The biggest problem with SATA is that they don't run power through the same connector. Thus, every drive gets two connections -- one to the motherboard and one to the power supply. That increases assembly time, the number of connections, the number of cables, and cost. The SATA group botched that big-time. Had they brought power through the connector, the power supply could have had just one connector which went to the motherboard and all SATA peripherals would get power through the motherboard. This has the additional advantage of allowing motherboard manufacturers to turn power on and off for each device while the system is running. Not only could the drives stop spinning, the motherboard could have powered them off.
Yeah, because the wealthy never buy anything with their money.
If you cut the taxes of the wealthy, it's more likely that they will invest in overseas firms than it is that they will rush down to Best Buy to get that new DVD player they have been wanting. If you cut the taxes of the middle class, there will be immediate purchases, whether it's paying for a new garbage disposal, buying clothes, or getting a new PC.
Oh, and they shouldn't be allowed to save it, either.
What melodramatic bullshit! The wealthy can save money whether they are taxed at 10% or 50%. Give me a break! It's the middle-class and below that are struggling to save any money. Bill Gates' kids aren't going to have to go to a community college if daddy's taxes go up by 20%
How dare they think it's their money? Gimmie!
How dare you think that they should reap the greatest benefit from our society and not pay the most in taxes? You just want tax policies that make the wealthy wealthier while leaving average Americans struggling to make ends meet. You are probably happy that there has been an ever-widening disparity between the haves and the have-nots. You probably think that it's great that CEO salaries have been skyrocketing while workers' salaries are spiralling downwards. Talking to people like you really makes me understand how the Bolsheviks felt.
Login names and passwords are NOT considered secure.
Yes they are. I know, because I consider them secure and I have computer security expertise, having been a key player in getting a system through a C2 evaluation. The U.S. government considers user names and passwords a viable means of controlling access. If you disagree, explain why.
for the R's to complain about fillibusters is insane - they stopped far more of clintons judges using the same tactics.
It's not insane at all. It's unethical. It's hypocritical. It's evil. But the Republicans of late have shown themselves to be willing to stoop to any level to increase their power. When they are in the minority, they employ filibusters to keep judges from being confirmed. Once they get the majority, they want to "outlaw" the filibuster to pack the courts with ultra-conservative judges. It they were just insane, they'd be easy to stop. But they are cold, calculating, and without scruples. That's a much tougher adversary with which to do battle.
Another example of the open-mindedness of so-called progressive political thought? Agree with us or shut-up!
My mind is not open about throwing out the Constitution and the legislative process that has served this country so well for over two centuries. If a handful of ultra-conservative judges can't get confirmed due to a filibuster, then drop them from consideration and propose some more mainstream judges. Don't try to change the legislative process so that you can load up the courts with judges who hold extreme, right-wing views.
tend to agree more with fmaxwell (except the flame-ish parts) but i think you're getting in some good points.
Thanks for the agreement part. As to flaming, that was not my intention at all. As I've gotten older, I find that I have less and less tolerance for people who discuss topics about which they have little understanding. I don't feel like typing ten pages while trying to be polite. It's simply a waste of time. So I put it more succinctly, feelings be damned.
That's right, we all know that filibusters are an integral part of the constitution.
The Constitution sets up the concept of checks and balances. Filibusters are simply a part of those checks and balances.
Try reading the document sometime rather than eating whatever Franken and Moore feed you.
Much better to get one's information from intelligent liberals than a stupid, self-impressed, lying, drug-addicted, hypocritical, right wing talk show host like Rush Limbaugh.
Right or left, Republican or Democrat -- those filibusters are an outrage and they damn well should be gotten rid of.
Yes, to hell with the Constitution and the founding fathers. To hell with over two centuries of legislative procedure. Make it so that a simple majority can appoint far-right or far-left leaning judges. Make it so that the Republicans can now stuff the courts with anti-choice, anti-environment, pro-big-business, anti-gay, bible thumpers.
If you don't have the votes for a block, show your constituents some damn respect and accept it.
If your constituents are liberal and the judge being proposed is a born-again-Christian who's an outspoken opponent against everything they believe in, then showing your constituents respect is using every legal means to prevent the confirmation of the judge.
If you don't understand the importance of the Constitution and why filibusters are such an integral aspect of the checks and balances, please don't post in this section.
Banks are legally responsible for securing the funds in your account, and for only giving those funds to authorized people.
No, banks are legally required to use due diligence to protect your funds. They can't be held legally liable for your losses if you write your PIN on your ATM card and leave it at the ATM.
To do this, banks have a wide number of security choices available to them.
There is nothing that the bank can do, short of requiring that you show up in person with photo ID for all transactions, to prevent a bad guy from getting your money if you give the bad guy your login credentials, account number, ATM card, RSA SecurID token, etc.
