Using Windows for anything that requires security is just stupid!
Putting a Windows server on the internet is a generally accepted "bad idea." Putting a Windows machine onto the internet without being crippled with anti-ware and a multitude of filters is a "bad idea" which invariably still leads to compromises because anti-ware and filters will never be enough.
And someone wants to put Windows into ATMs and POS machines?! And people BUY them?!
It's easy to hate. It is far more difficult to understand.
I'm not going the reactive route and I'm going to wonder what went wrong with this guy. What collection of contributing factors led to this?
He shot his family and kids and others. Each of these are difficult to imagine on their own. But the combination... it's, to me, indication that this guy has had something brewing within him for a long, long time. After he made his first kill, he knew he was committed and went on his bucket-list tour of other targets. After all, the point of no return was already crossed, so why not? Nothing more to lose.
It's easy to hate. But it's hard to hate if you understand. That's the very problem behind racial hatred, hatered of homosexuality, hatred of people of particular religions and hatred of people from other nations and more. What I'm talking about is hatred of people with mental illnesses. There are causes and effects all over the place -- we don't live in a simple world and the mind of a single human is beyond the fullest comprehension. But when you stop and try to imagine how or why you might even remotely be motivated to do something like this, you might begin to piece together exactly how broken this person had to have been for things to come to that.
So congratulations. You hate a broken person. What next? The mentally retarded? People with cancer?
There are some people I *can* actually hate, in case you're wondering. I can hate people who, with a completely healthy mind, cause harm to others for their benefit. Spammers are the first that come to mind. The other scammers too. How about people who go around buying things up so they can sell them to the people who wanted to buy them but couldn't at a much higher price? How would you feel if I pulled up in front of you at a gasoline station and collected ALL of the gasoline and then made it available for sale at 2x the price? How about house flippers who inflate the price of homes and neighborhoods and raising taxes? How about those 1%-ers who trashed the world's economy for their own gains? Now THOSE are people I have little trouble hating. But people who are capable of killing... killing like this? It makes me ill inside trying to understand. Such a person was far too deeply broken... broken by others and by circumstance; a victim himself of things... perhaps a victim of other victims... or perhaps the victim of one of the people I actually hate?
But it is more convenient, I must say, to wipe away all the complications out there and to simply believe in "evil" and to simply blame people for being "bad."
If it was stealing, let's say a CD from a store, then the crime is measured by the value of the item stolen.
This is about copyright -- the right to publish. The defendant was charged with illegal publication -- distribution.
I hate to degrade the discussion by inserting "you're using the wrong words" but in this case it's particularly important. Downloading something you don't have any right to is a problem but the value should only be measured by the value of the materials. But that's not the "problem" as the RIAA sees it. It is the illegal distribution that the RIAA is concerned about. Now we are not talking about stealing as much as illegal reproduction and distribution and THAT is why the punishment is so heavy.
So please. If you want to tout the crime, at least identify the correct crime. It would actually help your argument.
Here's the problem: Those laws/rules/loopholes/allowances etc were created by the money influences which are benefiting from them.
So if tax policy were a naturally occurring thing, I would say "yes, let's take advantage of our knowledge and understanding of nature!" But it's not and these tax avoidance structures haven't always been there.
The government did not change the rules without cause. Find the cause and you will find the culprits.
Did Google help to create the rules? Not likely... the rules were in place, most likely, before Google rose to power.
The 'news' and subsequent inquiries seem to want to focus on the tax [non-]payers. Ostensibly to determine if they did anything 'illegal.' I'm willing to bet they have not done anything illegal. The real problem and where the focus should be is on the law.
I get the idea in principle but I disagree with it in practice. The main reason why is the source.
