel) at these governments and places of business were responsible enough to do their jobs and ensure that computers were adequately patched, this problem never would have occured.
Furthermore, if personnel took a single iota of initiative by installing and maintaining a simple firewall -- these issues would have been far less widespread (although this can still be spread through a network via infected laptops brought in from a home network). The important thing here is that the creators of this worm, the IT groups who let this happen, and the individual broadband users affected really share blame for the spread of this worm. Let me use an example, if you live in a shitty neighborhood and you leave your door unlocked, you are partially responsible for some jerk breaking into your house -- sure, they broke the law, but you helped facilitate that.
OK, one more topic to rant over then I'll STFU. I see alot of Slashdotters blaming Microsoft for this problem -- saying that running Linux or xBSD would solve this problem. Bullshit, fanboys. I am a Linux/Free software advocate and that argument is absolute bullshit. Every once in a while, remote exploits are discovered for these Free products. Most of the time, patches for these apps are released right away -- faster than their commercial counterparts are able to react. The users will still need to be smart enough to apply the patch. Well, in this case, Microsoft's patch was available before an exploit was in the wild. The reason why this worm is so widely distributed is because the user base (and administrative base) is large enough that there is a large cross section of people who have no idea what they're doing.
If Windows went away tomorrow and Linux became the defacto standard, we would have the same issues. All of those MCSE's who allowed this to happen will become RHCE's who will still allow something like this to happen. That certification doesn't make them any smarter -- bad admins are bad admins. Clueless users are clueless users, regardless of the operating system they use. It's easy to blame Microsoft for this, because they have deep pockets, a huge market share, and shady business practices -- but all code has bugs. Microsoft did the right thing, their userbase just wasn't smart enough to do the right thing.
Like I say, don't worry about the photo radar. You'll only find it installed in places where you shouldn't be driving like an asshole.
OK, I'm going waaaaay offtopic here...but WTF, right? I tend to agree -- but I feel that you may have made some semi-contradictory points here. You say that cops are reasonable. I can accept this...for the most part (I don't know how many speed traps there are in Canada, but in the Northeast US, they're a major generator of revenue and I've had a few bullshit tickets). But my bad experiences aside, I've had a number of good dealings with police and I can accept that most of the cops that I've dealt with are reasonable people who can make a reasonable call. However, when you start adding in things like photo radar and red-light cameras, you remove all of the grey area and add provisions for absolute law enforcement. I say this with hesitation, because religous folks tend to vehemently disagree...but nothing is absolute -- especially when it comes to rules and law. We wouldn't need lawayers if things were absolute.
While I agree with you that these things (automated law enforcement) generally tend to be in areas where one simply shouldn't be driving like an asshole, these things don't tell if someone is driving like an asshole. They only tell if someone ran a red light (but without accounting for mitigating circumstances -- like slow traffic moving through an intersection when a light turned yellow -- and being caught in the intersection when the light is red) or was driving at a speed higher than a preprogrammed threshold. There is no room for interpretation, and all suspects are guilty until proven innocent. I don't know much about the law in Canada, but many Americans take our criminal justice system seriously -- and personally. I'm pretty disappointed even by minor hypocracy (like this).
I'm not trying to be argumentative -- in general, I agree with you. But there were a few things that I thought may have been slightly contradictory.
Open your eyes and try using a little logic before rigorously defending a blatantly off topic and rather ignorant post against someone posting a little truth. Who appointed you slashcop?
But the thing is -- he's right! You consistently fail to understand this. Maybe I should ask you the same question -- who appointed you slashcop? You were the one jumping all over this guy -- acting like a slashcop. Who do you think you are, anyway? His post was, in fact, on topic. He was off on a minor detail -- the number of seats in the car. In fact, your senseless whining is more off-topic than anything else.
carboats suck because his seadoo carries 3 people? What the heck does that have to do with a carboat that looks like a camaro? A blanket statement to the effect of "all carboats handle poorly" without bothering to see that this carboat in particular has a weight and dimensions rather well suited for the corvette suspension it utilizes? Again, what the heck does that have to do with the carboat in the article? NOTHING.
Carboats do tend to handle poorly. As someone who appreciates and races cars, I understand a little about what it takes to make a car handle. As a watercraft enthusiast, he knows a little about what it takes to make a boat work. We're collectively saying that the two just don't go together. I can say that a handgun/toothbrush is a bad idea without reading any article about a specific application. It's a comment on the concept. The concept has everything to do with the article -- if you could get past your Slashdot nazi ideals, you might figure this out. The guy got one detail wrong -- why are you taking it so personally?