Banks have deliberately chosen a pretty flimsy set of security procedures, even though they are held financially liable.
Login names and passwords are considered adequate to secure most computer networks. Why is that suddenly "flimsy" when a bank does it?
Security is a cooperative venture. If I rent you a lockable storage facility for your valuables, it's not an indictment of my security procedures if you leave your keys hanging on a nail beside the door. Nor should I be liable for the loss of your valuables if you do that.
When you put money in a bank, you have a contract for them to secure your money, that's the difference.
Part of that contract is that you will comply with the security procedures. You won't give your login credentials out in response to unsolicited e-mails claiming to be from your bank. You won't write your PIN on your ATM card and then give it to some random stranger. You won't leave signed blank checks on park benches.
No. It didn't follow the proper security procedures. It followed its choice of security procedures.
Its procedures were completely, 100%, totally adequate. Had she followed them and not given out her login, password, and account number, not a penny would have been taken. How much information do you want? Here's the Bank of America web page on "phishing":
E-mail and Online Fraud What is e-mail fraud
Phony e-mail messages sent to you for the purpose of stealing personal and financial information are among the most common types of e-mail fraud.
Disguised as legitimate e-mail and claiming to be from sources you trust, these messages attempt to entice you to provide various types of personal and confidential information, including online IDs and passcodes, Social Security numbers and account numbers.
Also known as phishing or spoofing, the practice of e-mail fraud is commonly used by criminals to gain access to your existing accounts or to use your personal and financial information to open new accounts. Recognizing e-mail fraud
Spotting phony e-mail messages is not always easy. And the criminals who use them are becoming more sophisticated about creating them.
See an example of a fraudulent e-mail.
Phony e-mail messages may ask you to reply directly or click on a link that takes you to a fraudulent Web site that appears legitimate. In either case, they will generally ask you to provide sensitive personal, financial or account information.
Here are some tips for spotting phony e-mails:
* Urgent appeals. Frequently, these e-mails claim that your account may be closed if you fail to confirm, verify or authenticate your personal information immediately.
* Requests for security information. Fraudulent e-mails often claim that the bank has lost important security information that needs to be updated. They also may request that the user visit and update this information online.
* Typos and other errors. Fraudulent e-mails or Web sites may contain typographical or grammatical errors. The writing may also be awkward, stilted or inappropriate. The visual or design quality may be poor.
Protecting yourself against e-mail or online fraud
* Make sure the security features of your computer software, including your Web browser, are up-to-date. Software companies continuously provide security updates to their products. To learn more about keeping your computer security current, get tips and information from Microsoft (http://www.microsoft.com/security/protect/) or visit the National Cyber Security Alliance (http://www.staysafeonline.info/sectips.adp).
* Don't take anything for granted. Always keep in mind that forging e-mails and creating fraudulent Web sites is not difficult.
* Confirm the validity of all requests for sensitive personal, financial or account information, particularly if they are made with an urgent or threatening tone.
* Call the company directly to confirm requests for updating or verifying personal or account information.
* Confirm requests for personal or account information by going to the company Web site directly. Open a new browser window, type the Web address and check to see if you must actually perform any activity that an e-mail may be asking you to do, such as change a passcode.
* Do not share your IDs or passcodes with anyone. Choose passcodes that are difficult for others to guess and use a different passcode for each of your online accounts. Use both letters and numbers and a combination of lowercase and capital letters if the passcodes or personal identification numbers (PINs) are case sensitive. Change your passcode often.
* If you think you may have provided personal or account information in response to a fraudulent e-mail or Web site, report the fraud immediately, change your passcodes and monitor your account activity frequently.
* Always sign off Web sites or secure areas of Web sites (for
A bank that loses money to a criminal act that refuses to reimburse its customers might well lose its status as a bank.
It didn't "lose" her money. It followed the proper security procedures involving the use of a login name, password, and bank account number.
They took from her, without her permission, money from her bank account.
That's the key: "They took from her." They didn't steal from the bank. There wasn't negligence on the part of the bank. The bank didn't leak her account number, login name, or password. She did. She fell for a scam through no apparent fault of the bank. And now we all pay for it in the form of higher fees, lower savings account interest, etc.
Suppose she was duped into giving her house key to some burglar posing as someone from a carpet cleaning service. Should the mortgage company have to pay when the burglar steals her stuff? Should the home builder? Should the maker of her door lock? Of course not. So why do we treat physical keys so differently than virtual keys (login credentials)? You'd never suggest that anyone but the homeowner was responsible for the loss if they gave their house key to some con artist. So why is the bank responsible when the customer gives away the "keys" to their bank account?
