Because JMS had balls and wouldn't let the suits corrupt the vision, we'll never get to see what was, I believe, going to be a fantastic story. If you know what was coming, to at least some extent, you know there was great promise... and you also know that this movie will in all likelihood tell us that story... I highly suspect this movie is covering the story that Crusade was going to tell because the REAL story of Crusade wasn't really the Drakh plague, we KNEW they found a cure before the series started, but we DIDN'T know all the things that would be brought to light about other things.
I think this movie gives us the Technomage story that Crusade was going to become, and I am absolutely delighted about that. I just hope and prey Peter Woodward takes his rightful place as Galen. I'm not sure I'll be able to get a new actor into my head as him.
This is a common criticism of B5, and it shows an utter lack of understanding of the series, and life in general.
Life is about evolution and development, in the greater sense as well as a personal sense. One of the biggest steps any person makes is stepping out of the shadows of their parents (pun intended) and walking off that cliff to fly (or fall) on their own. This is a concept that every person should be able to relate to (of course, I'm telilng this to an audience of geeks, the very people who rarely leave their parents' house!).
B5 took this story and expanded it to galactic proportions, literally. If your mind is capable of thinking in larger terms, then you see the parallel and appreciate it.
The conclusion of the Shadow war would have been SO much worse if they HAD been able to defeat both the Shadows and Vorlons through the use of force. The Shadows were only ever defeated in the past because the Vorlons had helped, but fighting both is an impossible task (they probably could not have defeated the Shadows militarily alone frankly). It HAD to end in some other way, and, as JMS has stated, they had to think their way out of it. They had to understand.
This is the same thing that happens for real kids... They rebel, they want to get out on their own, but the real point of epiphany is usually some years later when they realize that their parents were trying to help them all along, not oppress them, but now they are on their own and have to rely on themselves. That's when the rebellious teenagers become good children again, but now as self-sufficient adults.
B5 took this a step further and asked the question, what if we had two sets of parents with diametrically opposed points of view on how to raise the kids? The kids get caught in the middle obviously, the kids have to fight for the freedom, so to speak, and he parents lose their way because it becomes more about proving their point is right over the other parents.
If you don't get this, think it through. That of course is the whole point! Suffice it to say though that the Shadow war couldn't have ended any other way without sucking and making the entire thing a shame. This is, contrary to what many people say, the one ending that doesn't do that, but you have to understand it to see that.
First of all, it's NOT an OS problem, as other posters have pointed out. Spyware, as far as the OS is concerned, is a valid executable program. Because it has undersirable function doesn't enter into it.
You could reasonably blame IE, because most spyware gets installed through the browser I think it's fair to say, so the browser could exercise some control on things at a higher level (as it does with SP2).
The second point addresses your question about why MS doesn't include this.
Microsoft holds a monopoly position, and has been convicted of using that position to it's advantage unfairly (note that being a monopoly is NOT illegal, nor is using it to your advantage, but doing so UNFAIRLY is). One of the biggest complaints everyone has or at least had with MS is that they bundle too much.
So, what CAN they put in the OS exactly? Spyware scanner? Maybe. Antivirus? Perhaps. Lots of companies will be hurt if they do. Symantec for example. Gee, what are the most common functions people perform with their OS, aside from surfing and eMail? How about word processing? So, why not include Word? Gee, spreadsheet are probably a close second. What about Excel? Games are of course very popular, so maybe Halo and Flight Simulator then?
(Ok, the games are a stretch because games are, by and large, unique entities not really competing against other products).
Do you see the point? People get in an uproar every time MS includes something in the OS. Some say a media player shouldn't be bundled, and we certainly know about the browser (which i frankly think is the one thing they were RIGHT to have integrated and bundled, but I digress). At what point is it OK and at what point is it not OK? Because they have been convicted of using their monopoly position unfairly, they have to be even more careful than most others.
Lemme boil it down for you... Damned if they do, damned if they don't. That's about what it comes down to. The difference is that the "damned if they do" part can lead to legal problems, while the "damned if they don't" part just leads to people on Slashdot like you wondering why they are so stupid and didn't bundle in something. One's bad news, one you can live with.
I'd certainly agree that *I* would prefer this garbage not litering the application. But, it's important to note that *I* (and you) consider it garbage, others may not.
And regardless of how you or I may classify it, my original point was simply that there's nothing wrong with this, which is the opposite of what many posters have said (not you by the way). MS isn't doing anything illegal, they aren't playing unfairly, it's just business. It's marketing.
It's not going to work on me, I'm no more inclined to buy what they hard-code, nor am I more inclined to use their search tools, or anything else, but there's nothing inherently wrong with them doing it, that's all I was saying. Whether it makes the app less useful or not is something we can debate (I'd tend to agree that it does), but that's different from whether they are doing anything "wrong".
