Eh, well, that reminds me of a (salon?) article a year or so ago. Do you know how many of the spammails where you cannot in any way give them money however much you try?
I mean, yes, there are loads of dumb people available, but those dumb people actually have to be able to find out where to send the money.
Of course, that says loads about how smart those spammers are...
Yep, I was reinstalling our main fileserver here at home the other week, upgrading to redhat 7.2. Unfortunately the space was a bit cramped and I didnt bother to put the cover back on the computer so the powerbutton ended up resting against my chair. Of course, this resulted in several instant poweroutages as I got up to get coffee, etc. I think I managed to instakill it 6 times total. Not a single problem noted, just fast log replays and up and running again:). Thumbs up for ext3 from me too.
I can imagine a pretty profitable buisness model based on letting MS subsidize the hardware for compute clusters based on the XBox. I suspect that would be a nightmare for them too.
Standard practice is lying, overstating, understating (compare the memos about Apache vs IIS security; Apache had one single flaw in the default install, and that one gave out some more information about the server than necessary (wether a user existed or not), and some flaws in non-default modules. This they wanted salesmen to pitch as equal in security flaws to IIS default root exploits).
Of course, they also usually grease up, preferably higher placed, people to be moles in most corporations.
"You may not sell Windows if any hardware you sell is capable of running Linux. Your BIOS may not allow any non MS bootloader to be installed. You may not sell any BIOS that can be flashed to allow any non MS bootloader to be installed. You may not allow booting from floppy disks containing linux software."
Or something to the same effect. Which is what will happen if they get the antitrust authorities off their backs.
Of course, it also misses the point that network security admins may need to do massive exploit scans to locate vulnerable machines on their networks. There are a lot of people who admin networks with thousands of machines.
And it misses the point that one may not have a 100% trust that the vendor gets the patch right and would like to test vulnerability after patching.
Hmmm... I wonder if the SF Gate checked if Sally C. Pipes was actually a living person or if it was the good old send-grassroots-letters-from-the-dead tactic.
In the cases where Linux or unix has a majority market share Microsoft still leads the exploit statistics by far.
Of course, it's not as simple as saying that MS sucks, but it's a combination of bad design (dont put everything in every program, dont have unlimited interoperation between everything) bad programming(dont use admin privilidges if not absolutely necessary, also a design issue maybe), bad installation policies (dont install everything or even anything but the basics by default), bad admins and bad will.
The combination of these elements end up in software you dont want to be running because it will stink from a security point of view.
So, no, you wouldnt have the same amount of problems on Linux at least. You'd have problems, yes, but not nearly as many. Unless, of course, the general policies among linux distribution vendors change to install everything insecurely by default, but hopefully that wont happen, and in the Linux world you can always change to another vendor if one of them goes seriously astray.
Nope, not even that. IBM did the cheap, cloned hardware feasible through their own actions, and Compaq helped them along by doing the actual work. MS had nothing to do with it, had it not been them it would have been someone else. People bought the platform from IBM because, well, it was IBM.
Not to mention there was plenty of other cheaper, better hardware around at the time.
I hate to tell you, but Gates and the MS execs actually do spend every waking moment trying to invent new lies and twist words and warp minds. They are pathologically incapable of uttering anything but lies.
This statement by Gates is also yet another lie. Linux (as well as several other operating systems) runs on other hardware, and had Linus not had a PC he would have had another (cheaper, more powerful) platform to work on. Linux, BSD, hurd, whatever, we'd have the same thing today if Gates was retroactively aborted from history. He barely had anything to do even with the PC revolution; if he hadnt stolen QDOS, someone else would have sold IBM an OS, and considering people bought PC's because they were from IBM it would have gone the same, or a similar, way. And likely, without a dominant company with a severly mentally disturbed leader and leadership, we would have a far more healthy computer industry.
...and everything gets slower. I read between 2-20 times faster than I can comprehend spoken language, depending on the junkfiltering that's possible.
No way in hell do I want to read email on a cell phone (it's a PHONE. You _talk_ to people in it. If it was a generic mail reader it would have at least a 17 inch monitor and a keyboard that lets you type faster than.2 cps. I know this is a difficult concept to grasp for certain cell phone companies, but a phone, as opposed to a computer, does not have these things, and thus it _sucks_ for email and browsing, and will continue to do so until it has those things, at which point in time you will not want to carry it around because it aint gonna fit in your pocket anymore.). Nor do I want to listen to my email. I dont have the time or the patience for it.
