That's a pretty lame reason for not switching. Here's a few solutions:
1 - Set up keyword bookmarks. They're much more flexible than a single search engine. Two keys ('g' + [space]) and you'll be searching Google. Plus, you can add any number of shortcuts to other search engine.
2 - Use the built-in search bar. Again, you'll be searching google in two motions: 'Alt-D' and [tab].
The reason I bought an Xbox is to use it as a music box for my car.
I'm not going to say it's "silly", but there is much more appropriate hardware for that purpose than the XBox. You'll be working with a sub-obtimal NTSC signal instead of nice clean >VGA. You've also got to mod the XBox to run off 12VDC (or deal with a kludgy inverter).
Out of curiousity - why did you choose the XBox?
I'm sure you already found it, but others interested in doing similar things should take a serious look at http://mini-itx.com/.
But glow in the dark fish? Is that really worth the possibility that the fish will escape and reek havoc in the ecosystem?
I think the uproar from the aquarium industry isn't the possibilty that these fish will escape into the wild. It's the risk that they'll contaminate their stocks of the natural fish.
As a practical matter, I don't think there is much risk here. When you are someone else's prey (as the zebra fish is) it usually doesn't pay off to glow in the freakin dark. It's not like zebra fish are attracted to glowing mates.
I guess the difference of opinion that we have is that you believe it's extremely unlikely that you will someday make a mistake, whereas I believe it's nearly certain that all of us make mistakes every day.
Antivirus software is for people who, from time to time, make a mistake. Like mis-clicking on an attachment at 3am, or misreading a file type and running an unsafe file.
Well, I guess it's harder for you then it is for me. You look at the sender, you look at the subject and body, and you look at the attachment. Then, your freaking mail client asks you, "Are you sure you want to open this?" IF you know what to watch out for, those should be plenty of "last chances".
Antivirus software is for people who run software that has bugs in it. You mentioned you are using Windows...
Not really, a better solution is to keep your system patched. I contend that most holes are patched quicker than most exploit-type viruses are identified and put into the signature updates. The security holes that cause Code Red, Nimda, etc. always seem to have patches long before the epidemics, don't they?
Antivirus software is for people who believe in Security In Depth, a school of thought which says that you should use multiple layers of security, so that if one fails you aren't screwed.
Well, so is encrypting your filesystem, having a locking screensaver, unplugging your network cable when idle, etc. Obviously another layer is a good thing. But at what point do you decide that it's not worth the money or slowdown to take that extra step. And yes, scanning for 50,000 (and growing) data patterns every time you open a file WILL slow your system down.
Antivirus software is for people whose data is worth more than $50 (or $20 after rebate).
No it's not - it's for people who would rather spend $50 than understand the internals of their operating system. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'd rather spend $150 to fix my furnace than learn how to do it myself.
My point was not that most people don't need antivirus software. They do. I was just disagreeing with the original poster who claimed that knowledgable users understand the necessity of antivirus software. Not true. Knowledgable users don't engage in stupid behavior.
I absolutely agree. I recommend antivirus software to just about everybody I know. However, that's because almost everybody I know doesn't understand their OS enough to keep from infecting themselves.
I was arguing the original poster's claim that anybody who knows what they're doing understands that antivirus software is necessary. Not true - quite the opposite.
Also, people here know enough that you really need a virus scanner for full protection. I use Windows XP, and haven't had a virus yet.
I always hoped that people here knew enough to NOT need a virus scanner. I run Windows XP, keep it patched, and don't run a virus scanner. Never had an infection. I know because (out of curiousity) I have scanned my local hard drive from my laptop, which does run antivirus software.
Virus scanners are absolutely unnecessary IF you know what you're doing. 1) Keep your system patched; 2) don't open executables you can't trust; and 3) don't enable macros in any of Microsoft's products. It's that simple.
The antivirus industry is going to collapse as soon as the majority of computer operating systems behave in a secure manner. Until then, antivirus software is for people who don't understand their operating systems.
