Of course the two are different applications with a different effect. I mention WoW due to Blizzard's inability to manage patches properly.
I mentioned MSFT for the same reason. Do you get good support from them? Better than MSFT? I hear they have a DB product they would like to sell you. If not, continue to use Oracle and deal with the mishaps they might have. That's why you have a job.
I agree. But how do you remove the human element? Are you proffering an alternative? It's just life in the big software world. IBM, Sun, Apple and many others have had patch mishaps. How about Sony's nifty little cloaking app? Again, find an alternative and move or suck it up and do your best to deal. It is why we are employeed, after all.
Just because they are a large, successful company doesn't mean schedules are solid and sufficient resources are made available. Microsoft is wildly successful, but faces the same problems. World of Warcraft is wildly successful, but faces the same problems. Ultimately, we still have people involved and people make mistakes. People estimate incorrectly. Stuff happens (c).
If you have an alternative and they are able to serve you better, migrate. If not, suck it up and be thankful the mistakes of your vendor give you a well paying job.
Out of curiosity, is something that's not "socially acceptable" (noted regarding "outlets for aggressive tendencies") considered a vice? If so, what is responsibile for defining "socially acceptable?" The concept of socially acceptable appears to be ok with you, but religion defining vice apparently isn't. Perhaps it's not really religion that defines vice but our general perception of "acceptable" that does so?
Furthermore, how and why are laws defined? Are they to prevent vice? And as a public or society (back to socially acceptable again), are we not accepting of laws in general? Isn't there a general perception that law is 'necessary' and approved by "average Joe."
I guess the real crux is that if society were more open about the items you list, our concept of socially acceptable would need to have changed drasticaly anyway. Furthermore, what defines "recreational use" of drugs? What defines responsible gambling? What happens if people step past these definitions? What happens if people choose *not* to use the socially acceptable outlets for managing their aggressive tendencies? What happens when people make *bad* choices?
None of these issues magically disappear because we cite religion or government as a cause of some big problem.
I presume this was a joke, but if not, please consider that everyone's definition of Right/Wrong, Socially Acceptable/Unacceptable, etc differs.
Consider a simple thing like political protest. Say that you disagree with the actions being taken by the "rule makers" or the people monitoring your actions. A certain degree of privacy is required to keep a government accountable.
And by providing a good cross platform browser, they're locking people into Windows how? As another reply noted, the could terminate the other platform ports, but then it's rather pointless to point out they could buy a "cross platform" browser. See the parent to my original reply.
Exactly. If those SSNs are comprimised, I'd bet money it was someone else at that school who realized they had a ready made scapegoat to exploit. If those SSNs show up somewhere, everyone *knows* those kids did it, right? They really set themselves up for a fall...
Right, but the difference is that the maintainers for Linux, Apache, et all *know* the source is available. If a hole is discovered, it has to be fixed as anyone with the source may have already discovered it and might be prepping a 0 day exploit.
Cisco doesn't have to worry in the same way as no one else can see their code. There's less incentive to fix known potential holes and less incentive for Cisco to search the code for potential exploits.
Except....
So, yes. I'd be very surprised if Cisco routers couldn't be root'd by a capable hacker with access to the source.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course the two are different applications with a different effect. I mention WoW due to Blizzard's inability to manage patches properly.
I mentioned MSFT for the same reason. Do you get good support from them? Better than MSFT? I hear they have a DB product they would like to sell you. If not, continue to use Oracle and deal with the mishaps they might have. That's why you have a job.
I agree. But how do you remove the human element? Are you proffering an alternative? It's just life in the big software world. IBM, Sun, Apple and many others have had patch mishaps. How about Sony's nifty little cloaking app? Again, find an alternative and move or suck it up and do your best to deal. It is why we are employeed, after all.
Just because they are a large, successful company doesn't mean schedules are solid and sufficient resources are made available. Microsoft is wildly successful, but faces the same problems. World of Warcraft is wildly successful, but faces the same problems. Ultimately, we still have people involved and people make mistakes. People estimate incorrectly. Stuff happens (c).