At least until the phone can give me an (intelligent) summary when I say 'Get to the point'.
Yep, sortof weird editorial, considering that most benchmarks have even the XP 1400+ beating the P4 2GHz on some tests. The XP 1800+ has already been pretty consistently outperforming the P4 2GHz, so the 1900+ would at most be taking over the lead in the very few benchmarks that Intel has had a small lead in.
Of course, according to the shootout that Tomshardware had, on the most important test of Linux kernel compilation (:)), every AMD from the old Athlon 1400 to the XP 1800+ beat every Intel up to the 2GHz one.
And thats even without factoring in the price difference on CPU, motherboard and RDRAM. Or the ethical considerations of purchasing Rambus ram.
My next computer will be my first AMD without a doubt:).
Well, of course there are several applications where you have an advantage if you use 3d. CAD and modelling are traditional examples, military visualization would be another I suppose.
The Microsoft example has an interesting look, altho the idea has been floated before. However, I fail to see the advantage of 3d in it as opposed to an ordinary UNIX desktop pager with the usual miniature actively updated windows and the possibility of labeling the workspaces. Both seem to serve the exact same purpose apart from one being 3d and one being 2d. Switching and monitoring tasks and arranging virtual workspaces that are, together, larger than the available screen space. Am I missing something?
Why? Because it just isnt an improvement. Come up with a useful improved desktop environment that increases productivity by introducing 3d. Yes, it would be cool, but as long as it isnt *better* it is also *useless*.
I dont believe it can be done. Not until we have real 3d displays with 3d input devices and probably not even then.
Why? Because most of those working with computers are working with information. Information is almost always most efficiently conveyed via text, sometimes with added images. Text and images are 2d. You spend most of your time working with a 2d environment, in either case. So where is the gain in 3d? As an alternative way of navigating workspaces it's merely 'cool', but not even a navigational improvement over the pagers of multiple desktop spaces in most window managers, not to mention the problem that 3d spatial awareness isnt exactly something that most people find easy. I'm sure you or I could easily say at what exact position our wordprocessor is if we rotate the polyhedron a few steps around, but a lot of people dont find it a trivial task.
You're wrong. There's nothing more annoying than applications that mess up window overlap. I use it all the time every day, which I suspect anyone who has multiple threads of attention or work going on at any point in time.
A computer desktop without window overlap is like a 50 cm square desk. Sure, you could use it, but the overhead of picking reference litterature out of the shelf, reading it, putting it back, going back to writing what you were writing, etc would make it annoying in the extreme. There's a reason why desks usually are not made like that.
Yes, it would look tidy. It would also be a serious PITA for people who actually have work to do which doesnt just involve our heads and a single paper.
Re:What about the other ways your CC # can be stol
on
Passport's Pocket Picked
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Yes, at the very least I tear out the code, rip it in half and throw away the pieces separately. Nor do I ever let my credit card out of my sight at a resturant. If I make purchases online or over the phone I have a separate minimum-limit ($500 limit) card that I charge to. And if Im really suspicious I create a one-time cc number with not more than the amount due available on it.
You do realize that you can be held liable for whatever charges your card incurs if you do not follow this kind of practice, dont you? And you do realize what happens if you are held liable for a $10K shopping spree that someone went on with your credit card? You pay it, you pay it at once, or your credit rating is slashed, you default on your house mortgage as your bank suddenly wants their money back and their money back _now_, you wont be able to get a new loan and you'll have to sell pretty much everything you own.
Im not kidding, I've seen that happen. I have a coworker who makes as much as I do, who can barely afford to eat lunch in the company resturant. Your life suddenly becomes a helluvalot more expensive once you're put on rapid payback on all your loans and the interest rates you're paying are doubled.
However, your parents have a duty to keep their credit card numbers and credit cards stored in safe places, and have to report it stolen ASAP if they consider it likely that someone has obtained access to those numbers.
If they put their CC numbers on a note on the noticeboard in a public place they arent going to get a cent from either the CC company or anyone else. Pay up or play the debt collection and credit slashing game.
Storing your CC number in Passport is pretty close to that.
They probably cant be sued for it, not in most jurisdictions at least. I havent heard of any online shops or otherwise being sued over stolen CC numbers, and there have been a load of those.
And how much are you willing to bet that the credit card companies are going to consider registering your CC number in Passport being irresponsible behaviour and insufficient care taken in safeguarding it?
In which case you are the one taking the hit.
I hope you dont have a high limit on any card you use on the net. Preferably you should be using one time CC's valid only for the amount you owe.