Take a look in the mirror and maybe try getting over your own inflated ego
I'm pretty comfrotable with who I am -- and I don't think I have an inflated ego. Are you always this defensive? Do you always get this angry? Are you an angry person? Maybe you shuld consider showing your fellow human beings a little more courtesy. They deserve it. Take a look back at the thread history. You were the first in this thread to write up an angry post. You were the fist to pull this slashcop bullshit. All I did was call bullshit on you. You have it coming -- because you're just talking shit -- and quite rudely, I might add. Furthermore, you're coming off like a genuine asshole. Grow up.
A friend of mine had a Mitsubishi 3000GT (might have been a Dodge Stealth actually, but the AWD versions are identical except for the headlights and spoiler placement) and it was all wheel drive. He would take turns at speeds that were just nuts, accelerating through them. Some of the freeway ramps marked with a serious 30MPH recommended speed he'd fly around at 80, and have grip to spare. It was an incredible ride.
Those cars can't handle very well -- those things are freaking heavy, like 3700 Lbs. In order for a car to handle well, it has to be light. Think about it: the more a car weighs, the harder it is to turn, because all of that mass wants to keep going in a straight line. On a heavier car, you've gotta get all of that mass going in a different direction, which takes more energy for a heavier car. In a race car, weight is everything -- this applies directly to street cars (when it comes to performance: handling, braking, and acceleration).
Also, in most cases AWD is less agile on dry pavement than RWD. Sure, you can get on the gas earlier, and it's easier for an inexperienced driver to control, but that's about it.
You seem to be somewhat less intelligent than the carboat... Camaros have 4 seats, not 2, and this carboat, which is a custom design and not a converted camaro, also has 4 seats...If you won't even look at the website before posting your trash talk, try some STFU instead.
He doesn't need to read the site to understand that a carboat is a technically lame idea. It is unable to perform as well as either a car or a boat. What's wrong with that assessment? If I put together a website about a cluster of 10 Commodore 64's running Apache -- you could say (without even reading the website) that the Pentium II 400 in your basement will run circles around that POS. Get over yourself buddy -- and maybe before posting your trash talk, try some common courtesy instead.
Only wonder why they wouldn't remove the standard twinscroll turbo and setup a twin turbo setup and gain another 70-150 HP.
Most twin turbos are able to add less power than a large single turbo. Most twin turbos are in place to reduce turbo lag (smaller impeller means less mass and a lower spool-up time). This is especially true for sequential turbos, but also tends to apply (although not always) to a "per bank" twin turbo system (such as on other boxer cars, like the Porsche 911 twin turbos). For example, many Supra Turbo tuners will rip out the twin turbo system, and drop in a large single turbo, rebuild their motors, and will end up with 700-1000 HP at the crank. I've also heard of Porsche 993TT owners doing the same thing. That extra 70-150 HP figure is just wrong -- that same figure can be accomplished by other means. Clearly, you're a STi affectionado -- I'm sure that you know more about this car than I do. However, unless there's something special about this motor that breaks all the rules of the conventional internal combustion engine, I seriously disagree with your assessment.
There is no reason why a twin turbo system will provide more power to this car. If you want more power, change the fuel mapping, drop in some new injectors and increase the boost pressure. I'm guessing that a primary reason to drop that American iron was to lighten up the front end. Turbos tend to add weight. Think of how much weight an additional turbo and associated plumbing will add. Soon, you'll get to a point of diminishing returns (in engine weight) where your STi motor weighs close to the Camaro motor. Given equal weight, I'd take the American iron -- it's torquier and doesn't lag like a turbo...and are generally far, far cheaper.
I am surprised they wouldn't do alcohol injection or NOS injection to thin the fuel mix and gain 30-50HP. Alcohol would be the easiest and cheapest.
*Sigh* Is he drag racing this thing? Why would he ever want to do that? These are both things that are only really useful in (lame) street races and in drag races. I'm not sure, but I don't think that's what he built this car for.
Porsche made one; I believe it was the Porsche 166.
This vehicle was known as the Schwimmwagen. While it was designed by Ferdinand Porsche, these vehicles were produced by VW. It was built in 1944, about 10 years before Porsche was founded as a car producing company. I'm not sure that it qualifies as a Porsche.
So? It was (mostly) translated by true believers. Remember some tenets of Christianity are: "don't mess with God's word" and "be honest". Are you telling me tens of thousands of Bible copyists and translators would somehow disobey these tenets just so your distorted worldview hangs together?
Well, remember that "god's word" has to be interpreted by the prophets as well (which kind of makes it hearsay, doesn't it?)... I'm not telling you that the tenents were disobeyed for me. This has nothing to do with me. It was so their (and your) "distorted" (your words, not mine) worldview hangs together. I'm not saying that anyone is lying here...but I'm saying that based on who translates and interprets it, and what their motives are, it's a suspicous doctrine. You can't possibly tell me that the message from eons ago is still clear when Americans still can't agree on what the spirit of the constitution was 200 years ago. The US Constitution is even in its original language, and without any extraneous mythology and we can't agree on what it meant. Everyone carries their own interpretation away. How is the bible (and a translation, noless) be any different?