Wow, a business trying to make money in a new market. The horror.
I know that many who sit on the F/OSS side of the fence simply don't get this, so I'll talk slow and use small words...
MICROSOFT...IS...A...BUSINESS.
THEIR...JOB...IS...TO...MAKE...MONEY.
Get it? Got it? GOOD!
I'm not saying their tactics are always clean, indeed they frequently are not. But come on... selling added value to a blog service is fine. I'm with you that no one should spend their hard-earned money on emoticons, but there is nothing wrong with MS doing this.
My point is that you should declare both just as loudly:
* People should know that unpatched boxes are trouble, that's completely fair
* People should know that the patched and secured boxes are just as good (based on the published results at least) as just about any other OS.
I can accept that maybe the Slashdot slant as represented by the front-page post may have made the article seem like something it wasn't, namely a Windows bash piece. But, having read the actual article, it didn't seem like both conclusions were fairly represented. It seemed as though the positive outcome of the "secured" XP box only got a small blurb, while the negatives of the unpatched box got much more air time. I believe it should have been more well-balanced. That is my point.
Ok, fair enough, I was not aware it was available for other OS's. Of course that leads to an obvious question... Was it set up on the other boxes tested? If not, the comparison is still unfair. I very much suspect it wasn't set up on the other boxes.
Yes I did read it, and I probably should have pointed out the worst offense of this...
NO SUCCESSFUL BREAK-INS OF THE UP-TO-DATE PATCHED XP BOX.
So, what exactly is this article trying to prove anyway? Here's the only conclusions I can see drawing from the article...
(1) The Internet is an unsafe place. Attacks happen at an alarming rate.
(2) An UNPATCHED and UNPROTECTED Windows box is quite vulnerable indeed.
(3) A fully-patched Windows XP box is JUST AS SECURE as a Mac (Unix-based, so it's probably fair to use this as a Windows vs. Unix comparison) and a Linux (Linspire) box.
I quote directly from the article:
"While attempted break-ins never ceased, successful compromises were limited to nine instances on the minimally protected Windows XP computer and a single break-in of the Windows Small Business Server. There were no successful compromises of the Macintosh, the Linspire or the two Windows XPs using firewalls. That pattern was not surprising, as Windows PCs make up 90% of the computers connected to the Internet, and the vast majority of automated attacks are designed to locate and exploit widely known Windows security weaknesses."
This says it all folks. SBS had one break-in, which definitely isn't good I admit, but that's the bad news as far as Windows goes.
Let me reiterate: WE KNOW AN UNPATCHED WINDOWS MACHINE IS BAD NEWS. Move along, no news here folks. But, the fact that there were ZERO intrusions amidst a TON of attempts, the same result as the Unix-based and Linux-based OS's, should prove once and for all that a properly-maintained and CURRENT Windows box, like any other OS out there, is as safe and secure as one can hope for in an unsafe world.
But that's not addressing the point I made, which is that comparing this to a Mac isn't fair because those services don't exist on a Mac.
I'm not at all trying to deny there are security problems with Windows. What I AM saying is that the situation is far from dire when the system is properly patched. I am also saying that the comparison to a Mac, based on those two services, is completely bogus because OF COURSE the Mac isn't going to be affected.
I'm just saying compare apples to apples (pun intended). If the study was between the systems listed and a fully-patched WINDOWS box, the results would have some validity in telling us that not patching is a Bad Thing (like, uh, DUH). This comparison however is just stupid.
1. All users should be patching, or letting the OS do it. We do want patched systems, right? So we have to educate users, and they have to follow through, or the OS has to be allowed to do it for them. To a degree I blame MS for taking so long to make auto-update the default, but frankly if they had it set to auto from the start everyone would be screaming bloody murder about privacy concerns and such. Can't have it both ways.
2. As for the pirated versions, I think if MS is smart they will let the pirated versions update as well regardless. I think that's better for everyone. I think they should separate out the patches from the updates. Patches should always be allowed no matter if the copy is legit or not (and it shouldn't even be checked), but updates, things like a new version of Movie Maker or Media Player (that doesn't involve security fixes) should require validation of your copy. I'd be OK with that.
But, that being said, the pirates shouldn't be pirating, so I don't have much sympathy for them. In fact, I could give a shit if their systems gets hosed by a virus or worm or whatever else, if it wasn't for the fact that it could harm ME if they get zombified, I wouldn't care at all. But, since they CAN affect me, MS should allow them to be patched, security-wise, but that's it. If they don't, I'm against the policy.
But in the end, the update mechanism, certanly for legit users, is there, and they need to be taking advantage of it, whether it's automatic or not.