As long as cookies are allowed if consented to I dont see any problem at all. What it will force is the browser vendors adding a specific 'allow cookies from this site' or 'dump all cookies from this site into/dev/null' option.
Some cookies are useful and should be allowed, but personally I dont give a rats ass if DoubleClicks buisness model requires them to be able to track people all over the web. It should be up to the user to allow or deny any corporate entity the right to gather data on their habits. The current method of allow/deny could be improved a lot to allow more finely grained control.
Not to mention that the day WINE or whatever comes close to really threatening Windows is the day that the lawsuits start raining over anyone even close to WINE development. Not that such a lawsuit would have had any merit a few years ago, but with the way the US IP laws are shaping up it wont be quite as certain in the future.
Terrorists = people who commit violent acts against your own country, or a country you support, without the actual declaration of war by another country.
Freedom fighters/rebels = people who commit violent acts against another country that you do not support without the declaration of war by another country.
You see, the difference is not inherent in the actual people commiting the violence, it is in how you yourself feel about their cause and their opponent. The definition is in your head and in the propaganda you are fed.
Ethnic Pakistani in kashmir fighting for the liberation of kashmir? Terrorists to India, rebels to Paktistan.
Palestinians fighting Israels occupation? Terrorists to Israel, freedom fighters to a lot of the arab world.
Chechnyans blowing up things in Russia? Terrorists to the Russians, rebels to many of their countrymen.
Same thing with every goddamned fucking conflict in this disgusting world.
You could probably bypass all that with a virtual machine like VMWare. The reality is, as always, if you dont control the hardware and hardware access you are going to get bullshitted. Period.
Not that I give a shit either. I'm over and done with that pile.
Microsoft has always used piracy as part of their buisness model and they still are. They would have nowhere near the marketshare they do had they actually opposed piracy.
Much better to charge lots, allow piracy and have everyone be a criminal they can nail at any point they wish. After all, customers living in fear are much easier to manipulate.
Yah, right. Go call MS tech support and see how far you get before you get asked for your credit card number.
Developing hotfixes? That's the enterprise customers who usually get the pleasure of paying them for fixing the bug. First they get to pay for the defective product, then they get to live with the defects, then they get to pay to have the defects fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
Eh, well, that reminds me of a (salon?) article a year or so ago. Do you know how many of the spammails where you cannot in any way give them money however much you try?
I mean, yes, there are loads of dumb people available, but those dumb people actually have to be able to find out where to send the money.
Of course, that says loads about how smart those spammers are...
Yep, I was reinstalling our main fileserver here at home the other week, upgrading to redhat 7.2. Unfortunately the space was a bit cramped and I didnt bother to put the cover back on the computer so the powerbutton ended up resting against my chair. Of course, this resulted in several instant poweroutages as I got up to get coffee, etc. I think I managed to instakill it 6 times total. Not a single problem noted, just fast log replays and up and running again :). Thumbs up for ext3 from me too.
I can imagine a pretty profitable buisness model based on letting MS subsidize the hardware for compute clusters based on the XBox. I suspect that would be a nightmare for them too.
Standard practice is lying, overstating, understating (compare the memos about Apache vs IIS security; Apache had one single flaw in the default install, and that one gave out some more information about the server than necessary (wether a user existed or not), and some flaws in non-default modules. This they wanted salesmen to pitch as equal in security flaws to IIS default root exploits).
Of course, they also usually grease up, preferably higher placed, people to be moles in most corporations.
New MS OEM license just in:
"You may not sell Windows if any hardware you sell is capable of running Linux. Your BIOS may not allow any non MS bootloader to be installed. You may not sell any BIOS that can be flashed to allow any non MS bootloader to be installed. You may not allow booting from floppy disks containing linux software."
Or something to the same effect. Which is what will happen if they get the antitrust authorities off their backs.
Go call Microsoft and ask them if you can sell your copy of XP, eh?
Hint of what response you can expect: In. Your. Dreams.
Of course, it also misses the point that network security admins may need to do massive exploit scans to locate vulnerable machines on their networks. There are a lot of people who admin networks with thousands of machines.
And it misses the point that one may not have a 100% trust that the vendor gets the patch right and would like to test vulnerability after patching.
Hmmm... I wonder if the SF Gate checked if Sally C. Pipes was actually a living person or if it was the good old send-grassroots-letters-from-the-dead tactic.
In the cases where Linux or unix has a majority market share Microsoft still leads the exploit statistics by far.