There you go again, implying that you use your brain, but the "believers" don't.
It's not like that. Look, I can accept that science is a religon in the loosest sense (in that it tries to describe our origins). Basic judeo-christian ideals tend to rely on the metaphysical and subjective. The modern scientific method relies on repeatable methods to observe and prove/disprove others obervation (and interpretation of) certain phonomea (the objective). The two can only coexist on a very limited basis. At a certain point, the two become mutually exclusive, because the phonomena of god is not directly observable (or even indirectly). There are no repeatable experienents that will ever allow us to prove the existance of god. Anythign that cannot be explained by science will be explained by Christian mythology. When something is explained differently from the biblical mythology, part of the (Christian) community embraces the idea, and the more conservative part of the community will call it a tool of the devil. Case in point (and this has nothing to do with evolution) -- do you believe that the world is only 10,000 years old?
I urge you for your own sake to seek God. If you're interested, contact me either in this thread or by email and I can point you to what I found.
You seem like a nice enough guy and all, and are clearly intelligent, but I don't believe in any god, or any subjective metaphysical ideals. Furthermore, I don't believe in absolute good and evil -- I find this concept most distasteful and highly dangerous. I also feel that organized religion is responsible for a significant chunk of suffering in this world...and it continues to be. No thank you -- I do not want to involve myself with that, and will never participate in your religion.
rumor has it that biodiesel takes more real fossil fuels to make than it yeilds.
The diesel engine was originally developed to be a so-called biodiesel. As far as I understand it, the original diesel engine was designed so that a farmer could grow a field of corn (or whatever) and press oil out of it and fuel his tractor for the rest of the season. A diesel can be made to run from vegetable oil with very minor modifications. Furthermore, I went to college with these guys as they were developing the greasecar -- which is really a system they built to modift an existing diesel car to run on used fryer grease (it even works with bacon grease). If everyone used this, the waste grease wouldn't be as plentiful, but it's still a really neat concept. Here's the problem though. Biodiesel (as well as the greasecar) still releases the same amount of greenhouse gases. If you're concerned about global warming, rinning a biodiesel is still a consideration. Also, it really does take alot of energy to grow the vegetables to make fuel for these vehicles -- and I agree with the other replies that there is a point of diminshing returns.
I'm not against new ideas for making a better mousetrap (motor, whatever)...but as much as the gasoline internal combusiton engine (ICE) is disliked, it's really hard to beat 120 years of development. Many technologies have had a difficult time competing (such as the rotary engine, which has remarkable power output per liter and fuel economy) with the ICE in terms of reliability and up-front price. It will take decades for a new technology to stabilize within the marketplace. It seems that hybrids will be the next big thing...and if anyone figures out how to make fuel cells really work (in the mass-market sense), they'll be the next big thing.
It's a view based on the way things are now. The fuel cell technology currently in development is "vaporware". It's not out yet, and nobody has figured out how to make it for cheap and mass market it. If anything, you may be overly optimistic. This all being said, neither of us has mentioned a time frame. Within the next 10-20 years -- anything is possible.
Do you have any info/links on the alternate materials for making plastics etc?
Imagine - oil would no longer have much value, and so the Middle East would no longer be a constant battleground.
Naaw, we'll still need oil. Maybe it'll reduce our dependance enough to just use our reserves, but the need for old fashioned fossil oil will never go away -- it's in too many of our comsumer products. Furthermore, nobody has figured out anything better than diesel for hauling cargo on trucks and for our rail infrastructure.
All communication has to interpreted - including that in the discussion we are having. And, depending on the communication and the interpreters, people can do fine job at it.
No way, dude. When you translate, you interpret -- on a far different level than this discussion (that's a bad comparison, anyway). We are writing in the same language, and we are communicating in the same time span (not 1200 years apart), the message is relativly clear. (And I'm not 100% certain about the time differential here) but the time differential between the Greek, Aramaic, various other languages and English (to get to the King James English version) are around 600-1200 years (again, more or less). With such a differential in time, there are a few thing you need to understand: First, (and I repeat) you need to interpret to translate. Second, times change. Colloquialisms, culture, morality, ethics, even humor: These things change over time -- and over a vast period of time, they change vastly. Much of this culture is lost forever. We may never know what the authors really meant.