Current digital and even analog video recording techniques capture frames in a two-dimensional format. Vector graphics while superior for many things, is not the one-size-fits-all format that many fans want to think it is. In the case of film, images are captured as an analog recording onto photosensitive film. Image density and quality varies on the quality of the material capturing the image. In the case of digital, the limitations are similar though captures are made by cells arranged in a geometric pattern on a plane. (Some are rectangular arranged arrays and others are hexagonal arrays and there may be other arrangements I don't know about.)
A means for capturing images as a native vector formatted data stream escapes my imagination. In my mind, it relies on a conversion process for each frame which is imaginable, however, it seems... what's the word... over-burdensome for cameras and video cameras to be responsible for this task. And to do this within 5 years? I'm sorry, but everyone from the home user to the most sophisticated professional will not be willing to replace all of their gear so quickly and easily. I suppose I can see Hollywood being the early adopter of such equipment as their budgets for a single film might pay for the new equipment from the beginning. But for that to find its way for home use would most definitely take longer than 5 years... and probably longer while the various industries interested would want to find ways to DRM the new standard until it is useless.
Consider how much easier it would be to "shop" both images and video to add or remove elements seamlessly. "Watermarks" would be extremely trivial to remove from a vector graphics file. (Especially true of SVG format and I can't help but assume they mean to use a similar format.)
So the source would be the biggest stumbling block as to require everything be processed after acquisition does not do enough to make vector "replace" bitmaps... ever. And another stumbling block, of course, would be those with interests in copyright protection.
I believe I have an important message to express in the form of punching advertisers in the nose. I believe this is a freedom of speech issue and it should not be suppressed. And if there are medical costs, I believe the recipient should be responsible for them.
Actually, I have read right here among the commentary that one can still use the Microsoft tools for managing a Samba server. Getting Samba set up initially might require some level of ability, but you know? As much as it pains me to admit it, you have to have at least as much ability to do it with Microsoft. Anyone who thinks they can't learn to do it under Linux is simply limiting themselves needlessly.
They would not be able to protect themselves from law suits if they didn't have inside knowledge about whether or not their documentation matches the implementation. If Microsoft's documentation is not accurate, they owe the Samba team a revision. This keeps them close to their enemies and out of anti-trust court rooms.
From the Groklaw article, the documentation for active directory was sold to the Samba project. The Samba project then went about using the documentation as a reference. Microsoft did not want to sell this documentation to the Samba project and were required to do so under court order. So no. They weren't all that willing to help out.
And if Microsoft starts playing "undocumented features" games again to break compatibility, they will find themselves in court again.
Sorry, but no. There are bunches and bunches of PHBs out there who will perpetually doubt that anyone can make a Microsoft server as good as Microsoft and would be more than a little afraid that by doing this, they would be in violation of some sort of license requirement. At the very least, it would void any support services if an exchange server were to connect to a Samba 4 AD domain. PHBs care a lot about stuff like that even if people rarely if ever use Microsoft's support.
For that dream to become a reality, a big player out there would have to step up and put their branding and reputation behind it. For example, IBM might be a great candidate for that. PHBs still know who IBM is. RedHat might not get the reception Linux users might think they deserve. Oracle, as much as I would like to see them die in a fire, might also be able to pull it off.
For now, the IT world is ruled by PHBs and one must always consider what things they might believe regardless of how ridiculous it may actually be.
I get that the client OS (presuming it is Microsoft Windows) must be licensed, but why the user?
This is the kind of thing I have been waiting for. A means to wedge other OSes into an AD oriented business network. Microsoft can just change a few things and make it required to run this or that server. They have played that game before where F/OSS has to catch up with changes Microsoft makes, but in the end they will lose because they can only make so many tweaks and changes before they risk compatibility with their existing software and clients.
So to set up an AD domain based off of this and be able to manage devices other than Windows clients would be a classic example of embrace and extend which could work against Microsoft. I know... it's just a dream now...
Software patents have got to go. And with them, inventions that "can be implemented in software" also need to go. I saw nothing in either link talking about software patents.