Of course, it's not as simple as saying that MS sucks, but it's a combination of bad design (dont put everything in every program, dont have unlimited interoperation between everything) bad programming(dont use admin privilidges if not absolutely necessary, also a design issue maybe), bad installation policies (dont install everything or even anything but the basics by default), bad admins and bad will.
The combination of these elements end up in software you dont want to be running because it will stink from a security point of view.
So, no, you wouldnt have the same amount of problems on Linux at least. You'd have problems, yes, but not nearly as many. Unless, of course, the general policies among linux distribution vendors change to install everything insecurely by default, but hopefully that wont happen, and in the Linux world you can always change to another vendor if one of them goes seriously astray.
Nope, not even that. IBM did the cheap, cloned hardware feasible through their own actions, and Compaq helped them along by doing the actual work. MS had nothing to do with it, had it not been them it would have been someone else. People bought the platform from IBM because, well, it was IBM.
Not to mention there was plenty of other cheaper, better hardware around at the time.
I hate to tell you, but Gates and the MS execs actually do spend every waking moment trying to invent new lies and twist words and warp minds. They are pathologically incapable of uttering anything but lies.
This statement by Gates is also yet another lie. Linux (as well as several other operating systems) runs on other hardware, and had Linus not had a PC he would have had another (cheaper, more powerful) platform to work on. Linux, BSD, hurd, whatever, we'd have the same thing today if Gates was retroactively aborted from history. He barely had anything to do even with the PC revolution; if he hadnt stolen QDOS, someone else would have sold IBM an OS, and considering people bought PC's because they were from IBM it would have gone the same, or a similar, way. And likely, without a dominant company with a severly mentally disturbed leader and leadership, we would have a far more healthy computer industry.
...and everything gets slower. I read between 2-20 times faster than I can comprehend spoken language, depending on the junkfiltering that's possible.
.2 cps. I know this is a difficult concept to grasp for certain cell phone companies, but a phone, as opposed to a computer, does not have these things, and thus it _sucks_ for email and browsing, and will continue to do so until it has those things, at which point in time you will not want to carry it around because it aint gonna fit in your pocket anymore.). Nor do I want to listen to my email. I dont have the time or the patience for it.
No way in hell do I want to read email on a cell phone (it's a PHONE. You _talk_ to people in it. If it was a generic mail reader it would have at least a 17 inch monitor and a keyboard that lets you type faster than
At least until the phone can give me an (intelligent) summary when I say 'Get to the point'.
Yep, sortof weird editorial, considering that most benchmarks have even the XP 1400+ beating the P4 2GHz on some tests. The XP 1800+ has already been pretty consistently outperforming the P4 2GHz, so the 1900+ would at most be taking over the lead in the very few benchmarks that Intel has had a small lead in.
:).
Of course, according to the shootout that Tomshardware had, on the most important test of Linux kernel compilation (:)), every AMD from the old Athlon 1400 to the XP 1800+ beat every Intel up to the 2GHz one.
And thats even without factoring in the price difference on CPU, motherboard and RDRAM. Or the ethical considerations of purchasing Rambus ram.
My next computer will be my first AMD without a doubt
Well, of course there are several applications where you have an advantage if you use 3d. CAD and modelling are traditional examples, military visualization would be another I suppose.
The Microsoft example has an interesting look, altho the idea has been floated before. However, I fail to see the advantage of 3d in it as opposed to an ordinary UNIX desktop pager with the usual miniature actively updated windows and the possibility of labeling the workspaces. Both seem to serve the exact same purpose apart from one being 3d and one being 2d. Switching and monitoring tasks and arranging virtual workspaces that are, together, larger than the available screen space. Am I missing something?
Why? Because it just isnt an improvement. Come up with a useful improved desktop environment that increases productivity by introducing 3d. Yes, it would be cool, but as long as it isnt *better* it is also *useless*.
I dont believe it can be done. Not until we have real 3d displays with 3d input devices and probably not even then.
Why? Because most of those working with computers are working with information. Information is almost always most efficiently conveyed via text, sometimes with added images. Text and images are 2d. You spend most of your time working with a 2d environment, in either case. So where is the gain in 3d? As an alternative way of navigating workspaces it's merely 'cool', but not even a navigational improvement over the pagers of multiple desktop spaces in most window managers, not to mention the problem that 3d spatial awareness isnt exactly something that most people find easy. I'm sure you or I could easily say at what exact position our wordprocessor is if we rotate the polyhedron a few steps around, but a lot of people dont find it a trivial task.