Finally, I think you're speaking in typical religous double-talk. I do not feel that my beliefs are out of arrogance -- and I respectfully view your post as typical Judeo-Christian intolerance for another viewpoint having something to do with your beliefs. I've studied your bible. It's the doctrine that, like it or not, much of our culture is built on. It sounds like you're a believer, which tends to make your views on the topic less-than-objective. I don't believe in the god, or the bible that you believe in...and what you write just tastes of an opinion of religous faith -- it can't be reasoned with, it can't be changed. Actually, this has to do with one of the reasons why the bible is an interpretation -- it was translated by true believers. How can one be objective about a document when they already have an accepting, absolutely non-critical, belief in the subjective, meta-physical ideals in the bible -- a document that their entire belief system is created around? I don't think that it can be done. So why are we even discussing this? It's pointless.
Consider these two images : A and B. (And quick, before my geocities bandwidth gets totally snarfed)
My god! They look like identical not-found pages;). Looks like your bandwidth done got used up. I have to be honest, I'd have a hard time telling the difference on my crappy work computer/monitor anyway.
To manuver around this discussion a little, I'm just saying that our storage media is dense enough that we can afford to move to something like PNG for storage inside of digital cameras (memory sticks, flash cards, etc). Once you move 'em to your computer and edit the images to print, webify, whatever -- JPG can be suitable.
Strictly speaking, a WAV file can contain any of dozens of representations of the audio data, many of which are lossy compressions.
Hey -- the wav wasn't my example. I didn't really need to go there. The point was that it makes as much sense to use lossy compression for an audio master as it does to use a lossy compression scheme for a bitmap master. IOW, it's a bad idea.
As soon as the light passed through the camera lens, information was lost by distortion. When your camera store that light as a digitised or encoded in the grains of film, more information was lost. If that film was then digitally imaged into a PNG, even more information was lost.
What are you smoking? I'm talking practical here. Of course data is lost in a recording. That's the nature of most any kind of recording. The point is to cut out loss wherever possible. To record an image one has to use a lens (or series of lenses), and a medium to record the light onto (either film or CCD). These are unavoidable. However, a lossy compression scheme is avoidable. Furthermore, if one is going to save a compressed image, edit it, then recompress it using a lossy scheme -- it adds up. By your logic, there's no reason to clean your optics, because you're losing data one way or the other -- this is nonsensical.
You're also talking about the still-semi-obscure JPEG 2000 standard/codec, which you fail to mention isn't nearly as easy to use or widely avaialble as JFIF or PNG. I think this is a case of "my bike's made out of lead and I like it!". PNG is out there, it's free, full featured and it works very well.
Do you keep wav files on your hard drive because they are loss-less?
That's a loaded question. When I create audio files, the answer is: I'd absolutely store wav (and similar) files on my hard drive. Why would I ever want a compressed master?
When I rip a CD, I store them as MP3's. The point is that original files shouldn't be compressed using a lossy format (unless you don't care...I do). When it's time to distribute the file, sure, crunch it down.
JPG is still the best image format for photographs.
Why do you say that JPEG is the best image format for photographs? Because it's so widely used? JPEG is a lossy format -- regardless of what you do with it. PNG looks far better, although it's not as well compressed. However, with storage technology where it is, wouldn't you want your photos to start off in a lossless format -- then compress it down with some lossy compression scheme later?
Slashdot Mirror
Alright -- there are a few problems with what you've said. First of all, there is no such thing as bug-free code. You need to accept this -- because it doesn't matter what you're running, it ain't bug-free. Second, the user is not at fault for their product flaws, but a user is expected to take on some responsibility in the matter. Let's say that my car comes with shitty tires that shred under heavy braking. Let's also suppose that the manufacturer makes a reasonable effort to notify me of a recall. If I disregard the information and my tires shred and I get mamed, whose fault is that? The manufacturer's? I don't think so. I knew better -- and if I didn't, I should have. In both cases, the manufacturer has made a reasonable effort to inform the end user of a product defect and offered a free solution. At what point are you willing to accept responsibilty? If the customer were expected to be totally at-fault for Microsoft's product flaws, the customer would have to pay for minor version upgrades, which they don't.
But that's simply untrue. Look at bugtraq, my friend. The vulnerabilities out there are actually pretty similar, both in severity and number. It seems like you're really comparing the userbases more than the products themselves -- because you're still only talking results of bugs. Now I believe that Microsoft has owned up to the kitchen-sink approach to running default services is the wrong one. I can't readily link you to an article, but I recall that they've vowed to change what runs by default. So they're behind Linux in this front of security. There are a few reasons. First, RedHat's release cycle has been about every two years. Microsoft is on a 3-5 year release cycle. Second, OSS is able to implement sweeping change faster than commercial software can. Third, Microsoft is not as innovative as they claim -- but we know this. The privelege seperation argument that you make is not really accurate either. Major Linux distros are still running Sendmail and other suid applications by default (Sendmail being the next wuftpd snafu -- what a mess). Now there is some new buffer overflow protection in the new RH kernels, but the overflow protection is somewhat RH specific -- and it's not perfect. Microsoft has also fixed much of their "thoughtless integration and auto-execution" in Outlook. The worms now use social engineering tactics to fool the users into running them. Linux is just as vulnerable, except that the current userbase is more educated. If all of the Windows users move over to *nix, they'd be just as vulnerable.
