They claim no REMOTE ROOT exploits in a vanilla installation of their OS...
Which, by the way, I can easily produce with a single IP tables rule and also applies to redhat or any distro if you turn on the firewall from the start.
Can you really think clearly for a second and understand that ALL SOFTWARE HAS BUGS?
And that, if we talk about security, there is a difference between a disclosed exploit, a zero day exploit, a bug that COULD be exploited (which is this case in particular) and that the argument you pretend to make applies to ALL FUCKING OSES?
What does that have to do with anything? Are you pretending to claim that windows has less vulnerabilities than Linux now?
Buzz off, little worker bee, its simply not the case: this happens once every, say, couple to four years in Linux. Microsoft has one of this bugs every couple of sundays.
Well, I think they have in mind more the PSP + PSIII or mac + iPhone type of thing in mind, but with windows with some directX with a ÂmobileÂversion, very much like the.net framework separates the stuff not supported on mobile os's and clearly mark them for you.
Its not perfect and Im not sure the mass for winCE/WinMob is really there to make it as big as their competitors. I do think that XBox got the colaborative gaming idea very well in the first place and that this is going to be interesting to see.
And, by the way, I can give you examples of people addicted to opiates that lived very good lives (go read the autobiography of Fernando Savater, the Spanish philosopher, and see what he has to say about opiates and his father).
About coke, I will bet my kingdom that if you cut all coke supply to the US, the NYSE would crash within minutes and you'd see people grawing their peers heads off while attempting to slash their wrists by savage paper cuting.
I am not an illegal drug user, but the more I think about it, the more I think all government has done with the issue is make it worse, and worse, and worse.
We had been peacefully living with drugs for millenia (literally), until this swine in the XXth century thought it would be a good idea to have us all comply to a standard they cannot explain.
This, I might add, is Milton Friedman's theory. Yes, the Nobel price on economy.
He went on to prove that crack is the direct result of the war on cocaine, for example. Google for friedman america's drug forum... and then try to argue with that guy.
Absolutely true. However, if we study WHY do we have such hard drugs in the first place, we will find that PROHIBITION stimulates entrepreneurial delinquents (narcs) to actually MAKE more adictive, less detectable drugs.
Yes it does. I am saying it myself: driving while under the inffluence of pot is dangerous to the user and to whomever he finds in his/her way.
I AGREE with that.
What I DONT agree with is using that reality as an argument against the full legalization of drugs as soft as marihuana.
And I dont agree because I am certain that MOST DRUG USERS do not engage in irresponsible behaviour (like driving under the inffluence).
Look at alcohol: a great many of american adults are casual users of the drug, but MOST of them do not drink and drive and most certaintly do not get shitfaced drunk every day or even every weekend. Would you be willing to accept this as a reality?
"The majority of any drug users tend not to take risks nor put others in danger"
Because, you know, if this werent the case (if most drinkers got shitfaced and took to driving their SUV's every friday), then drunk-while-driving accidents would be much more than what they are.
Furthermore, would you be willing to accept that its very probable that this behaviour is true about, at least, pot?
And while at it, I do disagree with your position.
Yes, there are many people that are irresponsible with their drugs. But Id be willing to bet my kingdom that its the MINORITY of all drug users (its that way with alcohol and tobacco, why not assume the same trend with all drugs?).
So while you are right in pointing out that irresponsible people engaged in irresponsible behaviour are dangerous to all of us, there is also the point that most drug users probably do not engage in irresponsible behaviour.
So the question is: why do we make a law that bans all drug consumption as an attempt to thwart what a minority of drug consumers do?
Wouldnt it be better if there was a national registry of drug users, only for use of the judicial system and, through warrant, the police and your belonging to that registry gave you the right to consume drugs responsibly and legally, but would evidently undermine the posibility for your engagement in irresponsible behaviour by making it a really serious offense to do anything dangerous while under the inffluence?
I think its a good tradeoff, as you say (good we find ourselves in the middle): you trade in some of your privacy in exchange for assurance of your responsible behaviour while making a baked omelet out of your brain for a couple of hours.
And he is right. And I can easyly produce many cases of people dying because some idiot was texting.
Do we have the same thing for driving while high?
Nope.
Thus the argument against pot because it makes you more dangerous at the wheel, attempting to compare it to alcohol in that area, is baseless.
I know it might be a controversial position, but you can provide bases for it if you produce even a single case where it was proven that a high driver, because of the impairment produced by pot consumption, caused a deadly accident.
Slashdot Mirror
Dont be a dumbass, really. If "someone" knows about it, "they" did not release an exploit to the wild or we wouldve known it sooner.
They claim no REMOTE ROOT exploits in a vanilla installation of their OS...
Which, by the way, I can easily produce with a single IP tables rule and also applies to redhat or any distro if you turn on the firewall from the start.
Can you really think clearly for a second and understand that ALL SOFTWARE HAS BUGS?
And that, if we talk about security, there is a difference between a disclosed exploit, a zero day exploit, a bug that COULD be exploited (which is this case in particular) and that the argument you pretend to make applies to ALL FUCKING OSES?
Oh...
So it was disclosed the 11th of august and linus has a patch today, HUH?
There are YEAR OLD bugs with this exact level of danger that microsoft simply has not patched and still refuses to patch.
Fuck you, I love my os BECAUSE i know beforehand that it will be fixed in no time....
Windows people are just plain stupid, really.
Not so. We just simply get this fixed within days of an exploit being discovered.
Windows, on the other hand, STILL, TODAY, HAS local root exploits that are plain UNPATCHED.