Look, he was in Alabama for three months. He wasn't a member of the Alabama Guard, he was being allowed to drill with them as a courtesy. He would have shown up for between two and six days, and he would have been told to sit somewhere and stay out of the way.
So who told him to do that? Who did he report to? We're talking about a base with 25-30 pilots total, some of whom were expecting him to show. As one of them who served in the Military from '59 to '84 said:
"I'm sure I would have seen him. It's a small unit, and you couldn't go in or out without being seen. It was too close a space."
he couldn't fly
Gee, that could be explained by his refusal to take his required flight physical. From the analysis of the records by Gerald Lechliter, a retired Army colonel:
Bush was grounded by verbal orders on August 1, 1972, for not taking his flight physical. On September 5, 1972, the 147th FG commander published written orders, confirming the grounding. On September 29, 1972, official written orders issued by Major General Francis S. Greenlief, Chief, National Guard Bureau, confirmed the grounding, and, most important, ordered Bush to "comply with para[graph] 2-10, AFM 35-13"; paragraph 2-28, AFM 35-13, says the following: "The officer suspended will acknowledge in writing that he has received the orders indicating the time and date of receipt according to paragraph 2-10b." Walter V. Robinson (Robinson) and Francie Latour (Latour) in "Bush's loss of flying status should have spurred probe," Boston Globe, February 12, 2004, first noted this requirement. There is no document that shows Bush ever complied with this notification requirement, however. Robinson and Latour went on to cite two generals about the seriousness of Bush's failure to take his flight physical and the duty of the commander to investigate the reasons for his failure to take it.
Admit it: Your boy had daddy's friends pull strings to keep him out of Vietnam, didn't fulfill his obligation in the ANG, and then has spent the last few years trying to cover it up, with stories of destroyed records and paid liars who later claim that they "misspoke."
So now we've got dental records, pay stubs, and personal recollections. Does that satisfy you?
No, it does not. I want a significant number of people who served with Bush in the the Alabama Air National Guard to come forward and say so. I want them to recount stories of his service with them.
Getting dental records shows that Bush was willing to get his dental work at taxpayer expense, not that he fulfilled his obligation. What's next? A receipt from the PX for a case of beer to "prove" that Bush served? No one is claiming that Bush was unwilling to take pay when he failed to serve. I'm sure that he was, just as he was willing to take favors from daddy's friends to avoid going to Vietnam.
Re:No anti-virus software? Then stay off the net!
on
Am I a Spam Zombie?
·
· Score: 1
Which is why you can advise them NOT to run those pieces of crap (use Firefox+Thunderbird or just Mozilla) and they'll be immune to most things.
Go to the average user's home and just look at the amount of spyware, adware, etc. on their system and you'll be horrified. You can give them all of the advice that you want, but as soon as some web site promises a nifty toolbar or some other free thing, they download it. Or they will open the attachment with the dancing baby sent by Aunt Millie, unaware that it's a trojan horse dropping IRC-controlled zombie-ware on their system.
I've kept up my A/V. I have some common sense and am a good admin.
Thank you for proving my point. Despite being a skilled computer user and having good common sense, you still recognize the need for antivirus software. All it takes is one slip-up without the AV softare and your system is toast. I recognize that, too, and have AV software on all of my systems for that reason.
Re:No anti-virus software? Then stay off the net!
on
Am I a Spam Zombie?
·
· Score: 1
Stuff it, n00b.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Come back when you have over 20 years of professional software engineering experience.
I know what you meant. I know what you said.
Apparently you do not, since you've read all kinds of things into my one-sentence that I never wrote, implied, or intended.
You should stuff it before you make yourself out to look like more of an idiot for giving bad advice and being too foolish to accept correction.
I gave excellent advice: Again with the hint: Type "free antivirus software" into Google. That was it. The whole thing. I didn't say "Search for 'free antivirus software' in Google and install the first thing you come to without doing any further research." You and your little buddies came up with that brain-damaged idea and then tried to attribute it to me. Had you actually typed "free antivirus software" into Google, you would have found links to online ratings, user discussions, magazine reviews, etc.
I was wrong.
You still are.
Now stop trolling and go away.
Re:No anti-virus software? Then stay off the net!
on
Am I a Spam Zombie?
·
· Score: 1
actually since I ran windows 98 and ME for several years i would know, not once did i get attacked by a remote exploit
So what? Most viruses/worms come in through exploits in Internet Explorer, Outlook Express scripting, e-mail attachments, the disk that Billy brought home from his friend's house, the "cute" attachment that cousin Millie e-mailed, etc.
now sure there are lots of ways for an infected executable or a local user to escalate privlidges, due to almost no isolation of processes, but win 9x is nearly impenetrable from the outside since it does not run network services the way NT/200(0|3)/XP does...