Now none of this is to say that I trust Microsoft's security. I believe that it largely depends on the obscurity of their source code (in fact, they've even admitted it -- calling on "national security"). But these other problems -- they're just not as exclusive to Microsoft as you suggest.
Just re-read that statement and tell me whether or not it makes sense. Are you suggesting that the vast majority of consumers prefer Windows because it's so easy to write viruses for it? That's absolutely nonsensical. Maybe you meant something else.
Microsoft is responsible for the security of its own computers, nothing more. You are responsible for the security of your own computer, regardless of the OS. The open source community isn't responsible if my computer gets owned. I am.Am I totally misunderstanding you or are you putting somethign really funny in your pipe?
I think that you're contradicting yourself here. This worm is a WindowsXP/2000 worm -- the problem systems are running XP/2000.
Also, if you look at the latest series of outbreaks using email as a vector, Unix is just as vulnerable. User accounts can still spam out and propigate a worm. A user account can also trojan itself (although usually not as root). If someone can trojan a user account, the getting-root part becomes far easier.
Furthermore, the same amount of widespread damage can occur from a user account. A worm can put itself in the user's home directory, and can put it in a user's startup script. The concepts aren't any different. Sure, you don't have access to directly open services below port 1024, but you can sure create an outbound BSD socket. You've still got full outbound network access and if you believe that *nix's networking code is truly faster than that of Windows, then you've got an even more widespread problem.
Finally, most of the attacks that we see (the Sasser Worm is an exception) relies on social engineering to spread. A user has to intentionally launch an application. Again, this takes us back to a user account, but with the latest spam worms, that's all they need.
I just don't see how *nix is any different. Your argument does nothing to support why *nix worms couldn't spread like wildfire like the Windows counterparts do.
Yes, I agree -- these people are assholes. I think I gave a nod to this in my post. However, I think that the victim does share the blame with the perpetrator in the case of a worm. Through ignorance, the user allows their computer (or computers) to continue to propigation of this worm. If you're gonna drive a car, you'd better understand the rules of the road, and you'd better know how to change a tire if you get a flat. How is the Internet any different? The victim mentality that you try to take on here is kind of bullshit. We live in a world with underirable people. They will never go away -- regardless of enforcement. Now you can either choose to ignore this fact and become a victim, or live vigilantly. It turns out that, when it comes to Internet security, we're all in it together. Worms like this depend on ignorance to spread -- the more ignorant of a population, the faster they spread and the more devistating the effects are. It takes two for this -- the victim is not the asshole, but the victim clearly shares the responsibility.
You make a good point. For some groups, these patches take their toll, and they're certainly an exception. I don't claim to be a security expert -- but surely there's a way to help slow the spread of such a worm across an internal network (I've already seen snort rules that can take care of it). The fact is that something can be done, and to do nothing out of fear that something will be broken is clearly not the solution -- because doing nothing has turned out to be just as much of a liability as acting too soon.
However, you do have a valid point. There are always exceptions. Maybe the linked article found them all. Personally, I doubt that these issues were all due to the fact that a network was too large to act quickly enough.
I only looked into the MS Firewall a little and I felt that there are better apps out there that are freely available (like Zone Alarm, etc). Broadband networks are dangerous -- probably the most targeted networks out there (by script kiddies). I don't mean to sound like an elitist, I understand that not everybody knows how to protect themselves, but it's a dangerous world. Users absolutely need some kind of firewall protection -- whether it's NAT or something local to stop unwanted packets (I prefer both, actually).
The fact is that alot of OS'es have unnecessary ports open - Microsoft isn't hte only one -- RedHat does the same thing (although RH9 seemed to be a bit better than previous versions). You're right though -- Microsoft is particularly bad about this.
If I had more time, I'd dig around and find the article where Microsoft promised to shut off unnecessary services (by default) in future versions of their OS -- I know I'd read about it somewhere. I guess in this case, it's too little, too late.
It's funny how articles claim that the worm has caused all kinds of damages -- from banks to postal systems, to transit systems. The tone of the article seems to lay blame largely upon the worm itself. This is absolute horseshit. If users (and IT personnel) at these governments and places of business were responsible enough to do their jobs and ensure that computers were adequately patched, this problem never would have occured.