You're wrong. There's nothing more annoying than applications that mess up window overlap. I use it all the time every day, which I suspect anyone who has multiple threads of attention or work going on at any point in time.
A computer desktop without window overlap is like a 50 cm square desk. Sure, you could use it, but the overhead of picking reference litterature out of the shelf, reading it, putting it back, going back to writing what you were writing, etc would make it annoying in the extreme. There's a reason why desks usually are not made like that.
Yes, it would look tidy. It would also be a serious PITA for people who actually have work to do which doesnt just involve our heads and a single paper.
Yes, at the very least I tear out the code, rip it in half and throw away the pieces separately. Nor do I ever let my credit card out of my sight at a resturant. If I make purchases online or over the phone I have a separate minimum-limit ($500 limit) card that I charge to. And if Im really suspicious I create a one-time cc number with not more than the amount due available on it.
You do realize that you can be held liable for whatever charges your card incurs if you do not follow this kind of practice, dont you? And you do realize what happens if you are held liable for a $10K shopping spree that someone went on with your credit card? You pay it, you pay it at once, or your credit rating is slashed, you default on your house mortgage as your bank suddenly wants their money back and their money back _now_, you wont be able to get a new loan and you'll have to sell pretty much everything you own.
Im not kidding, I've seen that happen. I have a coworker who makes as much as I do, who can barely afford to eat lunch in the company resturant. Your life suddenly becomes a helluvalot more expensive once you're put on rapid payback on all your loans and the interest rates you're paying are doubled.
However, your parents have a duty to keep their credit card numbers and credit cards stored in safe places, and have to report it stolen ASAP if they consider it likely that someone has obtained access to those numbers.
If they put their CC numbers on a note on the noticeboard in a public place they arent going to get a cent from either the CC company or anyone else. Pay up or play the debt collection and credit slashing game.
Storing your CC number in Passport is pretty close to that.
They probably cant be sued for it, not in most jurisdictions at least. I havent heard of any online shops or otherwise being sued over stolen CC numbers, and there have been a load of those.
And how much are you willing to bet that the credit card companies are going to consider registering your CC number in Passport being irresponsible behaviour and insufficient care taken in safeguarding it?
In which case you are the one taking the hit.
I hope you dont have a high limit on any card you use on the net. Preferably you should be using one time CC's valid only for the amount you owe.
As long as cookies are allowed if consented to I dont see any problem at all. What it will force is the browser vendors adding a specific 'allow cookies from this site' or 'dump all cookies from this site into /dev/null' option.
Some cookies are useful and should be allowed, but personally I dont give a rats ass if DoubleClicks buisness model requires them to be able to track people all over the web. It should be up to the user to allow or deny any corporate entity the right to gather data on their habits. The current method of allow/deny could be improved a lot to allow more finely grained control.
Not to mention that the day WINE or whatever comes close to really threatening Windows is the day that the lawsuits start raining over anyone even close to WINE development. Not that such a lawsuit would have had any merit a few years ago, but with the way the US IP laws are shaping up it wont be quite as certain in the future.
Um, no.
Terrorists = people who commit violent acts against your own country, or a country you support, without the actual declaration of war by another country.
Freedom fighters/rebels = people who commit violent acts against another country that you do not support without the declaration of war by another country.
You see, the difference is not inherent in the actual people commiting the violence, it is in how you yourself feel about their cause and their opponent. The definition is in your head and in the propaganda you are fed.
Ethnic Pakistani in kashmir fighting for the liberation of kashmir? Terrorists to India, rebels to Paktistan.
Palestinians fighting Israels occupation? Terrorists to Israel, freedom fighters to a lot of the arab world.
Chechnyans blowing up things in Russia? Terrorists to the Russians, rebels to many of their countrymen.
Same thing with every goddamned fucking conflict in this disgusting world.
You could probably bypass all that with a virtual machine like VMWare. The reality is, as always, if you dont control the hardware and hardware access you are going to get bullshitted. Period.
Not that I give a shit either. I'm over and done with that pile.
Microsoft has always used piracy as part of their buisness model and they still are. They would have nowhere near the marketshare they do had they actually opposed piracy.
Much better to charge lots, allow piracy and have everyone be a criminal they can nail at any point they wish. After all, customers living in fear are much easier to manipulate.
Yah, right. Go call MS tech support and see how far you get before you get asked for your credit card number.
Developing hotfixes? That's the enterprise customers who usually get the pleasure of paying them for fixing the bug. First they get to pay for the defective product, then they get to live with the defects, then they get to pay to have the defects fixed.