It's the rationale for why the recording industry hasn't ever even tried to sue people for downloading music in Canada: it'd never stand up in court. Actually, the CRIA has tried to sue people - but they got their asses handed to them by the judge before they even got to the filing stage.
Most spam bots already send to the *lowest* priority MX (ie. the highest number), and work their way backwards, because it's common for the backup MX'es to have lower anti-spam rules.
However, this idea would have been *great* six years ago. Once the developer invents a time machine, he's got the spam problem licked for at least a week!
Inevitably, however, interest tapers as they grow older. It is naive to think that there aren't a barrage of forces that discourage women from pursuing technical fields in these formative years. And it's just as naive to think that the change isn't rooted in biology.
Or do you believe that all human beings are born at full sexual maturity, and there is no change in their hormone levels as they grow?
Every study I've seen has shown that there is a statistical correlation between the levels of estrogen in the body, and the interest in math & science. The more estrogen, the less interested the subject becomes (for both boys and girls.)
Hormones (especially sex hormones) are responsible for a host of changes in the brain, and we're just beginning to scratch the surface of understanding how and why they work.
Yes, there are societal factors, but they pale in comparison to the chemical changes that happen in the body as it grows.
the phrase "The Jedi Master who instructed me" means that Ben was Yoda's apprentice. Yes, because that's the natural inference from that statement.
It could mean that Ben attended classes led by Yoda, who was an instructor But then it would need to be "One of the Jedi Masters who instructed me" to be correct.
Saying "The Jedi Master" means that Yoda was the only instructor he had, and that (necessarily) implies a master-apprentice relationship.
The pattern is: "if you agree with/to something unscientific, you cannot claim to be a scientist." No, the pattern is "if you endorse as scientific something which is obviously not scientific, then you cannot claim to be a scientist."
Therefore, religion (by itself) does not qualify, unless the person stating their belief is also stating that they believe that religion is scientific.
I'm not sure about the others, but the "Star wars" one happened in early 2005, not 2006 - although whether one person died or not I don't know (last I heard it was just injuries.)
To assume that any new feature will automatically result in a more vulnerable computer is a flawed assumption. Bullshit. You said it yourself:
No non-trivial software is bug free. The more features (code) you add, the larger the bug count. It's a well-known axiom in security circles that every bug is a potential security vulnerability. Therefore, every feature you add makes your software more vulnerable. By definition.
Perhaps if you understood general computer security a little better, it might be helpful for you to understand my arguments. You seem to have done some reading on MS security, but there's a whole world outside of MS. There's a good beginner article here that might help you.
If you do a search on your favorite security site, you'll see that these products have almost NO security holes. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't point to the current number of publically-known vulnerabilities and make assumptions about the number of undiscovered security holes. Just because a piece of software has "very few" publically-known vulnerabilities one day, does not mean that a dozen won't be released tomorrow.
IIS 6 has dramatically fewer vulnerabilities than Apache Ah, the #1 mistake of those who do not understand computer security - play "count the publically-known vulnerabilities" to determine which product more secure.
your conclusions about Vista are assumptions, and are not based on any kind of research on your part. And your conclusions about computer security in general are also assumptions (and incorrect ones, at that.) The difference between you and me is that the research I have done is regarding time-proven, proven peer-reviewed techniques, whereas yours is limited to Microsoft propaganda.
Apparently you would rather be condescending and content in your ignorance than to do research on a subject before making claims. No more than you. We have a claim of an exploit in Vista, and your attitude (without doing any research at all) is that it is "fraudulent".
I was hoping that you might pick up that I was pointing out your hypocrisy, but evidently I was too subtle.
I guess it's easier to regurgitate quotes than to actually research a subject. I guess it's easier to regurgitate MS propaganda than to actually have an understanding of a subject.
any web developer can tell you that the 'if it follows standards it should work' myth has been dead for a long time That's not a myth. If it follows standards, then it should work. Period.
The myth would be "if it follows standards, then it will work."
Vista has a lot of features that makes the inevitable bugs much, much harder to take advantage of. Yes, and I'll bet that each one of those features has it's own bugs which can be exploited - which makes the entire computer easier to exploit, not harder.
It's possible that protected mode has a flaw, but judging by how it works I find that unlikely. I see you've already considered the possibility that the features will have their own bugs. However, unlike you, I will decide to err on the side of historical evidence.