Furthermore, if personnel took a single iota of initiative by installing and maintaining a simple firewall -- these issues would have been far less widespread (although this can still be spread through a network via infected laptops brought in from a home network). The important thing here is that the creators of this worm, the IT groups who let this happen, and the individual broadband users affected really share blame for the spread of this worm. Let me use an example, if you live in a shitty neighborhood and you leave your door unlocked, you are partially responsible for some jerk breaking into your house -- sure, they broke the law, but you helped facilitate that.
OK, one more topic to rant over then I'll STFU. I see alot of Slashdotters blaming Microsoft for this problem -- saying that running Linux or xBSD would solve this problem. Bullshit, fanboys. I am a Linux/Free software advocate and that argument is absolute bullshit. Every once in a while, remote exploits are discovered for these Free products. Most of the time, patches for these apps are released right away -- faster than their commercial counterparts are able to react. The users will still need to be smart enough to apply the patch. Well, in this case, Microsoft's patch was available before an exploit was in the wild. The reason why this worm is so widely distributed is because the user base (and administrative base) is large enough that there is a large cross section of people who have no idea what they're doing.
If Windows went away tomorrow and Linux became the defacto standard, we would have the same issues. All of those MCSE's who allowed this to happen will become RHCE's who will still allow something like this to happen. That certification doesn't make them any smarter -- bad admins are bad admins. Clueless users are clueless users, regardless of the operating system they use. It's easy to blame Microsoft for this, because they have deep pockets, a huge market share, and shady business practices -- but all code has bugs. Microsoft did the right thing, their userbase just wasn't smart enough to do the right thing.
OK, I'm going waaaaay offtopic here...but WTF, right? I tend to agree -- but I feel that you may have made some semi-contradictory points here. You say that cops are reasonable. I can accept this...for the most part (I don't know how many speed traps there are in Canada, but in the Northeast US, they're a major generator of revenue and I've had a few bullshit tickets). But my bad experiences aside, I've had a number of good dealings with police and I can accept that most of the cops that I've dealt with are reasonable people who can make a reasonable call. However, when you start adding in things like photo radar and red-light cameras, you remove all of the grey area and add provisions for absolute law enforcement. I say this with hesitation, because religous folks tend to vehemently disagree...but nothing is absolute -- especially when it comes to rules and law. We wouldn't need lawayers if things were absolute.
While I agree with you that these things (automated law enforcement) generally tend to be in areas where one simply shouldn't be driving like an asshole, these things don't tell if someone is driving like an asshole. They only tell if someone ran a red light (but without accounting for mitigating circumstances -- like slow traffic moving through an intersection when a light turned yellow -- and being caught in the intersection when the light is red) or was driving at a speed higher than a preprogrammed threshold. There is no room for interpretation, and all suspects are guilty until proven innocent. I don't know much about the law in Canada, but many Americans take our criminal justice system seriously -- and personally. I'm pretty disappointed even by minor hypocracy (like this).
I'm not trying to be argumentative -- in general, I agree with you. But there were a few things that I thought may have been slightly contradictory.
But the thing is -- he's right! You consistently fail to understand this. Maybe I should ask you the same question -- who appointed you slashcop? You were the one jumping all over this guy -- acting like a slashcop. Who do you think you are, anyway? His post was, in fact, on topic. He was off on a minor detail -- the number of seats in the car. In fact, your senseless whining is more off-topic than anything else.
Carboats do tend to handle poorly. As someone who appreciates and races cars, I understand a little about what it takes to make a car handle. As a watercraft enthusiast, he knows a little about what it takes to make a boat work. We're collectively saying that the two just don't go together. I can say that a handgun/toothbrush is a bad idea without reading any article about a specific application. It's a comment on the concept. The concept has everything to do with the article -- if you could get past your Slashdot nazi ideals, you might figure this out. The guy got one detail wrong -- why are you taking it so personally?I'm pretty comfrotable with who I am -- and I don't think I have an inflated ego. Are you always this defensive? Do you always get this angry? Are you an angry person? Maybe you shuld consider showing your fellow human beings a little more courtesy. They deserve it. Take a look back at the thread history. You were the first in this thread to write up an angry post. You were the fist to pull this slashcop bullshit. All I did was call bullshit on you. You have it coming -- because you're just talking shit -- and quite rudely, I might add. Furthermore, you're coming off like a genuine asshole. Grow up.
Those cars can't handle very well -- those things are freaking heavy, like 3700 Lbs. In order for a car to handle well, it has to be light. Think about it: the more a car weighs, the harder it is to turn, because all of that mass wants to keep going in a straight line. On a heavier car, you've gotta get all of that mass going in a different direction, which takes more energy for a heavier car. In a race car, weight is everything -- this applies directly to street cars (when it comes to performance: handling, braking, and acceleration).
Also, in most cases AWD is less agile on dry pavement than RWD. Sure, you can get on the gas earlier, and it's easier for an inexperienced driver to control, but that's about it.