I worked for a factory that (as of 1999) was still using GW-BASIC and a 3rd party DB module for ALL of their inventory/reporting systems. Hundreds of thousands of lines of code in GW-freakin-BASIC! You want to talk about a nightmare to maintain.
Your last point was especially interesting. I'll have to think about that one.
However, I still contend that the gas tax is the best solution on the table for making the users pay for the service. What would be better? Toll booths? GPS mileage trackers? Tire taxes?
It's better to go with a system that's 95% accurate then to triple costs and effort to acheive 99% accuracy. Because ultimately, people will just have to be taxed even more to pay for the government's new precision mileage tracking infrastructure (that does the same thing as the gas tax except it accounts for lawnmowers and old cars).
If I buy gasoline for a lawnmower, that mower is not using the roads at all, but I'm still paying the tax.
Hmmm - so you're out, what, $5 per year in extraneous taxes on lawnmower fuel? Of course your lawnmower is using that filthy 2-cycle engine, so consider it a pollution penalty.
Also, two cars of equal weight put the same wear on the road even if one is more fuel efficient than the other and thus pays less gas tax.
Generally, two cars of similar weight are going to get similar mileage. The difference will usually be negligible.
The point is that the gas tax is pretty fair. The extra effort it would take to do it more accurately wouldn't be worth it. Besides, both examples you mentioned involved excessive pollution which, in my opinion, should result in penalties anyway. It all works out in the end.
One of the advantages of living in a house with 4 other guys, either someone will buy it, or their girlfriend/mom/dad/brother/grandmother/aunt/etc certainly will
Yeah, but does that outweigh always having to fish pubes out of your keyboard?
And then again, shooting someone in the head is acceptable; you just cannot call him "motherfucker" while doing this. Am I the only person who considers it a little bit weird?
As an example; the UK government is considering an unhealthy food tax. [...] it is an example of the state forcing its view of good and bad on a population
I'd like to discuss this one with you.
Why should the taxpayers that take care of their bodies be subsidizing the health care of people who engage in unhealthy practices (smoking, alcohol, junk food, etc.)?
It's like a gas tax. People who use the most gas, and therefore use the roads the most, are the ones paying the most to repair them. Similarly, people who draw the most from public healthcare should also be paying more for their self-destructing lifestyles.
Rent DVD porn. I'm serious, the porn market on the internet already makes insane amounts of money.
Ugh. I can't think of anything more disgusting than handling something that is guaranteed to have been in the possession of someone clutching their own genitals.
Ahhh, I thought that's probably where you were going with that.
The thing is, Russell's patch checks for BASE64 encoded executables. That's it. Not any of the other file types that can seriously fuck up a Windows machine (bat, cmd, hta, vb[se], js[e], lnk, pif, ws, wma, etc).
Also, his patch wouldn't protect you from the sound file buffer exploit you referred to. Russell's patch checks for two 9 character strings at the beginning of the encoded attachment. And unless the file is an.EXE or maybe a.COM, it ain't gonna match those strings.
I think removing based on file extension is a MUCH safer and more robust mechanism.
I think you're mistaken. Mine strips out MIME attachments with certain file extensions. Windows will attempt to execute ANY file that has what it considers to be an "executable" file extension.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, I blinked past the story as posted yesterday.
That's okay - the writeup was much better this time.
Although if you're blind and deaf, you're still out of luck.
You ain't shittin'.
Yeah, but I believe that it only works if the content creators put in a special meta tag. Right?
That's a pretty lame reason for not switching. Here's a few solutions:
1 - Set up keyword bookmarks. They're much more flexible than a single search engine. Two keys ('g' + [space]) and you'll be searching Google. Plus, you can add any number of shortcuts to other search engine.
2 - Use the built-in search bar. Again, you'll be searching google in two motions: 'Alt-D' and [tab].