Point 1: Stop doing tests on UNPATCHED Windows systems. We KNOW that unpatched it's trouble waiting to happen. Granted, no argument. See how vulnerable a fully-patched system is. Hint: NOT FUCKING VERY. We want users to be smarter and more responsible, so don't we expect them to patch, ESPECIALLY when the OS can do it automatically? Of course we do! So all these "studies" are pure bullshit from the ABM FUD army. And as other posters have said, what about a firewall and current antivirus, which EVERYONE should be reunning regardless of OS? Give me a break already.
Point 2: As I recall, LSASS and DCOM are Windows-only technologies, so OF FUCKING COURSE Macs aren't going to be hit! Come on, what a crock of shit.
Sorry for the profanity... no, actual, I'm not. I have just as many problems with MS as anyone else in the world, but this nearly daily dose of anti-MS FUD is just as bad as when MS pulls garbage like this. Hell, it's probably MORE offensive because I actually hold out hope for Linux and the OSS community rising above MS, but with garbage like this, it's never gonna happen. It doesn't even matter where things like this come from because they get blamed on the ABM crowd, which is generally seen as the Linux community. That's a very sad thing.
I'm more than willing to concede the point that there are probably plenty more lurking in Windows and IE, but only if your willing to admit there are probably plenty lurking in any other OS out there, and a large portion of net-aware applications.
My point is simply this... I'm not trying to say Windows/IE doesn't have plenty of problems (it does), and I'm not trying to say it's not the worst offender out there (almost certainly)... What I AM saying is that a well-maintained Windows XP box (don't talk to me about 98/NT or even 2000) is quite secure and stable as compared to anything else and that comparing a Unix-variant OS (which is inherently more secure I grant you) to a fresh Windows install isn't a fair comparison.
(I like the OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE line by the way:) )
We know, we know... going to a nefarious web site WITH AN UNPATCHED WINDOWS BOX results in a ton ot Bad Things happening.
Well known fact, no one in their right mind on either side of things would argue it.
But what happens when you go to that same site and your box is fully-patched? The answer is nothing, unless you've mangled your security settings otherwise. And what if you have a current antivirus program running, which you should? And what if you have some sort of anti-adware program running, which you should? And what if you have some sort of firewall in place, which you should? The answer is LESS THAN NOTHING.
Folks, the above configuration (patched box, antivirus, anti-adware and firewall, all updated automatically) is the configuration everyone, REGARDLESS OF OPERATING SYSTEM, should be using. Doing so makes the Internet about as safe as it possibly can be. Know how many times my system has been infiltrated in any way, shape or form when following this advice? Exactly ZERO times in well over a year. Know how stable my box is? Rock-solid (WinXP, virtually never gets rebooted except for updates, which admittedly is an annoyance but is still my choice).
We all want computer users to be more savy and more knowledgable and we (the technically-savy, especially the Slashdot crowd) tend to slam them when they do stupid things and get burned because of it, yet we're going to use as an example a situation (a completely fresh Windows install) that only a penultimate stupid, naive user would have, to support the opinion that Windows is horrendous?
Stupid article, stupid conclusions, yet typical of the anti-Microsoft crowd.
It is my understanding that there is a bug report for Firefox that has been open for some time ("some time" being over a year as I recall) that states that FireFox continues to leak memory whenever a tab is opened or closed.
Let me make this as clear as can be: if this is in fact true, then FireFox is in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM ready for prime-time and the developers have all but committed fraud by bumping it to 1.0.
Go ahead, mod me troll. If you do AND this issue exists, you are dead wrong for doing so.
Flamebait, huh? Sure, someone says something even remotely negative about your previous open-source project and it's flamebait.
The TRUTH of the statement be damned. It doesn't cast something that isn't Microsoft in a bad light and you don't like it.
And that my friends is the reason the F/OSS movement will NEVER defeat Microsoft. Superior technology only gets you so far (and you appear to not even have that going for you at this point), the lousy attitude destroys whatever positive you do.
What the FUCK are those developers thinking? An app that is leaking memory, and is KNOWN to be doing so, needs to get fixed. Their priorities are way out of wack if this isn't one of, if not THE top priority.
You know, it's funny... Ever since FF went 1.0 and has been brought into the real light of day with users other than Slashdot geeks using it, I've been reading about more and more problems with it. Did they rush it out the door? Or is it flawed in a fundamental way?
Better than IE? I'll give you standards, but beyond that, no, not really. Compared to Maxthon, it's almost lousy at this point.
What a load of crap. NO good piece of software FORCES you to have to do a clean install. That's bad design on their part.
The older code should always be overwritten with the new, or the old code just sits there and does nothing. DLLs get replaces with newer or the same versions. There shouldn't ever be a problem if the developers know what they are doing.