Dude, all Deloreans were floaters. :)
He doesn't need to read the site to understand that a carboat is a technically lame idea. It is unable to perform as well as either a car or a boat. What's wrong with that assessment? If I put together a website about a cluster of 10 Commodore 64's running Apache -- you could say (without even reading the website) that the Pentium II 400 in your basement will run circles around that POS. Get over yourself buddy -- and maybe before posting your trash talk, try some common courtesy instead.
Er...make that the rear end.
Most twin turbos are able to add less power than a large single turbo. Most twin turbos are in place to reduce turbo lag (smaller impeller means less mass and a lower spool-up time). This is especially true for sequential turbos, but also tends to apply (although not always) to a "per bank" twin turbo system (such as on other boxer cars, like the Porsche 911 twin turbos). For example, many Supra Turbo tuners will rip out the twin turbo system, and drop in a large single turbo, rebuild their motors, and will end up with 700-1000 HP at the crank. I've also heard of Porsche 993TT owners doing the same thing. That extra 70-150 HP figure is just wrong -- that same figure can be accomplished by other means. Clearly, you're a STi affectionado -- I'm sure that you know more about this car than I do. However, unless there's something special about this motor that breaks all the rules of the conventional internal combustion engine, I seriously disagree with your assessment.
There is no reason why a twin turbo system will provide more power to this car. If you want more power, change the fuel mapping, drop in some new injectors and increase the boost pressure. I'm guessing that a primary reason to drop that American iron was to lighten up the front end. Turbos tend to add weight. Think of how much weight an additional turbo and associated plumbing will add. Soon, you'll get to a point of diminishing returns (in engine weight) where your STi motor weighs close to the Camaro motor. Given equal weight, I'd take the American iron -- it's torquier and doesn't lag like a turbo...and are generally far, far cheaper.
*Sigh* Is he drag racing this thing? Why would he ever want to do that? These are both things that are only really useful in (lame) street races and in drag races. I'm not sure, but I don't think that's what he built this car for.
This vehicle was known as the Schwimmwagen. While it was designed by Ferdinand Porsche, these vehicles were produced by VW. It was built in 1944, about 10 years before Porsche was founded as a car producing company. I'm not sure that it qualifies as a Porsche.
Well, remember that "god's word" has to be interpreted by the prophets as well (which kind of makes it hearsay, doesn't it?)... I'm not telling you that the tenents were disobeyed for me. This has nothing to do with me. It was so their (and your) "distorted" (your words, not mine) worldview hangs together. I'm not saying that anyone is lying here...but I'm saying that based on who translates and interprets it, and what their motives are, it's a suspicous doctrine. You can't possibly tell me that the message from eons ago is still clear when Americans still can't agree on what the spirit of the constitution was 200 years ago. The US Constitution is even in its original language, and without any extraneous mythology and we can't agree on what it meant. Everyone carries their own interpretation away. How is the bible (and a translation, noless) be any different?
It's not like that. Look, I can accept that science is a religon in the loosest sense (in that it tries to describe our origins). Basic judeo-christian ideals tend to rely on the metaphysical and subjective. The modern scientific method relies on repeatable methods to observe and prove/disprove others obervation (and interpretation of) certain phonomea (the objective). The two can only coexist on a very limited basis. At a certain point, the two become mutually exclusive, because the phonomena of god is not directly observable (or even indirectly). There are no repeatable experienents that will ever allow us to prove the existance of god. Anythign that cannot be explained by science will be explained by Christian mythology. When something is explained differently from the biblical mythology, part of the (Christian) community embraces the idea, and the more conservative part of the community will call it a tool of the devil. Case in point (and this has nothing to do with evolution) -- do you believe that the world is only 10,000 years old?
You seem like a nice enough guy and all, and are clearly intelligent, but I don't believe in any god, or any subjective metaphysical ideals. Furthermore, I don't believe in absolute good and evil -- I find this concept most distasteful and highly dangerous. I also feel that organized religion is responsible for a significant chunk of suffering in this world...and it continues to be. No thank you -- I do not want to involve myself with that, and will never participate in your religion.
The diesel engine was originally developed to be a so-called biodiesel. As far as I understand it, the original diesel engine was designed so that a farmer could grow a field of corn (or whatever) and press oil out of it and fuel his tractor for the rest of the season. A diesel can be made to run from vegetable oil with very minor modifications. Furthermore, I went to college with these guys as they were developing the greasecar -- which is really a system they built to modift an existing diesel car to run on used fryer grease (it even works with bacon grease). If everyone used this, the waste grease wouldn't be as plentiful, but it's still a really neat concept. Here's the problem though. Biodiesel (as well as the greasecar) still releases the same amount of greenhouse gases. If you're concerned about global warming, rinning a biodiesel is still a consideration. Also, it really does take alot of energy to grow the vegetables to make fuel for these vehicles -- and I agree with the other replies that there is a point of diminshing returns.