3 - Don't switch. Nobody really cares.
The reason I bought an Xbox is to use it as a music box for my car.
I'm not going to say it's "silly", but there is much more appropriate hardware for that purpose than the XBox. You'll be working with a sub-obtimal NTSC signal instead of nice clean >VGA. You've also got to mod the XBox to run off 12VDC (or deal with a kludgy inverter).
Out of curiousity - why did you choose the XBox?
I'm sure you already found it, but others interested in doing similar things should take a serious look at http://mini-itx.com/.
The last time I looked at a Novell System was 4 years ago. But it ran a modified version of MS DOS.
So what, Linux is the same way. ; )
Hmmm, four people out of millions of swappers. I like those odds...
But glow in the dark fish? Is that really worth the possibility that the fish will escape and reek havoc in the ecosystem?
I think the uproar from the aquarium industry isn't the possibilty that these fish will escape into the wild. It's the risk that they'll contaminate their stocks of the natural fish.
As a practical matter, I don't think there is much risk here. When you are someone else's prey (as the zebra fish is) it usually doesn't pay off to glow in the freakin dark. It's not like zebra fish are attracted to glowing mates.
I guess the difference of opinion that we have is that you believe it's extremely unlikely that you will someday make a mistake, whereas I believe it's nearly certain that all of us make mistakes every day.
That about sums it up.
Antivirus software is for people who, from time to time, make a mistake. Like mis-clicking on an attachment at 3am, or misreading a file type and running an unsafe file.
Well, I guess it's harder for you then it is for me. You look at the sender, you look at the subject and body, and you look at the attachment. Then, your freaking mail client asks you, "Are you sure you want to open this?" IF you know what to watch out for, those should be plenty of "last chances".
Antivirus software is for people who run software that has bugs in it. You mentioned you are using Windows...
Not really, a better solution is to keep your system patched. I contend that most holes are patched quicker than most exploit-type viruses are identified and put into the signature updates. The security holes that cause Code Red, Nimda, etc. always seem to have patches long before the epidemics, don't they?
Antivirus software is for people who believe in Security In Depth, a school of thought which says that you should use multiple layers of security, so that if one fails you aren't screwed.
Well, so is encrypting your filesystem, having a locking screensaver, unplugging your network cable when idle, etc. Obviously another layer is a good thing. But at what point do you decide that it's not worth the money or slowdown to take that extra step. And yes, scanning for 50,000 (and growing) data patterns every time you open a file WILL slow your system down.
Antivirus software is for people whose data is worth more than $50 (or $20 after rebate).
No it's not - it's for people who would rather spend $50 than understand the internals of their operating system. Not that there's anything wrong with that. I'd rather spend $150 to fix my furnace than learn how to do it myself.
My point was not that most people don't need antivirus software. They do. I was just disagreeing with the original poster who claimed that knowledgable users understand the necessity of antivirus software. Not true. Knowledgable users don't engage in stupid behavior.
I absolutely agree. I recommend antivirus software to just about everybody I know. However, that's because almost everybody I know doesn't understand their OS enough to keep from infecting themselves.
I was arguing the original poster's claim that anybody who knows what they're doing understands that antivirus software is necessary. Not true - quite the opposite.
Also, people here know enough that you really need a virus scanner for full protection. I use Windows XP, and haven't had a virus yet.
I always hoped that people here knew enough to NOT need a virus scanner. I run Windows XP, keep it patched, and don't run a virus scanner. Never had an infection. I know because (out of curiousity) I have scanned my local hard drive from my laptop, which does run antivirus software.
Virus scanners are absolutely unnecessary IF you know what you're doing. 1) Keep your system patched; 2) don't open executables you can't trust; and 3) don't enable macros in any of Microsoft's products. It's that simple.
The antivirus industry is going to collapse as soon as the majority of computer operating systems behave in a secure manner. Until then, antivirus software is for people who don't understand their operating systems.