I didn't see that coming. I think the Ed Asner cartoon has had a lot of impact out there and Fox news, bless their hearts, helped to make it more famous by picking out the urination scene as their angle for attack. I don't think I would have ever heard of it were it not for Fox news.
This stuff has been going on for a very long time. From time to time a story on the subject comes out that points out the same things... "it's legal" for example. But now we have fake outrage and a congressional inquiry.
But the thing is, we're talking about congress. They crafted these legal loopholes and stuff. They use them for themselves. Both republican and demograt alike.
Color me surprised if they actually do something about it. It will quietly go away and they will either table the situation for later or they will claim no jurisdiction over the matter of international blah blah blah... not like it has ever stopped them when it came to the RIAA/MPAA interests.
Once and for the last time. This is not "rot." These are tests I performed myself. WinXP SP2 "fresh" with no other software installs and all pre-SP3 updates installed is much faster than WinXP SP3 with all updates installed and no other software installed. Nothing can explain that other than sabotage by Microsoft... sabotage or bad quality.
Benchmarks of Windows XP SP3 fresh install with all updates is now slower than Windows 7 in a comparable state. Windows XP SP2 is faster than Windows XP SP3+ updates. This is without the possible need for defragging the registry. And every update to Windows XP seems to slow it down further.
Please remember I asked to omit 64-bit-ness from the comparison? People who just want to keep using their old machines that ran WindowsXP just fine can no longer get that unless they refuse updates. This is Microsoft actively damaging the performance and usability of their old stuff in order to encourage users to buy new hardware and new OSes. And they get away with this because there is less choice available.
I'm not as angry about it as I used to be though... Android is changing the game.
The main difference between Vista and the ones following is that Microsoft isn't giving users the choice.
Windows 8 is not popular among any of the people I know who have gotten stuck with it. Like Apple, Microsoft has taken to removing consumer choice as a means of moving product.
Name a few things that Windows 7 or 8 does that Windows XP doesn't do? And let's not talk about things most consumers understand like "64 bit" because that's just meaningless.
That said, for some reason, XP has gotten amazingly slower even if it is just the OS with updates. No apps. Weird eh? There have been more than casual studies on the topic. I've run various tests on the subject myself. Microsoft most certainly has made XP slower with subsequent updates. Once again, removing consumer choice or in this case, increasing consumer frustration.
The point is that Microsoft has a rare position in its market where it can choose to manipulate the consumer rahter than improve its product. But the consumer knows this at some level. It's why Windows phones aren't doing so well. This Windows8 flying off the shelves? Hehehe... where?
Before I moved, I *DID* bicycle to work most days... both ways. It was about 6 miles but still, I did that over riding the bus which was the way I got to work when the weather was bad.
After I moved, I did buy a car, but it was the cheapest most fuel efficient car I could afford. Yeah, not a hybrid. I don't earn enough money to afford one of those. But I try to spend as little money as possible. I see lots of money being used in those gas guzzlers. But you have to know I do it all out of self-interest. It's the only thing a person in my position can do.
And I am not the problem. I am a victim as much as anyone else left with little to no choice. But also, it turns out due to the high cost of transportaiton, all the outsourced manufacturing it likely to return to the US.
I think you are being somewhat limited in your understanding of what the little people can actually do to influence anything. In the real world, the influence only goes in one direction. Case in point: MS Windows. The public says "we don't want a new windows!! We just want you to fix the windows we are using now!" Is Microsoft listening? Nope. Are people willing to buy WindowsXP? You bet they are. Is it available? Nope. Not for sale anyway.
The things people want, if given the choice are not available, not affordable or both.
Slashdot Mirror
Using Windows for anything that requires security is just stupid!
Putting a Windows server on the internet is a generally accepted "bad idea." Putting a Windows machine onto the internet without being crippled with anti-ware and a multitude of filters is a "bad idea" which invariably still leads to compromises because anti-ware and filters will never be enough.
