He explains how now that vista is doing some things right wrt security, that apps that are poorly written are now broken. But, of course, windoze should never have encouraged the behavior in the first place, and there wouldn't be this mess.
Ok, I take it back. His point isn't good, because it's M$'s fault to begin with:)
Or you could configure your server to put a maximum number of recipients per envelope and also limit the number of envelopes sent at a time, if necessary. I did this to stop this exact problem. It's more efficient since you only send the stuff once (albeit, broken up into more than one message), but it is accepted vs. the constant retrying and whittling of the original recipient list.
It's more because infrastructure 'security' has been commoditized. You now by a product to do this, another to do that, etc. What management doesn't get is that security is a process, and good security does not equal buying a bunch of commodity products. We can do without them, but most companies would rather pay consultants and vendors than listen to their own security analyst staff who have likely already given the managment 10 different ways to mitigate vulnerability to specific threats, but it only became 'real' when there was something to buy to deal with it.
The real problem is that viruses are a social issue, not a technical one. I'm not talking about worms. I'm talking about viruses.
If users practice simple common sense, then anti-virus software buys them NOTHING, and actually ends up causing a lot of problems with the proper functioning of the computer.
Don't do stupid things, and keep your software up to date (arguably quite easy for home users using windows update, or yum, or whatever). Antivirus software doesn't help.
You cannot replace common sense with 'smart' software that tries to protect idiots from themselves. Imagine the problems we'd have with cars that tried to drive themselves (had to get the flawed car analogy in:-).
You are assuming that the mob would just sit there and wait for the player, like it usually does in pretty much every game. In reality, a "level" would not necessarily know that Gordon Freeman is on his way. Neither will they have the patience to sit in their assigned ambush places, waiting for him all day long. A better AI would actually "live" in the environment where it is placed, so that it would react to the player instead of waiting for him. It would also be fun to watch. In Half-Life I really enjoyed watching those occasional scenes where monsters are wondering around doing things; like when the bullsquids feed on the headcrabs. I wish there were more things like that, things worth watching.
I like the beginning where, if you look through a window as your are going by in the hall, you see a scientist fighting two head crabs. He knocks a a filing cabinet over on one, killing it, and jumps up and down pointing at it in glee. The other one then proceeds to jump on his head. Classic!
Stuff like that got more sparse as the game went on. It's as if they were running out of time to get the game out the door.
I yelled at an employment recruiter for doing this last month. I haven't gotten another mailing from them since. It would have been a good time to start my own headhunting business though, I guess.
Yeah. You can really get a feel for how insignificant we really are on affecting climate if you check out the history channel's "how the earth was made". We've been here about a blink of an eye in the earth's history:
I dunno. I've been pretty spam-free for the past several years using mimedefang, milter-greylist, and spamassassin.
The key is to reject the obvious nonsense before invoking your cpu-intensive analysis. I reject on the order of 90+% of everything that my mail server sees (even more at the last place I worked where they were using the same system). False positives on my home mail server are near 0. The ones that are mistakenly flagged, are simply flagged as spam, so I still see them, they weren't rejected or discarded. More at work got through, but that is because we have to be more conservative due to not having a good way to do bayesian filtering for individuals (I left before I had the time to run that project with the internal mail admins).
Implement Greylisting. Spammers don't retry
Reject if sending server is in zen.spamhaus.org or list.dsbl.org
Reject if helo is not a FQDN or IP Address
Reject if envelope sender claims to be an address from your domain (obviously our real users get through)
Reject if helo claims to be your own mail server
Reject if helo is an ip address from RFC1918 (again, short circuit on your own routing)
Then call spamassassin on anything that is left (SA will increase/decreas scores based again on RBLs that we don't outright reject, SPF records, etc):
use sa-update daily both with standard spamassassin rule updates, and, more importantly, the stuff at saupdates.openprotect.com
if you are able, create a way to easily train your bayes on false positives and stuff that wasn't rated high enough. I do this with specific courier IMAP folders that get checked once an hour
Tune your sa rules to taste. I had to decrease some things (lots of friends use yahoo mail), and increase others (Stock image spam. Ugh).