Sure, it's almost impenetrable if you never run a network enabled app. If 98 is so incredibly secure, who was spreading all of those viruses before 2000 was released? There sure weren't that many compromised copies of NT 3.51 and 4.0 floating around that they would account for the infections.
speaking of dumb as a bag (box?) of rocks
You were saying?
P.S. You didn't answer my questions: "Did I say that Windows XP machines should be on the net without anti-virus protection?"
Re:No anti-virus software? Then stay off the net!
on
Am I a Spam Zombie?
·
· Score: 1
i was not referring to that software, just your suggestions to use google.
What's wrong with using a search engine to search for things? That seems pretty logical to me. You search for "free antivirus software", click on the links, search for reviews of packages that look promising, and choose one based on your research.
Just because something comes up high in the google results does not mean it is safe.
I never said that a high rank in Google meant something was safe, did I?
Re:No anti-virus software? Then stay off the net!
on
Am I a Spam Zombie?
·
· Score: 1
Why? Surely it would be more secure than a fully-patched WindowsXP machine?
No, it would not, but neither should a Windows XP machine be on the net without anti-virus software.
Re:No anti-virus software? Then stay off the net!
on
Am I a Spam Zombie?
·
· Score: 1
yup, because blaster, sasser, sobig and mydoom all were able to infect '98 machines. oh wait, what's that they didn't? it's actually the windows XP machines which were infected oops i guess your arguement just got shot to hell.
No, you didn't poke ANY holes in my argument. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
You really are as dumb as a bag of rocks, aren't you? Do you have any idea of the number of exploits that have affected Windows 98 boxes? Any idea at all? Didn't think so. Did I say that Windows XP machines should be on the net without anti-virus protection? Gee, I didn't say that, did I? Now shut your pie hole and try reading before you post.
Re:No anti-virus software? Then stay off the net!
on
Am I a Spam Zombie?
·
· Score: 1
So you are the guy telling people to download random software from the internet and install it. Thank you very much.
Ever heard of a review? How goddamned hard is it to do a little research on your own? Apparently too hard, so here' a link to a PC World review of free anti-virus software. But you're too clever to fall for that, aren't you? You figured out that Grisoft, Alwil, and H+BEDV Datentechnik GmbH (makers of AVG, Avast, and AntiVir anti-virus software respectively) are all providing free-for-personal-use anti-virus software that contains Trojan horses, viruses, worms, and malware because... because... well, just because!
It's pretty damned silly to refer to anti-virus packages which have undergone scrutiny, testing, and review in the user community and the press as "random software from the internet."
Re:No anti-virus software? Then stay off the net!
on
Am I a Spam Zombie?
·
· Score: 1
I don't see anything wrong with making a risk assessment and deciding that you're better off without a scanner.
It's not your place to make a "risk assessment" for your potential victims. All it takes is one f***-up by you and thousands of people end up being bombarded with viruses/worms from your infected PC.
And I've spent a lot of money buying new versions.
And I've spent a lot of money buying auto insurance. Maybe I should just make a "risk assessment" and decide that anyone I run into can just lump it.
Again with the hint: Type "free antivirus software" into Google.
I don't see any reason to use SPF either. It only benefits big ISPs, by keeping spammers from mentioning them in their return addresses.
Huh? Do you know anything about SPF? Apparently not. Any domain can have an SPF record. It is not limited to the "big ISPs." I have small domains. I have SPF records. That means that spammers forging addresses in my domains will be rejected by any mail server that does an SPF check.
One of my domains has been joe-jobbed. A spammer sent out hundreds of thousands of messages with a forged address in my domain. I had to deal with the ensuing mess. If I had SPF at the time any recipient server would have been able to tell that the spammer was not who he claimed to be in the From: address and would have rejected the e-mail. If every server did SPF checks, not a single one of the spammers messages would have been delivered.
Even then it only works until the spammers hijack the machine of some dumb sap who's a legitimate customer of such an ISP, and send under his name.
ISPs can rate-limit e-mail sent through their servers and port blocking of 25 will prevent their customers from directly connecting to mail servers other than the ones at the ISP. Now the software that hijacks the machine will have to determine the configured e-mail server, the login, the password (if there is one), whether it has to do POP-before-SMTP authentication, whether it needs to use SSL, and whether the server uses secure authentication. Or, the server might be IMAP, and then the hijack software has to include an engine to send through IMAP.
The whole exercise has been a waste of time and attention for all involved, and the sooner it's forgotten, the better.
Spoken like someone who has no understanding of SPF, at all. Look, I understand the technology. I understand the spam problem and have been combatting spammers for years. And I know that SPF is one of the most promising technologies out there. So please don't mislead people by making claims about something with which you clearly have no real experience.
No anti-virus software? Then stay off the net!
on
Am I a Spam Zombie?