And someone wants to put Windows into ATMs and POS machines?! And people BUY them?!
"I don't want to live on this planet any more."
It's easy to hate. It is far more difficult to understand.
I'm not going the reactive route and I'm going to wonder what went wrong with this guy. What collection of contributing factors led to this?
He shot his family and kids and others. Each of these are difficult to imagine on their own. But the combination... it's, to me, indication that this guy has had something brewing within him for a long, long time. After he made his first kill, he knew he was committed and went on his bucket-list tour of other targets. After all, the point of no return was already crossed, so why not? Nothing more to lose.
It's easy to hate. But it's hard to hate if you understand. That's the very problem behind racial hatred, hatered of homosexuality, hatred of people of particular religions and hatred of people from other nations and more. What I'm talking about is hatred of people with mental illnesses. There are causes and effects all over the place -- we don't live in a simple world and the mind of a single human is beyond the fullest comprehension. But when you stop and try to imagine how or why you might even remotely be motivated to do something like this, you might begin to piece together exactly how broken this person had to have been for things to come to that.
So congratulations. You hate a broken person. What next? The mentally retarded? People with cancer?
There are some people I *can* actually hate, in case you're wondering. I can hate people who, with a completely healthy mind, cause harm to others for their benefit. Spammers are the first that come to mind. The other scammers too. How about people who go around buying things up so they can sell them to the people who wanted to buy them but couldn't at a much higher price? How would you feel if I pulled up in front of you at a gasoline station and collected ALL of the gasoline and then made it available for sale at 2x the price? How about house flippers who inflate the price of homes and neighborhoods and raising taxes? How about those 1%-ers who trashed the world's economy for their own gains? Now THOSE are people I have little trouble hating. But people who are capable of killing... killing like this? It makes me ill inside trying to understand. Such a person was far too deeply broken... broken by others and by circumstance; a victim himself of things... perhaps a victim of other victims... or perhaps the victim of one of the people I actually hate?
But it is more convenient, I must say, to wipe away all the complications out there and to simply believe in "evil" and to simply blame people for being "bad."
It was just a joke.
Ask his position on "undocumented time off" :)
That's all I want to know...
--Belize
[music] Everybody was Kung-fu fighting...! [/music]
If it was stealing, let's say a CD from a store, then the crime is measured by the value of the item stolen.
This is about copyright -- the right to publish. The defendant was charged with illegal publication -- distribution.
I hate to degrade the discussion by inserting "you're using the wrong words" but in this case it's particularly important. Downloading something you don't have any right to is a problem but the value should only be measured by the value of the materials. But that's not the "problem" as the RIAA sees it. It is the illegal distribution that the RIAA is concerned about. Now we are not talking about stealing as much as illegal reproduction and distribution and THAT is why the punishment is so heavy.
So please. If you want to tout the crime, at least identify the correct crime. It would actually help your argument.
This is spot on. No one would.
Here's the problem: Those laws/rules/loopholes/allowances etc were created by the money influences which are benefiting from them.
So if tax policy were a naturally occurring thing, I would say "yes, let's take advantage of our knowledge and understanding of nature!" But it's not and these tax avoidance structures haven't always been there.
The government did not change the rules without cause. Find the cause and you will find the culprits.
Did Google help to create the rules? Not likely... the rules were in place, most likely, before Google rose to power.
The 'news' and subsequent inquiries seem to want to focus on the tax [non-]payers. Ostensibly to determine if they did anything 'illegal.' I'm willing to bet they have not done anything illegal. The real problem and where the focus should be is on the law.
I get the idea in principle but I disagree with it in practice. The main reason why is the source.
Current digital and even analog video recording techniques capture frames in a two-dimensional format. Vector graphics while superior for many things, is not the one-size-fits-all format that many fans want to think it is. In the case of film, images are captured as an analog recording onto photosensitive film. Image density and quality varies on the quality of the material capturing the image. In the case of digital, the limitations are similar though captures are made by cells arranged in a geometric pattern on a plane. (Some are rectangular arranged arrays and others are hexagonal arrays and there may be other arrangements I don't know about.)