What your missing is an understanding of what VB, Delphi and their ilk offer, and what NLP is. I don't mean for that to sound offensive in any way, please forgive me if it does.
VB makes creating GUI-based applications quicker (and easier, many say) by allowing you to create the user interface in a visual fashion and then attach code to the visual elements. You still have to get down there and type code though to make the application do anything aside from some "canned" interface functions.
Alice, OTOH, is allowing you to form an application completely in a visual way, although the visual elements are actually words. It's sort of like in VB how you can have a form and drag a button and a textbox onto it, which saves you time and effort, but you then have to write:
text1.text = "hello"...and attach that to the onClick event of the button (pardon me if the syntax is wrong, it's been a couple of years since I've touched VB).
In Alice, maybe you have a palet ot words instead of visual components, and maybe one of them is "copy text ____ to ____". You drag this to the editor interface, then enter a string of text in the first ____, then drag the word TEXT1 into the second. Your forming the "program" in an English phrase, without having to code anything.
Note that I'm not too familiar with Alice aside from a quick glance at the link you referenced, but I think that's the general idea.
It's kind of funny because Cobol was something of a NLP language, and everyone hated it! To be able to type:
Copy array 1 to table 2...in a program is kind of the overall idea of LNP. That's a dream at this point, no need to write "arcane" code that doesn't have much relevance to the end-user who's telling you what the system should do in plain English, hence the need for the "translation" the author of the article mentioned, which really is what programming is these days.
We should have stuck with Cobol and developed it further! (I'm saying that sarcastically of course, yet the underlying thought is serious).
If I assume this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it is, it really doesn't represent something newsworthy (and no, I am not new around here, and yes, I know this is typical).
Some employee at MS had a warez copy and did their wotk with it like an idiot. Deserves to be fired, sure. But this isn't some vast MS conspiracy here, nor I'm sure does it represent the tip of a huge warez-using portion of MS iceberg.
Seriously editors, is this really the best news headline you've seen in the past hour?!? Slashdot becomes more and more irrelevant as an actual news site with each passing day. At this point I just stop by to see the train wreck.
I agree with everything you said, but I have to call you on the "there hasn't been a major attack in the US since 2001" statement.
While it's a true statement, it's not logical. We only had a very few major terrorist attacks in the period 1900-2001, really only two that I can think of, and one was a nutcase from our own country. You can't ignore all that.
It's like saying I might never take a shit again because I haven't done so for an hour. It completely ignores the previous 31 years of my life where I shit constantly.
It's actually a statistical game... Just base the numbers on a small window on the larger whole, the part that supports the view.
Note that I'm not trying to hammer you or anything, but I see this statement all the time, and while I'm a Bush supporter and generally agree with all you said, we can't say for certain that the administration has done the job because there hasn't been an attack since 9/11. I think they HAVE done the job, but the fact that we haven't had an attack doesn't lead to that conclusion logically.
Two games wirth comedy as the centerpiece
on
Humor in Games?
·
· Score: 1
They have two games for the PocketPC, Invasion: Trivia! and K&G Arcade. They both star two aliens named Krelmac and Gentoo. You could describe them as a cross between Kang/Kodos and Beavis/Butthead. The games are rather fun but most importantly are comedy-focused. Naturally as with all comedy whether you find it funny or not is subjective, but plenty if people do find them rather amusing.
The guys at Omnytex Technologies are actually getting started on K&G Arcade II (code-named "maybe this one will sell"), which they say is going to be even more comedy and story-driven.
I know mentioning something Microsoft-related (PocketPC) here on Slashdot is a no-no, but I think these two games are worth checking out if you own such a device.
It has been my experience that the "geek nation" is, by and large, on the left side of the aisle in most things. Certainly that is true in my office where I pretty much stand alone as the only Bush supporter amongst a sea of Kerry supporters (or, as is more correctly stateing it: a sea of Bush haters).
So, I found it rather surprising that, at least at the time I read through the comments, by and large there seemed to be more support for Bush than Kerry (or at least right-wing ideals vs. left-wing ideals). I just found that surpising.
I'm not so sure I take that as evidence that the incumbent is in better shape than I had been supposing recently, but it is an interesting observation. Likewise, if I check back in 20 minutes there might be a deluge of vocal Kerry supporters chiming in, who knows?
Slashdot Mirror
It's too bad it was cancelled BEFORE IT AIRED.
Because JMS had balls and wouldn't let the suits corrupt the vision, we'll never get to see what was, I believe, going to be a fantastic story. If you know what was coming, to at least some extent, you know there was great promise... and you also know that this movie will in all likelihood tell us that story... I highly suspect this movie is covering the story that Crusade was going to tell because the REAL story of Crusade wasn't really the Drakh plague, we KNEW they found a cure before the series started, but we DIDN'T know all the things that would be brought to light about other things.