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I run a Windows 98 laptop, sometimes wirelessly connected to broadband (a few hours a day, on average), but I had to remove my virus software years ago because it was locking my system up, so I'm wide open. I've tried to be a good citizen and have been shopping for new virus software, but prices are running $40-$70, and most of these are just for upgrades (not even counting the mandatory 'subscriptions')!
If you have a Windows 98 machine with no anti-virus software, then stay off of the Internet. Period. You have no right to endanger and inconvenience others just because you're too cheap/poor to buy anti-virus software and too computer-illiterate to type "free antivirus software" into Google (hint).
It reminds me of someone with 20/200 vision operating a car without glasses because glasses cost too much. "Oops! Sorry about your poodle! Didn't mean to run over your kid; sorry. Uh oh, hit another parked car."
I think what the GP was getting at is that Star Wars is more space opera than hard science fiction - nitpicking, yes, but we are where we are. Gene Roddenberry's observations aside, the characters in Star Trek often spent quite some time explaining technical and technological aspects when it furthured the plot - even if it was limited to things like "Hey Bones, why don't you, me, Spock, and yeoman Target in the red shirt beam down to the planet and see if we can find some dilythium crystals so Scotty can get us out of here?"
But look back at the original Star Wars and the technical musings in that:
"You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon? It's the ship that made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs." (groan)
"If the Rebels have obtained a complete technical reading of this station, it is possible, however unlikely, they might find a weakness and exploit it."
"We count 30 rebel ships, lord Vader, but they are so small they're evading our turbo lasers."
"Luke, you've switched off your targeting computer."
etc.
They talk about droids, explain light sabers, and so on.
Slashdot Mirror
The biggest problem with SATA is that they don't run power through the same connector. Thus, every drive gets two connections -- one to the motherboard and one to the power supply. That increases assembly time, the number of connections, the number of cables, and cost. The SATA group botched that big-time. Had they brought power through the connector, the power supply could have had just one connector which went to the motherboard and all SATA peripherals would get power through the motherboard. This has the additional advantage of allowing motherboard manufacturers to turn power on and off for each device while the system is running. Not only could the drives stop spinning, the motherboard could have powered them off.
Yeah, because the wealthy never buy anything with their money.
If you cut the taxes of the wealthy, it's more likely that they will invest in overseas firms than it is that they will rush down to Best Buy to get that new DVD player they have been wanting. If you cut the taxes of the middle class, there will be immediate purchases, whether it's paying for a new garbage disposal, buying clothes, or getting a new PC.
Oh, and they shouldn't be allowed to save it, either.
What melodramatic bullshit! The wealthy can save money whether they are taxed at 10% or 50%. Give me a break! It's the middle-class and below that are struggling to save any money. Bill Gates' kids aren't going to have to go to a community college if daddy's taxes go up by 20%
How dare they think it's their money? Gimmie!
How dare you think that they should reap the greatest benefit from our society and not pay the most in taxes? You just want tax policies that make the wealthy wealthier while leaving average Americans struggling to make ends meet. You are probably happy that there has been an ever-widening disparity between the haves and the have-nots. You probably think that it's great that CEO salaries have been skyrocketing while workers' salaries are spiralling downwards. Talking to people like you really makes me understand how the Bolsheviks felt.
Login names and passwords are NOT considered secure.
Yes they are. I know, because I consider them secure and I have computer security expertise, having been a key player in getting a system through a C2 evaluation. The U.S. government considers user names and passwords a viable means of controlling access. If you disagree, explain why.
for the R's to complain about fillibusters is insane - they stopped far more of clintons judges using the same tactics.
It's not insane at all. It's unethical. It's hypocritical. It's evil. But the Republicans of late have shown themselves to be willing to stoop to any level to increase their power. When they are in the minority, they employ filibusters to keep judges from being confirmed. Once they get the majority, they want to "outlaw" the filibuster to pack the courts with ultra-conservative judges. It they were just insane, they'd be easy to stop. But they are cold, calculating, and without scruples. That's a much tougher adversary with which to do battle.
Another example of the open-mindedness of so-called progressive political thought? Agree with us or shut-up!
My mind is not open about throwing out the Constitution and the legislative process that has served this country so well for over two centuries. If a handful of ultra-conservative judges can't get confirmed due to a filibuster, then drop them from consideration and propose some more mainstream judges. Don't try to change the legislative process so that you can load up the courts with judges who hold extreme, right-wing views.
tend to agree more with fmaxwell (except the flame-ish parts) but i think you're getting in some good points.
Thanks for the agreement part. As to flaming, that was not my intention at all. As I've gotten older, I find that I have less and less tolerance for people who discuss topics about which they have little understanding. I don't feel like typing ten pages while trying to be polite. It's simply a waste of time. So I put it more succinctly, feelings be damned.