Historically, MS doesn't know how to write secure software, and takes several attempts to get it right. Why would these new features be any different?
Vista users aren't running as admin You're claiming that the OS enforces this? It will refuse to run non-system apps as Admin?
So what happens with all of the existing software that requires Administrative privileges to run? There are thousands of them. Will they all stop working when you upgrade to Vista?
The ability to take over the entire machine, or even run arbitrary code effectively as the interactive user, are almost non-existent. Apparently you (and MS?) have never heard of a little thing called the local root exploit? All of us Unix guys know that just because a user doesn't have root, doesn't mean that there's not a way for them to get it.
What was that quote? Oh yeah - "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." (Henry Spencer)
Hey, Here's an idea: If you don't think it's worth $250 DON'T BUY IT! Yeah, because god knows that when a company starts selling snake-oil, nobody should ever call them on it, right? I mean, when you see someone telling lies soley so they can make money from the ignorance of others, it's unethical to point that out to people who might otherwise be taken in.
Stop your bitching and STFU! You first.
A DVR with just one tuner is nothing more than a digital VCR and that is not even in the same genus as a dual tuner system (you can't swap between channels, record one thing and watch something else) While adding a second (or in my case, second and third) tuner reduces/eliminates scheduling conflicts, it is *much* more than a "digital VCR", and it *is* perfectly possible to record one thing and watch another - as my TV has a tuner as well. In fact, it's perfectly possible to record one thing and watch a show that you've recorded.
To emphasize the point about how a single-tuner box is much more than a VCR, I will relate a simple story:
Shortly after I set it up, my wife and I came home one afternoon while our (then single-tuner) Myth box was an hour into recording a movie. I said "let's start watching it", and (still thinking in "VCR" mode) she said "but it's not done recording yet!" To which I replied "that doesn't matter", and we sat down and watched the movie. Try that with a VCR.
If what they wanted was money, they should have gone with someone who would be unable to fight a long war and would entered an agreement before the lack of evidence became evident. Sure, except SGI didn't have <Dr-evil>one BEEEELLLEEEON dollars</Dr-evil>
SCOX didn't want money, they wanted to be bought out (hint: read the reports of the original agreement with their lawyers - in the event of a buy-out, the lawyers get 30%.)
what if you were SCO? What if you were being taken advantage of by a large company and all you had at your disposal was the courts to protect yourself with. Umm, I think you meant:
"What if you had destroyed your business through your own incompetance, and decided to try extort money from a company who had done nothing wrong?"
Slashdot Mirror
George Bush thinking he's the leader of the free world [...] and he's right.
Sure, for a sufficiently revised definition of free.
Without a 60-40 majority, the minority can block any legislation it cares to.
OK, then. Please point to all of the Iraq military spending legislation that the democrats blocked while the poor republican majority was in power.
read your images and mass upload them to teh interweb, but only to those users who know enough to explicitly use the security interface
Or to those who are instructed by someone else, and have no idea what the repercussions are.
he has results that dispute it. If he does, he didn't post them to his page.
If you take a look at his page, he says that he used DNSBL.
DNSBL host != spam-bot
Spam-bots are a subset of the hosts that would be listed in a DNSBL.
Next time, before attacking someone, you might want to work on your reading comprehension skills. You'll look like much less of a fool.
Most spam bots already send to the *lowest* priority MX (ie. the highest number), and work their way backwards, because it's common for the backup MX'es to have lower anti-spam rules.
However, this idea would have been *great* six years ago. Once the developer invents a time machine, he's got the spam problem licked for at least a week!
Or do you believe that all human beings are born at full sexual maturity, and there is no change in their hormone levels as they grow?
Every study I've seen has shown that there is a statistical correlation between the levels of estrogen in the body, and the interest in math & science. The more estrogen, the less interested the subject becomes (for both boys and girls.)
Hormones (especially sex hormones) are responsible for a host of changes in the brain, and we're just beginning to scratch the surface of understanding how and why they work.
Yes, there are societal factors, but they pale in comparison to the chemical changes that happen in the body as it grows.
What? You're saying that we wouldn't be greeted as liberators?
Saying "The Jedi Master" means that Yoda was the only instructor he had, and that (necessarily) implies a master-apprentice relationship.