If you have an alternative and they are able to serve you better, migrate. If not, suck it up and be thankful the mistakes of your vendor give you a well paying job.
Out of curiosity, is something that's not "socially acceptable" (noted regarding "outlets for aggressive tendencies") considered a vice? If so, what is responsibile for defining "socially acceptable?" The concept of socially acceptable appears to be ok with you, but religion defining vice apparently isn't. Perhaps it's not really religion that defines vice but our general perception of "acceptable" that does so?
Furthermore, how and why are laws defined? Are they to prevent vice? And as a public or society (back to socially acceptable again), are we not accepting of laws in general? Isn't there a general perception that law is 'necessary' and approved by "average Joe."
I guess the real crux is that if society were more open about the items you list, our concept of socially acceptable would need to have changed drasticaly anyway. Furthermore, what defines "recreational use" of drugs? What defines responsible gambling? What happens if people step past these definitions? What happens if people choose *not* to use the socially acceptable outlets for managing their aggressive tendencies? What happens when people make *bad* choices?
None of these issues magically disappear because we cite religion or government as a cause of some big problem.
Because you can't simply match .wmf. It has to be a content match and is very cpu intensive
Take a look at Twisted
I presume this was a joke, but if not, please consider that everyone's definition of Right/Wrong, Socially Acceptable/Unacceptable, etc differs.
Consider a simple thing like political protest. Say that you disagree with the actions being taken by the "rule makers" or the people monitoring your actions. A certain degree of privacy is required to keep a government accountable.
Wacko conspiracy theory or innovative legal strategy? You be the judge.
*tramples your case into a greasy smudge
No, it probably means that they didn't take the time to test in other browsers... It's still annoying, but very unlikely that it was malicious.
Heh, in the US, we just cut stuff anyway. Take, for instance, a main fiber line for a major telco whacked by a backhoe... That was a fun day.
http://www.visa.com/cisp
Read and enjoy. Deadline is the 30th of this month.
Your early adopters would probably find a couple screenshots helpful :)
Which you don't do?
You, sir, need struck down.
Which is different from *two* weeks ago in what way? Seriously, you ought to be watching your credit anyway.
Heh, I've got a password on a post it note attached to my monitor. It's something like P43F^ss2Bn. I always wonder how many times people try it.
And by providing a good cross platform browser, they're locking people into Windows how? As another reply noted, the could terminate the other platform ports, but then it's rather pointless to point out they could buy a "cross platform" browser. See the parent to my original reply.
Huh? They don't make money off their browser. Why would they want to provide a browser that allows people to pick a different OS/Office/etc?
display: inline-table was the most recent lacking I've run into. See https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=18217 . It's been on bugzilla since 1999 :(. Effects like http://glish.com/css/1.asp are basically impossible if you slap a table width="100%" in the body next to the right side menu.
Exactly. If those SSNs are comprimised, I'd bet money it was someone else at that school who realized they had a ready made scapegoat to exploit. If those SSNs show up somewhere, everyone *knows* those kids did it, right? They really set themselves up for a fall...
Right, but the difference is that the maintainers for Linux, Apache, et all *know* the source is available. If a hole is discovered, it has to be fixed as anyone with the source may have already discovered it and might be prepping a 0 day exploit.
Cisco doesn't have to worry in the same way as no one else can see their code. There's less incentive to fix known potential holes and less incentive for Cisco to search the code for potential exploits.
Except....
So, yes. I'd be very surprised if Cisco routers couldn't be root'd by a capable hacker with access to the source.
Trac provides a nice web based diff tool and a bunch of other features.
Not as current as I hoped to find, but as of April, 2003, AOL had 26.2 million subscribers. Reference
:) Reference
Note that this is down from 32 million in 2001, but I'm still guessing they have a fair chunk of warm bodies. Reference
Ahh, here we go. 22.7 million Sept. 2004. Wish I had that many clients
*removes head from said US soil*
What was that?
"Isn't AIM something only people with AOL use?"
Yeah, not very many of those people around.. </sarcasm>