That's right, we all know that filibusters are an integral part of the constitution.
The Constitution sets up the concept of checks and balances. Filibusters are simply a part of those checks and balances.
Try reading the document sometime rather than eating whatever Franken and Moore feed you.
Much better to get one's information from intelligent liberals than a stupid, self-impressed, lying, drug-addicted, hypocritical, right wing talk show host like Rush Limbaugh.
Right or left, Republican or Democrat -- those filibusters are an outrage and they damn well should be gotten rid of.
Yes, to hell with the Constitution and the founding fathers. To hell with over two centuries of legislative procedure. Make it so that a simple majority can appoint far-right or far-left leaning judges. Make it so that the Republicans can now stuff the courts with anti-choice, anti-environment, pro-big-business, anti-gay, bible thumpers.
If you don't have the votes for a block, show your constituents some damn respect and accept it.
If your constituents are liberal and the judge being proposed is a born-again-Christian who's an outspoken opponent against everything they believe in, then showing your constituents respect is using every legal means to prevent the confirmation of the judge.
If you don't understand the importance of the Constitution and why filibusters are such an integral aspect of the checks and balances, please don't post in this section.
Banks are legally responsible for securing the funds in your account, and for only giving those funds to authorized people.
No, banks are legally required to use due diligence to protect your funds. They can't be held legally liable for your losses if you write your PIN on your ATM card and leave it at the ATM.
To do this, banks have a wide number of security choices available to them.
There is nothing that the bank can do, short of requiring that you show up in person with photo ID for all transactions, to prevent a bad guy from getting your money if you give the bad guy your login credentials, account number, ATM card, RSA SecurID token, etc.
Banks have deliberately chosen a pretty flimsy set of security procedures, even though they are held financially liable.
Login names and passwords are considered adequate to secure most computer networks. Why is that suddenly "flimsy" when a bank does it?
Security is a cooperative venture. If I rent you a lockable storage facility for your valuables, it's not an indictment of my security procedures if you leave your keys hanging on a nail beside the door. Nor should I be liable for the loss of your valuables if you do that.
When you put money in a bank, you have a contract for them to secure your money, that's the difference.
Part of that contract is that you will comply with the security procedures. You won't give your login credentials out in response to unsolicited e-mails claiming to be from your bank. You won't write your PIN on your ATM card and then give it to some random stranger. You won't leave signed blank checks on park benches.
Its procedures were completely, 100%, totally adequate. Had she followed them and not given out her login, password, and account number, not a penny would have been taken. How much information do you want? Here's the Bank of America web page on "phishing":
A bank that loses money to a criminal act that refuses to reimburse its customers might well lose its status as a bank.
It didn't "lose" her money. It followed the proper security procedures involving the use of a login name, password, and bank account number.
They took from her, without her permission, money from her bank account.
That's the key: "They took from her." They didn't steal from the bank. There wasn't negligence on the part of the bank. The bank didn't leak her account number, login name, or password. She did. She fell for a scam through no apparent fault of the bank. And now we all pay for it in the form of higher fees, lower savings account interest, etc.
Suppose she was duped into giving her house key to some burglar posing as someone from a carpet cleaning service. Should the mortgage company have to pay when the burglar steals her stuff? Should the home builder? Should the maker of her door lock? Of course not. So why do we treat physical keys so differently than virtual keys (login credentials)? You'd never suggest that anyone but the homeowner was responsible for the loss if they gave their house key to some con artist. So why is the bank responsible when the customer gives away the "keys" to their bank account?
Look, he was in Alabama for three months. He wasn't a member of the Alabama Guard, he was being allowed to drill with them as a courtesy. He would have shown up for between two and six days, and he would have been told to sit somewhere and stay out of the way.
So who told him to do that? Who did he report to? We're talking about a base with 25-30 pilots total, some of whom were expecting him to show. As one of them who served in the Military from '59 to '84 said:
"I'm sure I would have seen him. It's a small unit, and you couldn't go in or out without being seen. It was too close a space."
he couldn't fly
Gee, that could be explained by his refusal to take his required flight physical. From the analysis of the records by Gerald Lechliter, a retired Army colonel:
Bush was grounded by verbal orders on August 1, 1972, for not
taking his flight physical. On September 5, 1972, the 147th FG
commander published written orders, confirming the grounding. On
September 29, 1972, official written orders issued by Major General
Francis S. Greenlief, Chief, National Guard Bureau, confirmed the
grounding, and, most important, ordered Bush to "comply with
para[graph] 2-10, AFM 35-13"; paragraph 2-28, AFM 35-13, says the
following: "The officer suspended will acknowledge in writing that
he has received the orders indicating the time and date of receipt
according to paragraph 2-10b." Walter V. Robinson (Robinson) and
Francie Latour (Latour) in "Bush's loss of flying status should have
spurred probe," Boston Globe, February 12, 2004, first noted this
requirement. There is no document that shows Bush ever complied
with this notification requirement, however. Robinson and Latour
went on to cite two generals about the seriousness of Bush's failure
to take his flight physical and the duty of the commander to
investigate the reasons for his failure to take it.