Which is kind of like greylisting. The FIRST problem is that the spammers have adapted to this and retry.
This is exactly why greylisting is effective. It pushes the cost of spamming back on the spammers. Now they have to have a semi-legitimate mail relay, vs. fire and forget. If everyone greylisted, then the spammer's mail queues would be huge.
Of course, all bets are off with zombies that start using legitimate SMTP servers, but there are solutions to that already in place:
Many ISPs volunteer their list of non-smtp sending subnets (comcast will let you run a server, and even allow it to send outbound, but many other ISPs then block your mail because comcast submitted this info to the blacklists)
Corporate firewalls should ALWAYS block outbound SMTP that is not originating from their own servers
The only place this fails is if the spammers as part of their owning of zombie hosts begin to check for the proper SMTP server to relay through and configure accordingly. Admittedly, this is not too difficult to do, but they aren't doing it yet.
You can sort of do it using vgetty with a custom answer script (ring 1 usually comes in before any phones actually ring in my house). You can definitely do it if you set up a home PBX with asterisk.
Patents should protect those who have ideas who actually want to make something of them. I have lots of ideas. But I lack the time and ambition to make something of them, so I certainly am not going to patent them.
Patent your idea. Work with a company to bring it to market, if you can't do it yourself. If you don't do that, and fail to have a model or design in a reasonable amount of time, too bad, squatter. You shouldn't have the ability to make money off of somebody ELSE's hard work to bring an idea to fruition.
Since there is no physical device involved with software or methods, they don't require patents to 'protect' them. I can write code and come up with processes, which are the final product, without an investment in physical devices to build the 'thing'. You don't need a patent to protect you, as the product is instantly created. Copyright, sure. Patent? No way.
The other problem is that 3D doesn't really add much to most interactions. It's neat to think of having a 3D TV and all that, but will you -really- get much more out of the experience over regular TV?
And since IBM isn't really in the PC operating system business any more, they aren't abusing a monopoly position to do this. This is a beautiful move by IBM.
There's still a long way to go to bring back open standards and real competition, but whittling away at the office suite is a good start.
Slashdot Mirror
...but balmer does have one good point.
:)
He explains how now that vista is doing some things right wrt security, that apps that are poorly written are now broken. But, of course, windoze should never have encouraged the behavior in the first place, and there wouldn't be this mess.
Ok, I take it back. His point isn't good, because it's M$'s fault to begin with
Or you could configure your server to put a maximum number of recipients per envelope and also limit the number of envelopes sent at a time, if necessary. I did this to stop this exact problem. It's more efficient since you only send the stuff once (albeit, broken up into more than one message), but it is accepted vs. the constant retrying and whittling of the original recipient list.
It's more because infrastructure 'security' has been commoditized. You now by a product to do this, another to do that, etc. What management doesn't get is that security is a process, and good security does not equal buying a bunch of commodity products. We can do without them, but most companies would rather pay consultants and vendors than listen to their own security analyst staff who have likely already given the managment 10 different ways to mitigate vulnerability to specific threats, but it only became 'real' when there was something to buy to deal with it.
http://carcino.gen.nz/images/image.phpi/463c5922/arguing.jpg
Doesn't onstar already have the ability to unlock car doors remotely? That alone was scary to me before.
The real problem is that viruses are a social issue, not a technical one. I'm not talking about worms. I'm talking about viruses.
:-).
If users practice simple common sense, then anti-virus software buys them NOTHING, and actually ends up causing a lot of problems with the proper functioning of the computer.
Don't do stupid things, and keep your software up to date (arguably quite easy for home users using windows update, or yum, or whatever). Antivirus software doesn't help.