I think this movie gives us the Technomage story that Crusade was going to become, and I am absolutely delighted about that. I just hope and prey Peter Woodward takes his rightful place as Galen. I'm not sure I'll be able to get a new actor into my head as him.
Although your a troll, I'll feed you...
This is a common criticism of B5, and it shows an utter lack of understanding of the series, and life in general.
Life is about evolution and development, in the greater sense as well as a personal sense. One of the biggest steps any person makes is stepping out of the shadows of their parents (pun intended) and walking off that cliff to fly (or fall) on their own. This is a concept that every person should be able to relate to (of course, I'm telilng this to an audience of geeks, the very people who rarely leave their parents' house!).
B5 took this story and expanded it to galactic proportions, literally. If your mind is capable of thinking in larger terms, then you see the parallel and appreciate it.
The conclusion of the Shadow war would have been SO much worse if they HAD been able to defeat both the Shadows and Vorlons through the use of force. The Shadows were only ever defeated in the past because the Vorlons had helped, but fighting both is an impossible task (they probably could not have defeated the Shadows militarily alone frankly). It HAD to end in some other way, and, as JMS has stated, they had to think their way out of it. They had to understand.
This is the same thing that happens for real kids... They rebel, they want to get out on their own, but the real point of epiphany is usually some years later when they realize that their parents were trying to help them all along, not oppress them, but now they are on their own and have to rely on themselves. That's when the rebellious teenagers become good children again, but now as self-sufficient adults.
B5 took this a step further and asked the question, what if we had two sets of parents with diametrically opposed points of view on how to raise the kids? The kids get caught in the middle obviously, the kids have to fight for the freedom, so to speak, and he parents lose their way because it becomes more about proving their point is right over the other parents.
If you don't get this, think it through. That of course is the whole point! Suffice it to say though that the Shadow war couldn't have ended any other way without sucking and making the entire thing a shame. This is, contrary to what many people say, the one ending that doesn't do that, but you have to understand it to see that.
First of all, it's NOT an OS problem, as other posters have pointed out. Spyware, as far as the OS is concerned, is a valid executable program. Because it has undersirable function doesn't enter into it.
You could reasonably blame IE, because most spyware gets installed through the browser I think it's fair to say, so the browser could exercise some control on things at a higher level (as it does with SP2).
The second point addresses your question about why MS doesn't include this.
Microsoft holds a monopoly position, and has been convicted of using that position to it's advantage unfairly (note that being a monopoly is NOT illegal, nor is using it to your advantage, but doing so UNFAIRLY is). One of the biggest complaints everyone has or at least had with MS is that they bundle too much.
So, what CAN they put in the OS exactly? Spyware scanner? Maybe. Antivirus? Perhaps. Lots of companies will be hurt if they do. Symantec for example. Gee, what are the most common functions people perform with their OS, aside from surfing and eMail? How about word processing? So, why not include Word? Gee, spreadsheet are probably a close second. What about Excel? Games are of course very popular, so maybe Halo and Flight Simulator then?
(Ok, the games are a stretch because games are, by and large, unique entities not really competing against other products).
Do you see the point? People get in an uproar every time MS includes something in the OS. Some say a media player shouldn't be bundled, and we certainly know about the browser (which i frankly think is the one thing they were RIGHT to have integrated and bundled, but I digress). At what point is it OK and at what point is it not OK? Because they have been convicted of using their monopoly position unfairly, they have to be even more careful than most others.
Lemme boil it down for you... Damned if they do, damned if they don't. That's about what it comes down to. The difference is that the "damned if they do" part can lead to legal problems, while the "damned if they don't" part just leads to people on Slashdot like you wondering why they are so stupid and didn't bundle in something. One's bad news, one you can live with.
I'd certainly agree that *I* would prefer this garbage not litering the application. But, it's important to note that *I* (and you) consider it garbage, others may not.
And regardless of how you or I may classify it, my original point was simply that there's nothing wrong with this, which is the opposite of what many posters have said (not you by the way). MS isn't doing anything illegal, they aren't playing unfairly, it's just business. It's marketing.
It's not going to work on me, I'm no more inclined to buy what they hard-code, nor am I more inclined to use their search tools, or anything else, but there's nothing inherently wrong with them doing it, that's all I was saying. Whether it makes the app less useful or not is something we can debate (I'd tend to agree that it does), but that's different from whether they are doing anything "wrong".
Wow, a business trying to make money in a new market. The horror.
I know that many who sit on the F/OSS side of the fence simply don't get this, so I'll talk slow and use small words...
MICROSOFT...IS...A...BUSINESS.