A means for capturing images as a native vector formatted data stream escapes my imagination. In my mind, it relies on a conversion process for each frame which is imaginable, however, it seems ... what's the word... over-burdensome for cameras and video cameras to be responsible for this task. And to do this within 5 years? I'm sorry, but everyone from the home user to the most sophisticated professional will not be willing to replace all of their gear so quickly and easily. I suppose I can see Hollywood being the early adopter of such equipment as their budgets for a single film might pay for the new equipment from the beginning. But for that to find its way for home use would most definitely take longer than 5 years... and probably longer while the various industries interested would want to find ways to DRM the new standard until it is useless.
Consider how much easier it would be to "shop" both images and video to add or remove elements seamlessly. "Watermarks" would be extremely trivial to remove from a vector graphics file. (Especially true of SVG format and I can't help but assume they mean to use a similar format.)
So the source would be the biggest stumbling block as to require everything be processed after acquisition does not do enough to make vector "replace" bitmaps... ever. And another stumbling block, of course, would be those with interests in copyright protection.
I believe I have an important message to express in the form of punching advertisers in the nose. I believe this is a freedom of speech issue and it should not be suppressed. And if there are medical costs, I believe the recipient should be responsible for them.
Really? I'd like a example of that.
Actually, I have read right here among the commentary that one can still use the Microsoft tools for managing a Samba server. Getting Samba set up initially might require some level of ability, but you know? As much as it pains me to admit it, you have to have at least as much ability to do it with Microsoft. Anyone who thinks they can't learn to do it under Linux is simply limiting themselves needlessly.
Wait, what? Tell me more. I'm dumb about these details.
Why would the GPLv3 prevent anyone from running this anywhere on any scale?
REALLY?!??!
OMG, that's huge!!
They would not be able to protect themselves from law suits if they didn't have inside knowledge about whether or not their documentation matches the implementation. If Microsoft's documentation is not accurate, they owe the Samba team a revision. This keeps them close to their enemies and out of anti-trust court rooms.
From the Groklaw article, the documentation for active directory was sold to the Samba project. The Samba project then went about using the documentation as a reference. Microsoft did not want to sell this documentation to the Samba project and were required to do so under court order. So no. They weren't all that willing to help out.
And if Microsoft starts playing "undocumented features" games again to break compatibility, they will find themselves in court again.
Sorry, but no. There are bunches and bunches of PHBs out there who will perpetually doubt that anyone can make a Microsoft server as good as Microsoft and would be more than a little afraid that by doing this, they would be in violation of some sort of license requirement. At the very least, it would void any support services if an exchange server were to connect to a Samba 4 AD domain. PHBs care a lot about stuff like that even if people rarely if ever use Microsoft's support.
For that dream to become a reality, a big player out there would have to step up and put their branding and reputation behind it. For example, IBM might be a great candidate for that. PHBs still know who IBM is. RedHat might not get the reception Linux users might think they deserve. Oracle, as much as I would like to see them die in a fire, might also be able to pull it off.
For now, the IT world is ruled by PHBs and one must always consider what things they might believe regardless of how ridiculous it may actually be.
Wait what?
I get that the client OS (presuming it is Microsoft Windows) must be licensed, but why the user?
This is the kind of thing I have been waiting for. A means to wedge other OSes into an AD oriented business network. Microsoft can just change a few things and make it required to run this or that server. They have played that game before where F/OSS has to catch up with changes Microsoft makes, but in the end they will lose because they can only make so many tweaks and changes before they risk compatibility with their existing software and clients.
So to set up an AD domain based off of this and be able to manage devices other than Windows clients would be a classic example of embrace and extend which could work against Microsoft. I know... it's just a dream now...