Microsoft just doesnt give a fuck about their customer's security. And thats that.
Really?
It normally takes redhat no more than 48 hours after the patch to send the kernel rpm through RHN.
What does that have to do with anything? Are you pretending to claim that windows has less vulnerabilities than Linux now?
Buzz off, little worker bee, its simply not the case: this happens once every, say, couple to four years in Linux. Microsoft has one of this bugs every couple of sundays.
Who cares twerp?
If it absorbs and keeps Co2, then it will weight more over time.
Duh
Well, I think they have in mind more the PSP + PSIII or mac + iPhone type of thing in mind, but with windows with some directX with a ÂmobileÂversion, very much like the .net framework separates the stuff not supported on mobile os's and clearly mark them for you.
Its not perfect and Im not sure the mass for winCE/WinMob is really there to make it as big as their competitors. I do think that XBox got the colaborative gaming idea very well in the first place and that this is going to be interesting to see.
Microsoft has no heart to speak of.
Theyve been either buying and rebranding or spewing the same old software with a new GUI for ages now.
This guys cannot innovate, theyve never been able to.
Who cares?
Buy a mac.
How does a couple of billion dollars a year in cash sound to you?
Cause thats how much google can spend....
You were saying?
HA!
No dent, you say?
MS is shitting in its pants due to FOSS taking a good chunk out of their server revenue and we havent made a "dent"?
Weve stopped them from getting a couple billion USD a year, thats a "dent" right there even for microsoft.
Your prog sucks.
" the pacemaker itself doesn't have an IP address, fun as that would be."
Cant be done.
You cant have a tcp connection without a source IP.
Now maybe the IP is forcefully dynamic and always within the private ranges.... buts thats another thing. K?
Well i havent seen any "internet adiction" bootcamps in occident yet.
And then the guards kicked him on the ground while he was, I quote you "on the verge of death".
Yeah... great thing they are out.
The FSM needs not to care itself with such small tidbits. His noodly appendages and marinara hot sauce covers ALL.
"Hopefully that's not their primary goal. Remember, if your primary goal isn't to do something positive for the customer then it ain't gonna work."
What planet did you crawl down here from?
Does one need a visa to get there?
Ever seen the Windows OS?
And, by the way, I can give you examples of people addicted to opiates that lived very good lives (go read the autobiography of Fernando Savater, the Spanish philosopher, and see what he has to say about opiates and his father).
About coke, I will bet my kingdom that if you cut all coke supply to the US, the NYSE would crash within minutes and you'd see people grawing their peers heads off while attempting to slash their wrists by savage paper cuting.
I am not an illegal drug user, but the more I think about it, the more I think all government has done with the issue is make it worse, and worse, and worse.
We had been peacefully living with drugs for millenia (literally), until this swine in the XXth century thought it would be a good idea to have us all comply to a standard they cannot explain.
This, I might add, is Milton Friedman's theory. Yes, the Nobel price on economy.
He went on to prove that crack is the direct result of the war on cocaine, for example. Google for friedman america's drug forum... and then try to argue with that guy.
Absolutely true. However, if we study WHY do we have such hard drugs in the first place, we will find that PROHIBITION stimulates entrepreneurial delinquents (narcs) to actually MAKE more adictive, less detectable drugs.
Its all about economics.
Yes it does. I am saying it myself: driving while under the inffluence of pot is dangerous to the user and to whomever he finds in his/her way.
I AGREE with that.
What I DONT agree with is using that reality as an argument against the full legalization of drugs as soft as marihuana.
And I dont agree because I am certain that MOST DRUG USERS do not engage in irresponsible behaviour (like driving under the inffluence).
Look at alcohol: a great many of american adults are casual users of the drug, but MOST of them do not drink and drive and most certaintly do not get shitfaced drunk every day or even every weekend. Would you be willing to accept this as a reality?
"The majority of any drug users tend not to take risks nor put others in danger"
Because, you know, if this werent the case (if most drinkers got shitfaced and took to driving their SUV's every friday), then drunk-while-driving accidents would be much more than what they are.
Furthermore, would you be willing to accept that its very probable that this behaviour is true about, at least, pot?
And while at it, I do disagree with your position.
Yes, there are many people that are irresponsible with their drugs. But Id be willing to bet my kingdom that its the MINORITY of all drug users (its that way with alcohol and tobacco, why not assume the same trend with all drugs?).
So while you are right in pointing out that irresponsible people engaged in irresponsible behaviour are dangerous to all of us, there is also the point that most drug users probably do not engage in irresponsible behaviour.
So the question is: why do we make a law that bans all drug consumption as an attempt to thwart what a minority of drug consumers do?
Wouldnt it be better if there was a national registry of drug users, only for use of the judicial system and, through warrant, the police and your belonging to that registry gave you the right to consume drugs responsibly and legally, but would evidently undermine the posibility for your engagement in irresponsible behaviour by making it a really serious offense to do anything dangerous while under the inffluence?
I think its a good tradeoff, as you say (good we find ourselves in the middle): you trade in some of your privacy in exchange for assurance of your responsible behaviour while making a baked omelet out of your brain for a couple of hours.
And he is right. And I can easyly produce many cases of people dying because some idiot was texting.
Do we have the same thing for driving while high?
Nope.
Thus the argument against pot because it makes you more dangerous at the wheel, attempting to compare it to alcohol in that area, is baseless.
I know it might be a controversial position, but you can provide bases for it if you produce even a single case where it was proven that a high driver, because of the impairment produced by pot consumption, caused a deadly accident.