THEIR...JOB...IS...TO...MAKE...MONEY.
Get it? Got it? GOOD!
I'm not saying their tactics are always clean, indeed they frequently are not. But come on... selling added value to a blog service is fine. I'm with you that no one should spend their hard-earned money on emoticons, but there is nothing wrong with MS doing this.
Fair enough. I will look for the other threads as you suggest.
My point is that you should declare both just as loudly:
* People should know that unpatched boxes are trouble, that's completely fair
* People should know that the patched and secured boxes are just as good (based on the published results at least) as just about any other OS.
I can accept that maybe the Slashdot slant as represented by the front-page post may have made the article seem like something it wasn't, namely a Windows bash piece. But, having read the actual article, it didn't seem like both conclusions were fairly represented. It seemed as though the positive outcome of the "secured" XP box only got a small blurb, while the negatives of the unpatched box got much more air time. I believe it should have been more well-balanced. That is my point.
Ok, fair enough, I was not aware it was available for other OS's. Of course that leads to an obvious question... Was it set up on the other boxes tested? If not, the comparison is still unfair. I very much suspect it wasn't set up on the other boxes.
Yes I did read it, and I probably should have pointed out the worst offense of this...
NO SUCCESSFUL BREAK-INS OF THE UP-TO-DATE PATCHED XP BOX.
So, what exactly is this article trying to prove anyway? Here's the only conclusions I can see drawing from the article...
(1) The Internet is an unsafe place. Attacks happen at an alarming rate.
(2) An UNPATCHED and UNPROTECTED Windows box is quite vulnerable indeed.
(3) A fully-patched Windows XP box is JUST AS SECURE as a Mac (Unix-based, so it's probably fair to use this as a Windows vs. Unix comparison) and a Linux (Linspire) box.
I quote directly from the article:
"While attempted break-ins never ceased, successful compromises were limited to nine instances on the minimally protected Windows XP computer and a single break-in of the Windows Small Business Server. There were no successful compromises of the Macintosh, the Linspire or the two Windows XPs using firewalls. That pattern was not surprising, as Windows PCs make up 90% of the computers connected to the Internet, and the vast majority of automated attacks are designed to locate and exploit widely known Windows security weaknesses."
This says it all folks. SBS had one break-in, which definitely isn't good I admit, but that's the bad news as far as Windows goes.
Let me reiterate: WE KNOW AN UNPATCHED WINDOWS MACHINE IS BAD NEWS. Move along, no news here folks. But, the fact that there were ZERO intrusions amidst a TON of attempts, the same result as the Unix-based and Linux-based OS's, should prove once and for all that a properly-maintained and CURRENT Windows box, like any other OS out there, is as safe and secure as one can hope for in an unsafe world.
But that's not addressing the point I made, which is that comparing this to a Mac isn't fair because those services don't exist on a Mac.
I'm not at all trying to deny there are security problems with Windows. What I AM saying is that the situation is far from dire when the system is properly patched. I am also saying that the comparison to a Mac, based on those two services, is completely bogus because OF COURSE the Mac isn't going to be affected.
I'm just saying compare apples to apples (pun intended). If the study was between the systems listed and a fully-patched WINDOWS box, the results would have some validity in telling us that not patching is a Bad Thing (like, uh, DUH). This comparison however is just stupid.
I understand what your saying, but two points:
1. All users should be patching, or letting the OS do it. We do want patched systems, right? So we have to educate users, and they have to follow through, or the OS has to be allowed to do it for them. To a degree I blame MS for taking so long to make auto-update the default, but frankly if they had it set to auto from the start everyone would be screaming bloody murder about privacy concerns and such. Can't have it both ways.
2. As for the pirated versions, I think if MS is smart they will let the pirated versions update as well regardless. I think that's better for everyone. I think they should separate out the patches from the updates. Patches should always be allowed no matter if the copy is legit or not (and it shouldn't even be checked), but updates, things like a new version of Movie Maker or Media Player (that doesn't involve security fixes) should require validation of your copy. I'd be OK with that.
But, that being said, the pirates shouldn't be pirating, so I don't have much sympathy for them. In fact, I could give a shit if their systems gets hosed by a virus or worm or whatever else, if it wasn't for the fact that it could harm ME if they get zombified, I wouldn't care at all. But, since they CAN affect me, MS should allow them to be patched, security-wise, but that's it. If they don't, I'm against the policy.
But in the end, the update mechanism, certanly for legit users, is there, and they need to be taking advantage of it, whether it's automatic or not.