Software patents have got to go. And with them, inventions that "can be implemented in software" also need to go. I saw nothing in either link talking about software patents.
I didn't see that coming. I think the Ed Asner cartoon has had a lot of impact out there and Fox news, bless their hearts, helped to make it more famous by picking out the urination scene as their angle for attack. I don't think I would have ever heard of it were it not for Fox news.
This stuff has been going on for a very long time. From time to time a story on the subject comes out that points out the same things... "it's legal" for example. But now we have fake outrage and a congressional inquiry.
But the thing is, we're talking about congress. They crafted these legal loopholes and stuff. They use them for themselves. Both republican and demograt alike.
Color me surprised if they actually do something about it. It will quietly go away and they will either table the situation for later or they will claim no jurisdiction over the matter of international blah blah blah... not like it has ever stopped them when it came to the RIAA/MPAA interests.
Once and for the last time. This is not "rot." These are tests I performed myself. WinXP SP2 "fresh" with no other software installs and all pre-SP3 updates installed is much faster than WinXP SP3 with all updates installed and no other software installed. Nothing can explain that other than sabotage by Microsoft... sabotage or bad quality.
I'm sorry, but that's just crap.
Benchmarks of Windows XP SP3 fresh install with all updates is now slower than Windows 7 in a comparable state. Windows XP SP2 is faster than Windows XP SP3+ updates. This is without the possible need for defragging the registry. And every update to Windows XP seems to slow it down further.
Please remember I asked to omit 64-bit-ness from the comparison? People who just want to keep using their old machines that ran WindowsXP just fine can no longer get that unless they refuse updates. This is Microsoft actively damaging the performance and usability of their old stuff in order to encourage users to buy new hardware and new OSes. And they get away with this because there is less choice available.
I'm not as angry about it as I used to be though... Android is changing the game.
... reproduced. And of those that were better at it than their parents reproduced. Fins became more leg-like.
We've seen it all before right?
Evolution just never stops does it?
The main difference between Vista and the ones following is that Microsoft isn't giving users the choice.
Windows 8 is not popular among any of the people I know who have gotten stuck with it. Like Apple, Microsoft has taken to removing consumer choice as a means of moving product.
Name a few things that Windows 7 or 8 does that Windows XP doesn't do? And let's not talk about things most consumers understand like "64 bit" because that's just meaningless.
That said, for some reason, XP has gotten amazingly slower even if it is just the OS with updates. No apps. Weird eh? There have been more than casual studies on the topic. I've run various tests on the subject myself. Microsoft most certainly has made XP slower with subsequent updates. Once again, removing consumer choice or in this case, increasing consumer frustration.
The point is that Microsoft has a rare position in its market where it can choose to manipulate the consumer rahter than improve its product. But the consumer knows this at some level. It's why Windows phones aren't doing so well. This Windows8 flying off the shelves? Hehehe... where?
Before I moved, I *DID* bicycle to work most days... both ways. It was about 6 miles but still, I did that over riding the bus which was the way I got to work when the weather was bad.
After I moved, I did buy a car, but it was the cheapest most fuel efficient car I could afford. Yeah, not a hybrid. I don't earn enough money to afford one of those. But I try to spend as little money as possible. I see lots of money being used in those gas guzzlers. But you have to know I do it all out of self-interest. It's the only thing a person in my position can do.
And I am not the problem. I am a victim as much as anyone else left with little to no choice. But also, it turns out due to the high cost of transportaiton, all the outsourced manufacturing it likely to return to the US.
I think you are being somewhat limited in your understanding of what the little people can actually do to influence anything. In the real world, the influence only goes in one direction. Case in point: MS Windows. The public says "we don't want a new windows!! We just want you to fix the windows we are using now!" Is Microsoft listening? Nope. Are people willing to buy WindowsXP? You bet they are. Is it available? Nope. Not for sale anyway.
The things people want, if given the choice are not available, not affordable or both.