Admit it: Your boy had daddy's friends pull strings to keep him out of Vietnam, didn't fulfill his obligation in the ANG, and then has spent the last few years trying to cover it up, with stories of destroyed records and paid liars who later claim that they "misspoke."
So now we've got dental records, pay stubs, and personal recollections. Does that satisfy you?
No, it does not. I want a significant number of people who served with Bush in the the Alabama Air National Guard to come forward and say so. I want them to recount stories of his service with them.
Getting dental records shows that Bush was willing to get his dental work at taxpayer expense, not that he fulfilled his obligation. What's next? A receipt from the PX for a case of beer to "prove" that Bush served? No one is claiming that Bush was unwilling to take pay when he failed to serve. I'm sure that he was, just as he was willing to take favors from daddy's friends to avoid going to Vietnam.
Which is why you can advise them NOT to run those pieces of crap (use Firefox+Thunderbird or just Mozilla) and they'll be immune to most things.
Go to the average user's home and just look at the amount of spyware, adware, etc. on their system and you'll be horrified. You can give them all of the advice that you want, but as soon as some web site promises a nifty toolbar or some other free thing, they download it. Or they will open the attachment with the dancing baby sent by Aunt Millie, unaware that it's a trojan horse dropping IRC-controlled zombie-ware on their system.
I've kept up my A/V. I have some common sense and am a good admin.
Thank you for proving my point. Despite being a skilled computer user and having good common sense, you still recognize the need for antivirus software. All it takes is one slip-up without the AV softare and your system is toast. I recognize that, too, and have AV software on all of my systems for that reason.
Stuff it, n00b.
HAHAHAHAHAHA! Come back when you have over 20 years of professional software engineering experience.
I know what you meant. I know what you said.
Apparently you do not, since you've read all kinds of things into my one-sentence that I never wrote, implied, or intended.
You should stuff it before you make yourself out to look like more of an idiot for giving bad advice and being too foolish to accept correction.
I gave excellent advice: Again with the hint: Type "free antivirus software" into Google. That was it. The whole thing. I didn't say "Search for 'free antivirus software' in Google and install the first thing you come to without doing any further research." You and your little buddies came up with that brain-damaged idea and then tried to attribute it to me. Had you actually typed "free antivirus software" into Google, you would have found links to online ratings, user discussions, magazine reviews, etc.
I was wrong.
You still are.
Now stop trolling and go away.
actually since I ran windows 98 and ME for several years i would know, not once did i get attacked by a remote exploit
So what? Most viruses/worms come in through exploits in Internet Explorer, Outlook Express scripting, e-mail attachments, the disk that Billy brought home from his friend's house, the "cute" attachment that cousin Millie e-mailed, etc.
now sure there are lots of ways for an infected executable or a local user to escalate privlidges, due to almost no isolation of processes, but win 9x is nearly impenetrable from the outside since it does not run network services the way NT/200(0|3)/XP does...
Sure, it's almost impenetrable if you never run a network enabled app. If 98 is so incredibly secure, who was spreading all of those viruses before 2000 was released? There sure weren't that many compromised copies of NT 3.51 and 4.0 floating around that they would account for the infections.
speaking of dumb as a bag (box?) of rocks
You were saying?
P.S. You didn't answer my questions: "Did I say that Windows XP machines should be on the net without anti-virus protection?"
i was not referring to that software, just your suggestions to use google.
What's wrong with using a search engine to search for things? That seems pretty logical to me. You search for "free antivirus software", click on the links, search for reviews of packages that look promising, and choose one based on your research.
Just because something comes up high in the google results does not mean it is safe.
I never said that a high rank in Google meant something was safe, did I?
Why? Surely it would be more secure than a fully-patched WindowsXP machine?
No, it would not, but neither should a Windows XP machine be on the net without anti-virus software.
yup, because blaster, sasser, sobig and mydoom all were able to infect '98 machines. oh wait, what's that they didn't? it's actually the windows XP machines which were infected oops i guess your arguement just got shot to hell.
No, you didn't poke ANY holes in my argument. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
You really are as dumb as a bag of rocks, aren't you? Do you have any idea of the number of exploits that have affected Windows 98 boxes? Any idea at all? Didn't think so. Did I say that Windows XP machines should be on the net without anti-virus protection? Gee, I didn't say that, did I? Now shut your pie hole and try reading before you post.