You cannot replace common sense with 'smart' software that tries to protect idiots from themselves. Imagine the problems we'd have with cars that tried to drive themselves (had to get the flawed car analogy in
I'm a prince fan, but he recently did The Wrong Thing.
So much for so-called heroes against the evil empire.
I like the beginning where, if you look through a window as your are going by in the hall, you see a scientist fighting two head crabs. He knocks a a filing cabinet over on one, killing it, and jumps up and down pointing at it in glee. The other one then proceeds to jump on his head. Classic!
Stuff like that got more sparse as the game went on. It's as if they were running out of time to get the game out the door.
I yelled at an employment recruiter for doing this last month. I haven't gotten another mailing from them since. It would have been a good time to start my own headhunting business though, I guess.
Yeah. You can really get a feel for how insignificant we really are on affecting climate if you check out the history channel's "how the earth was made". We've been here about a blink of an eye in the earth's history:
http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=242366
The key is to reject the obvious nonsense before invoking your cpu-intensive analysis. I reject on the order of 90+% of everything that my mail server sees (even more at the last place I worked where they were using the same system). False positives on my home mail server are near 0. The ones that are mistakenly flagged, are simply flagged as spam, so I still see them, they weren't rejected or discarded. More at work got through, but that is because we have to be more conservative due to not having a good way to do bayesian filtering for individuals (I left before I had the time to run that project with the internal mail admins).
Then call spamassassin on anything that is left (SA will increase/decreas scores based again on RBLs that we don't outright reject, SPF records, etc):
This is exactly why greylisting is effective. It pushes the cost of spamming back on the spammers. Now they have to have a semi-legitimate mail relay, vs. fire and forget. If everyone greylisted, then the spammer's mail queues would be huge.
Of course, all bets are off with zombies that start using legitimate SMTP servers, but there are solutions to that already in place:
The only place this fails is if the spammers as part of their owning of zombie hosts begin to check for the proper SMTP server to relay through and configure accordingly. Admittedly, this is not too difficult to do, but they aren't doing it yet.
'Mashup' is far better than 'blog'. But, I still prefer "Web Page"
I made a high capacity battery pack once. It wasn't in a pretty professional package. It also managed to short circuit and catch fire. Oops.
Probably not the safest sort of thing to allow on an airplane.
That's a dumb law. It encourages using a phone while driving. Something that falls under driving distracted and shouldn't be done.
You can sort of do it using vgetty with a custom answer script (ring 1 usually comes in before any phones actually ring in my house). You can definitely do it if you set up a home PBX with asterisk.
Patents should protect those who have ideas who actually want to make something of them. I have lots of ideas. But I lack the time and ambition to make something of them, so I certainly am not going to patent them.
Patent your idea. Work with a company to bring it to market, if you can't do it yourself. If you don't do that, and fail to have a model or design in a reasonable amount of time, too bad, squatter. You shouldn't have the ability to make money off of somebody ELSE's hard work to bring an idea to fruition.
Since there is no physical device involved with software or methods, they don't require patents to 'protect' them. I can write code and come up with processes, which are the final product, without an investment in physical devices to build the 'thing'. You don't need a patent to protect you, as the product is instantly created. Copyright, sure. Patent? No way.
Well, then the summary is mis-worded. That's not gnome doing power management, it's just re-writing the apps to cooperate with power management.
other than an interface for configuration, what does gnome have to do with linux power management?
You obviously aren't thinking of porn.
The client isn't the right place to do this.
And since IBM isn't really in the PC operating system business any more, they aren't abusing a monopoly position to do this. This is a beautiful move by IBM.
There's still a long way to go to bring back open standards and real competition, but whittling away at the office suite is a good start.
...couldn't M$ simply price a version of windows without the media player higher than the version with it?
This seems like a typical tactic they would employ to maintain their dominance and squeeze out competition.
Like Prince?
Ah, but OODraw *IS* a part of open office. It works great for labelling my pirated CDs.