Point 1: Stop doing tests on UNPATCHED Windows systems. We KNOW that unpatched it's trouble waiting to happen. Granted, no argument. See how vulnerable a fully-patched system is. Hint: NOT FUCKING VERY. We want users to be smarter and more responsible, so don't we expect them to patch, ESPECIALLY when the OS can do it automatically? Of course we do! So all these "studies" are pure bullshit from the ABM FUD army. And as other posters have said, what about a firewall and current antivirus, which EVERYONE should be reunning regardless of OS? Give me a break already.
Point 2: As I recall, LSASS and DCOM are Windows-only technologies, so OF FUCKING COURSE Macs aren't going to be hit! Come on, what a crock of shit.
Sorry for the profanity... no, actual, I'm not. I have just as many problems with MS as anyone else in the world, but this nearly daily dose of anti-MS FUD is just as bad as when MS pulls garbage like this. Hell, it's probably MORE offensive because I actually hold out hope for Linux and the OSS community rising above MS, but with garbage like this, it's never gonna happen. It doesn't even matter where things like this come from because they get blamed on the ABM crowd, which is generally seen as the Linux community. That's a very sad thing.
I'm more than willing to concede the point that there are probably plenty more lurking in Windows and IE, but only if your willing to admit there are probably plenty lurking in any other OS out there, and a large portion of net-aware applications.
:) )
My point is simply this... I'm not trying to say Windows/IE doesn't have plenty of problems (it does), and I'm not trying to say it's not the worst offender out there (almost certainly)... What I AM saying is that a well-maintained Windows XP box (don't talk to me about 98/NT or even 2000) is quite secure and stable as compared to anything else and that comparing a Unix-variant OS (which is inherently more secure I grant you) to a fresh Windows install isn't a fair comparison.
(I like the OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE line by the way
We know, we know... going to a nefarious web site WITH AN UNPATCHED WINDOWS BOX results in a ton ot Bad Things happening.
Well known fact, no one in their right mind on either side of things would argue it.
But what happens when you go to that same site and your box is fully-patched? The answer is nothing, unless you've mangled your security settings otherwise. And what if you have a current antivirus program running, which you should? And what if you have some sort of anti-adware program running, which you should? And what if you have some sort of firewall in place, which you should? The answer is LESS THAN NOTHING.
Folks, the above configuration (patched box, antivirus, anti-adware and firewall, all updated automatically) is the configuration everyone, REGARDLESS OF OPERATING SYSTEM, should be using. Doing so makes the Internet about as safe as it possibly can be. Know how many times my system has been infiltrated in any way, shape or form when following this advice? Exactly ZERO times in well over a year. Know how stable my box is? Rock-solid (WinXP, virtually never gets rebooted except for updates, which admittedly is an annoyance but is still my choice).
We all want computer users to be more savy and more knowledgable and we (the technically-savy, especially the Slashdot crowd) tend to slam them when they do stupid things and get burned because of it, yet we're going to use as an example a situation (a completely fresh Windows install) that only a penultimate stupid, naive user would have, to support the opinion that Windows is horrendous?
Stupid article, stupid conclusions, yet typical of the anti-Microsoft crowd.
Isn't it the case that Microsoft LEGALLY cannot update their JVM?
If I'm mistaken, then moving along, nothing to see here. If I'm NOT mistaken though, then we need to be at least a little fair to MS on this one.
It is my understanding that there is a bug report for Firefox that has been open for some time ("some time" being over a year as I recall) that states that FireFox continues to leak memory whenever a tab is opened or closed.
Let me make this as clear as can be: if this is in fact true, then FireFox is in NO WAY SHAPE OR FORM ready for prime-time and the developers have all but committed fraud by bumping it to 1.0.
Go ahead, mod me troll. If you do AND this issue exists, you are dead wrong for doing so.
Flamebait, huh? Sure, someone says something even remotely negative about your previous open-source project and it's flamebait.
The TRUTH of the statement be damned. It doesn't cast something that isn't Microsoft in a bad light and you don't like it.
And that my friends is the reason the F/OSS movement will NEVER defeat Microsoft. Superior technology only gets you so far (and you appear to not even have that going for you at this point), the lousy attitude destroys whatever positive you do.
Are you shitting me?? This is a KNOWN ISSUE?!?
What the FUCK are those developers thinking? An app that is leaking memory, and is KNOWN to be doing so, needs to get fixed. Their priorities are way out of wack if this isn't one of, if not THE top priority.
You know, it's funny... Ever since FF went 1.0 and has been brought into the real light of day with users other than Slashdot geeks using it, I've been reading about more and more problems with it. Did they rush it out the door? Or is it flawed in a fundamental way?
Better than IE? I'll give you standards, but beyond that, no, not really. Compared to Maxthon, it's almost lousy at this point.
What a load of crap. NO good piece of software FORCES you to have to do a clean install. That's bad design on their part.