Please - someone challenge me on this.
I worked for a factory that (as of 1999) was still using GW-BASIC and a 3rd party DB module for ALL of their inventory/reporting systems. Hundreds of thousands of lines of code in GW-freakin-BASIC! You want to talk about a nightmare to maintain.
~2 m.y.a. - development of elite throwing: We could throw accurately, and fast enough to kill. This is precisely when the first Homo evolved.
Wait a minute - I thought homos throw like a girl.
[Easy, it's just a joke.]
Your last point was especially interesting. I'll have to think about that one.
However, I still contend that the gas tax is the best solution on the table for making the users pay for the service. What would be better? Toll booths? GPS mileage trackers? Tire taxes?
It's better to go with a system that's 95% accurate then to triple costs and effort to acheive 99% accuracy. Because ultimately, people will just have to be taxed even more to pay for the government's new precision mileage tracking infrastructure (that does the same thing as the gas tax except it accounts for lawnmowers and old cars).
If I buy gasoline for a lawnmower, that mower is not using the roads at all, but I'm still paying the tax.
Hmmm - so you're out, what, $5 per year in extraneous taxes on lawnmower fuel? Of course your lawnmower is using that filthy 2-cycle engine, so consider it a pollution penalty.
Also, two cars of equal weight put the same wear on the road even if one is more fuel efficient than the other and thus pays less gas tax.
Generally, two cars of similar weight are going to get similar mileage. The difference will usually be negligible.
The point is that the gas tax is pretty fair. The extra effort it would take to do it more accurately wouldn't be worth it. Besides, both examples you mentioned involved excessive pollution which, in my opinion, should result in penalties anyway. It all works out in the end.
One of the advantages of living in a house with 4 other guys, either someone will buy it, or their girlfriend/mom/dad/brother/grandmother/aunt/etc certainly will
Yeah, but does that outweigh always having to fish pubes out of your keyboard?
I wish these movies had never been made. All of a sudden Im being forced into "Tolkien Conversations" with people who have never read the book.
Forced into conversations? Maybe you should take off the "Tolkien Rules" t-shirt, Comic Book Guy.
Heh. Insightful? You guys are weird.
And then again, shooting someone in the head is acceptable; you just cannot call him "motherfucker" while doing this. Am I the only person who considers it a little bit weird?
Shut up, motherfucker.
As an example; the UK government is considering an unhealthy food tax. [...] it is an example of the state forcing its view of good and bad on a population
I'd like to discuss this one with you.
Why should the taxpayers that take care of their bodies be subsidizing the health care of people who engage in unhealthy practices (smoking, alcohol, junk food, etc.)?
It's like a gas tax. People who use the most gas, and therefore use the roads the most, are the ones paying the most to repair them. Similarly, people who draw the most from public healthcare should also be paying more for their self-destructing lifestyles.
Rent DVD porn. I'm serious, the porn market on the internet already makes insane amounts of money.
Ugh. I can't think of anything more disgusting than handling something that is guaranteed to have been in the possession of someone clutching their own genitals.
Oh Jebus no. If I see one more resume with "HTML programmer" on it I'll fucking scream.
Ahhh, I thought that's probably where you were going with that.
.EXE or maybe a .COM, it ain't gonna match those strings.
The thing is, Russell's patch checks for BASE64 encoded executables. That's it. Not any of the other file types that can seriously fuck up a Windows machine (bat, cmd, hta, vb[se], js[e], lnk, pif, ws, wma, etc).
Also, his patch wouldn't protect you from the sound file buffer exploit you referred to. Russell's patch checks for two 9 character strings at the beginning of the encoded attachment. And unless the file is an
I think removing based on file extension is a MUCH safer and more robust mechanism.
I think you're mistaken. Mine strips out MIME attachments with certain file extensions. Windows will attempt to execute ANY file that has what it considers to be an "executable" file extension.
Could you please elaborate on the difference?