I can't imagine somebody who doesn't love Ramen
It's horrid, foul stuff with no nutritional value whatsoever.
This sums it up about right.
you might want to look at who was President in 1994. Hint: His last name wasn't "Bush".
So... you're suggesting we should all be worried that Bill Clinton might get elected in 2008?
I'm pretty sure that's not allowed.
Therefore, religion (by itself) does not qualify, unless the person stating their belief is also stating that they believe that religion is scientific.
I'm not sure about the others, but the "Star wars" one happened in early 2005, not 2006 - although whether one person died or not I don't know (last I heard it was just injuries.)
5 3
Slashdot covered it here: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/24/14122
many people belive in a deeper conspiracy but if there was a successful conspiracy it would imply that GW was smarter than people suspected
Only if you believe he was in charge of the conspiracy.
If Bush is the conspirator's puppet (which seems pretty damn likely) then it means that he is exactly as dumb as most people suspect.
Interesting. So, in the past 5 years, what has changed at the NYT?
I find it odd that an organization the size of the Times would go from one extreme to another in just 5 years.
Maybe my tinfoil hat is a little tight, but I think something smells a little fishy here.
Perhaps if you understood general computer security a little better, it might be helpful for you to understand my arguments. You seem to have done some reading on MS security, but there's a whole world outside of MS. There's a good beginner article here that might help you. If you do a search on your favorite security site, you'll see that these products have almost NO security holes. This is exactly what I'm talking about. You can't point to the current number of publically-known vulnerabilities and make assumptions about the number of undiscovered security holes. Just because a piece of software has "very few" publically-known vulnerabilities one day, does not mean that a dozen won't be released tomorrow. IIS 6 has dramatically fewer vulnerabilities than Apache Ah, the #1 mistake of those who do not understand computer security - play "count the publically-known vulnerabilities" to determine which product more secure. your conclusions about Vista are assumptions, and are not based on any kind of research on your part. And your conclusions about computer security in general are also assumptions (and incorrect ones, at that.) The difference between you and me is that the research I have done is regarding time-proven, proven peer-reviewed techniques, whereas yours is limited to Microsoft propaganda. Apparently you would rather be condescending and content in your ignorance than to do research on a subject before making claims. No more than you. We have a claim of an exploit in Vista, and your attitude (without doing any research at all) is that it is "fraudulent".
I was hoping that you might pick up that I was pointing out your hypocrisy, but evidently I was too subtle. I guess it's easier to regurgitate quotes than to actually research a subject. I guess it's easier to regurgitate MS propaganda than to actually have an understanding of a subject.
The myth would be "if it follows standards, then it will work."
Historically, MS doesn't know how to write secure software, and takes several attempts to get it right. Why would these new features be any different? Vista users aren't running as admin You're claiming that the OS enforces this? It will refuse to run non-system apps as Admin?
So what happens with all of the existing software that requires Administrative privileges to run? There are thousands of them. Will they all stop working when you upgrade to Vista? The ability to take over the entire machine, or even run arbitrary code effectively as the interactive user, are almost non-existent. Apparently you (and MS?) have never heard of a little thing called the local root exploit? All of us Unix guys know that just because a user doesn't have root, doesn't mean that there's not a way for them to get it.
What was that quote? Oh yeah - "Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly." (Henry Spencer)
That'd be about two zeros more Hey, that's a horrible thing to say about the president and secretary of defense!
To emphasize the point about how a single-tuner box is much more than a VCR, I will relate a simple story:
Shortly after I set it up, my wife and I came home one afternoon while our (then single-tuner) Myth box was an hour into recording a movie. I said "let's start watching it", and (still thinking in "VCR" mode) she said "but it's not done recording yet!" To which I replied "that doesn't matter", and we sat down and watched the movie. Try that with a VCR.
SCOX didn't want money, they wanted to be bought out (hint: read the reports of the original agreement with their lawyers - in the event of a buy-out, the lawyers get 30%.)
What if you were being taken advantage of by a large company and all you had at your disposal was the courts to protect yourself with. Umm, I think you meant:
"What if you had destroyed your business through your own incompetance, and decided to try extort money from a company who had done nothing wrong?"
I thought they were built by aliens who used them as space ships... StarGate...What kind of Stargate geek are you?
Anyone who knows anything about Stargate knows that the pyramids were the landing pads, not the spaceships themselves!