I'm not against new ideas for making a better mousetrap (motor, whatever)...but as much as the gasoline internal combusiton engine (ICE) is disliked, it's really hard to beat 120 years of development. Many technologies have had a difficult time competing (such as the rotary engine, which has remarkable power output per liter and fuel economy) with the ICE in terms of reliability and up-front price. It will take decades for a new technology to stabilize within the marketplace. It seems that hybrids will be the next big thing...and if anyone figures out how to make fuel cells really work (in the mass-market sense), they'll be the next big thing.
It's a view based on the way things are now. The fuel cell technology currently in development is "vaporware". It's not out yet, and nobody has figured out how to make it for cheap and mass market it. If anything, you may be overly optimistic. This all being said, neither of us has mentioned a time frame. Within the next 10-20 years -- anything is possible.
Do you have any info/links on the alternate materials for making plastics etc?
Naaw, we'll still need oil. Maybe it'll reduce our dependance enough to just use our reserves, but the need for old fashioned fossil oil will never go away -- it's in too many of our comsumer products. Furthermore, nobody has figured out anything better than diesel for hauling cargo on trucks and for our rail infrastructure.
No way, dude. When you translate, you interpret -- on a far different level than this discussion (that's a bad comparison, anyway). We are writing in the same language, and we are communicating in the same time span (not 1200 years apart), the message is relativly clear. (And I'm not 100% certain about the time differential here) but the time differential between the Greek, Aramaic, various other languages and English (to get to the King James English version) are around 600-1200 years (again, more or less). With such a differential in time, there are a few thing you need to understand: First, (and I repeat) you need to interpret to translate. Second, times change. Colloquialisms, culture, morality, ethics, even humor: These things change over time -- and over a vast period of time, they change vastly. Much of this culture is lost forever. We may never know what the authors really meant.
Finally, I think you're speaking in typical religous double-talk. I do not feel that my beliefs are out of arrogance -- and I respectfully view your post as typical Judeo-Christian intolerance for another viewpoint having something to do with your beliefs. I've studied your bible. It's the doctrine that, like it or not, much of our culture is built on. It sounds like you're a believer, which tends to make your views on the topic less-than-objective. I don't believe in the god, or the bible that you believe in...and what you write just tastes of an opinion of religous faith -- it can't be reasoned with, it can't be changed. Actually, this has to do with one of the reasons why the bible is an interpretation -- it was translated by true believers. How can one be objective about a document when they already have an accepting, absolutely non-critical, belief in the subjective, meta-physical ideals in the bible -- a document that their entire belief system is created around? I don't think that it can be done. So why are we even discussing this? It's pointless.
My god! They look like identical not-found pages ;). Looks like your bandwidth done got used up. I have to be honest, I'd have a hard time telling the difference on my crappy work computer/monitor anyway.
To manuver around this discussion a little, I'm just saying that our storage media is dense enough that we can afford to move to something like PNG for storage inside of digital cameras (memory sticks, flash cards, etc). Once you move 'em to your computer and edit the images to print, webify, whatever -- JPG can be suitable.
Hey -- the wav wasn't my example. I didn't really need to go there. The point was that it makes as much sense to use lossy compression for an audio master as it does to use a lossy compression scheme for a bitmap master. IOW, it's a bad idea.
What are you smoking? I'm talking practical here. Of course data is lost in a recording. That's the nature of most any kind of recording. The point is to cut out loss wherever possible. To record an image one has to use a lens (or series of lenses), and a medium to record the light onto (either film or CCD). These are unavoidable. However, a lossy compression scheme is avoidable. Furthermore, if one is going to save a compressed image, edit it, then recompress it using a lossy scheme -- it adds up. By your logic, there's no reason to clean your optics, because you're losing data one way or the other -- this is nonsensical.
You're also talking about the still-semi-obscure JPEG 2000 standard/codec, which you fail to mention isn't nearly as easy to use or widely avaialble as JFIF or PNG. I think this is a case of "my bike's made out of lead and I like it!". PNG is out there, it's free, full featured and it works very well.
That's a loaded question. When I create audio files, the answer is: I'd absolutely store wav (and similar) files on my hard drive. Why would I ever want a compressed master?
When I rip a CD, I store them as MP3's. The point is that original files shouldn't be compressed using a lossy format (unless you don't care...I do). When it's time to distribute the file, sure, crunch it down.
Why do you say that JPEG is the best image format for photographs? Because it's so widely used? JPEG is a lossy format -- regardless of what you do with it. PNG looks far better, although it's not as well compressed. However, with storage technology where it is, wouldn't you want your photos to start off in a lossless format -- then compress it down with some lossy compression scheme later?