So you are the guy telling people to download random software from the internet and install it. Thank you very much.
Ever heard of a review? How goddamned hard is it to do a little research on your own? Apparently too hard, so here' a link to a PC World review of free anti-virus software. But you're too clever to fall for that, aren't you? You figured out that Grisoft, Alwil, and H+BEDV Datentechnik GmbH (makers of AVG, Avast, and AntiVir anti-virus software respectively) are all providing free-for-personal-use anti-virus software that contains Trojan horses, viruses, worms, and malware because... because... well, just because!
It's pretty damned silly to refer to anti-virus packages which have undergone scrutiny, testing, and review in the user community and the press as "random software from the internet."
I don't see anything wrong with making a risk assessment and deciding that you're better off without a scanner.
It's not your place to make a "risk assessment" for your potential victims. All it takes is one f***-up by you and thousands of people end up being bombarded with viruses/worms from your infected PC.
And I've spent a lot of money buying new versions.
And I've spent a lot of money buying auto insurance. Maybe I should just make a "risk assessment" and decide that anyone I run into can just lump it.
Again with the hint: Type "free antivirus software" into Google.
You can't send e-mail through imap, it doesn't have any outgoing features. This is why you still need an smtp server configured when you use imap.
I stand corrected. I have not used IMAP and thought that it handled both. Thanks for the info.
I don't see any reason to use SPF either. It only benefits big ISPs, by keeping spammers from mentioning them in their return addresses.
Huh? Do you know anything about SPF? Apparently not. Any domain can have an SPF record. It is not limited to the "big ISPs." I have small domains. I have SPF records. That means that spammers forging addresses in my domains will be rejected by any mail server that does an SPF check.
One of my domains has been joe-jobbed. A spammer sent out hundreds of thousands of messages with a forged address in my domain. I had to deal with the ensuing mess. If I had SPF at the time any recipient server would have been able to tell that the spammer was not who he claimed to be in the From: address and would have rejected the e-mail. If every server did SPF checks, not a single one of the spammers messages would have been delivered.
Even then it only works until the spammers hijack the machine of some dumb sap who's a legitimate customer of such an ISP, and send under his name.
ISPs can rate-limit e-mail sent through their servers and port blocking of 25 will prevent their customers from directly connecting to mail servers other than the ones at the ISP. Now the software that hijacks the machine will have to determine the configured e-mail server, the login, the password (if there is one), whether it has to do POP-before-SMTP authentication, whether it needs to use SSL, and whether the server uses secure authentication. Or, the server might be IMAP, and then the hijack software has to include an engine to send through IMAP.
The whole exercise has been a waste of time and attention for all involved, and the sooner it's forgotten, the better.
Spoken like someone who has no understanding of SPF, at all. Look, I understand the technology. I understand the spam problem and have been combatting spammers for years. And I know that SPF is one of the most promising technologies out there. So please don't mislead people by making claims about something with which you clearly have no real experience.
I run a Windows 98 laptop, sometimes wirelessly connected to broadband (a few hours a day, on average), but I had to remove my virus software years ago because it was locking my system up, so I'm wide open. I've tried to be a good citizen and have been shopping for new virus software, but prices are running $40-$70, and most of these are just for upgrades (not even counting the mandatory 'subscriptions')!
If you have a Windows 98 machine with no anti-virus software, then stay off of the Internet. Period. You have no right to endanger and inconvenience others just because you're too cheap/poor to buy anti-virus software and too computer-illiterate to type "free antivirus software" into Google (hint).
It reminds me of someone with 20/200 vision operating a car without glasses because glasses cost too much. "Oops! Sorry about your poodle! Didn't mean to run over your kid; sorry. Uh oh, hit another parked car."
I think what the GP was getting at is that Star Wars is more space opera than hard science fiction - nitpicking, yes, but we are where we are. Gene Roddenberry's observations aside, the characters in Star Trek often spent quite some time explaining technical and technological aspects when it furthured the plot - even if it was limited to things like "Hey Bones, why don't you, me, Spock, and yeoman Target in the red shirt beam down to the planet and see if we can find some dilythium crystals so Scotty can get us out of here?"
But look back at the original Star Wars and the technical musings in that:
"You've never heard of the Millennium Falcon? It's the ship that made the Kessel run in less than 12 parsecs." (groan)
"If the Rebels have obtained a complete technical reading of this station, it is possible, however unlikely, they might find a weakness and exploit it."
"We count 30 rebel ships, lord Vader, but they are so small they're evading our turbo lasers."
"Luke, you've switched off your targeting computer."
etc.
They talk about droids, explain light sabers, and so on.
I still see them as having a lot of similarities.