The older code should always be overwritten with the new, or the old code just sits there and does nothing. DLLs get replaces with newer or the same versions. There shouldn't ever be a problem if the developers know what they are doing.
What your missing is an understanding of what VB, Delphi and their ilk offer, and what NLP is. I don't mean for that to sound offensive in any way, please forgive me if it does.
...and attach that to the onClick event of the button (pardon me if the syntax is wrong, it's been a couple of years since I've touched VB).
...in a program is kind of the overall idea of LNP. That's a dream at this point, no need to write "arcane" code that doesn't have much relevance to the end-user who's telling you what the system should do in plain English, hence the need for the "translation" the author of the article mentioned, which really is what programming is these days.
VB makes creating GUI-based applications quicker (and easier, many say) by allowing you to create the user interface in a visual fashion and then attach code to the visual elements. You still have to get down there and type code though to make the application do anything aside from some "canned" interface functions.
Alice, OTOH, is allowing you to form an application completely in a visual way, although the visual elements are actually words. It's sort of like in VB how you can have a form and drag a button and a textbox onto it, which saves you time and effort, but you then have to write:
text1.text = "hello"
In Alice, maybe you have a palet ot words instead of visual components, and maybe one of them is "copy text ____ to ____". You drag this to the editor interface, then enter a string of text in the first ____, then drag the word TEXT1 into the second. Your forming the "program" in an English phrase, without having to code anything.
Note that I'm not too familiar with Alice aside from a quick glance at the link you referenced, but I think that's the general idea.
It's kind of funny because Cobol was something of a NLP language, and everyone hated it! To be able to type:
Copy array 1 to table 2
We should have stuck with Cobol and developed it further! (I'm saying that sarcastically of course, yet the underlying thought is serious).
If I assume this is true, and I have no reason to doubt it is, it really doesn't represent something newsworthy (and no, I am not new around here, and yes, I know this is typical).
Some employee at MS had a warez copy and did their wotk with it like an idiot. Deserves to be fired, sure. But this isn't some vast MS conspiracy here, nor I'm sure does it represent the tip of a huge warez-using portion of MS iceberg.
Seriously editors, is this really the best news headline you've seen in the past hour?!? Slashdot becomes more and more irrelevant as an actual news site with each passing day. At this point I just stop by to see the train wreck.
I agree with everything you said, but I have to call you on the "there hasn't been a major attack in the US since 2001" statement.
While it's a true statement, it's not logical. We only had a very few major terrorist attacks in the period 1900-2001, really only two that I can think of, and one was a nutcase from our own country. You can't ignore all that.
It's like saying I might never take a shit again because I haven't done so for an hour. It completely ignores the previous 31 years of my life where I shit constantly.
It's actually a statistical game... Just base the numbers on a small window on the larger whole, the part that supports the view.
Note that I'm not trying to hammer you or anything, but I see this statement all the time, and while I'm a Bush supporter and generally agree with all you said, we can't say for certain that the administration has done the job because there hasn't been an attack since 9/11. I think they HAVE done the job, but the fact that we haven't had an attack doesn't lead to that conclusion logically.
Might want to have a look...
http://www.omnytex.com/
Specifically:
http://omnytex.com/kgarcade/
and
http://omnytex.com/products_invasion_info.shtml/
They have two games for the PocketPC, Invasion: Trivia! and K&G Arcade. They both star two aliens named Krelmac and Gentoo. You could describe them as a cross between Kang/Kodos and Beavis/Butthead. The games are rather fun but most importantly are comedy-focused. Naturally as with all comedy whether you find it funny or not is subjective, but plenty if people do find them rather amusing.
The guys at Omnytex Technologies are actually getting started on K&G Arcade II (code-named "maybe this one will sell"), which they say is going to be even more comedy and story-driven.
I know mentioning something Microsoft-related (PocketPC) here on Slashdot is a no-no, but I think these two games are worth checking out if you own such a device.
"Kerry could certainly be gracious about the situation without being spineless."
And in one concise sentence you pointed out the critical flaw in the man that resulted in him not being elected.
Of course, you could have saved yourself 10 words and just wrote SPINELESS.
It has been my experience that the "geek nation" is, by and large, on the left side of the aisle in most things. Certainly that is true in my office where I pretty much stand alone as the only Bush supporter amongst a sea of Kerry supporters (or, as is more correctly stateing it: a sea of Bush haters).
So, I found it rather surprising that, at least at the time I read through the comments, by and large there seemed to be more support for Bush than Kerry (or at least right-wing ideals vs. left-wing ideals). I just found that surpising.
I'm not so sure I take that as evidence that the incumbent is in better shape than I had been supposing recently, but it is an interesting observation. Likewise, if I check back in 20 minutes there might be a deluge of vocal Kerry supporters chiming in, who knows?