Because dogs love it, and because there is nothing funnier than a dog with its face and ears flapping in the wind, drool splashing on the windshield of the car behind.
Honestly, picture Dug from Up... in full gloriously happy tongue wagging happiness.
A dog with his head out the car windows is such an unbridled expression of glee+goofy it makes me smile just thinking of it.
Let's see a damned cat do that. You can't, because cats are stupid pets.
Of course at the time I had an onion on my belt, because that was the style back then... wait? What?
If these things are shipped with weak security which allows an account with a default password to access the router from the outside... then no bloody wonder.
How could people not go for such trivial attacks?
I can see it being bad enough that behind the router you have default passwords, you're doing it wrong.
All the "units are remotely accessible via HTTP and SSH on their default ports," the report reads, meaning they can be accessed easily over the Web. "On top of that, nearly all are configured with vendor-provided default login credentials."
When you ship crap like that, you are basically shipping without any actual security in the first place.
The problem is that new code is just that... new and untested.
So you build something new from scratch and say "wow, we did awesome at teh security". Well, OK, now you release it into the wild and wait for people to abuse it -- that's when you find out how well you've done.
Any new code is going to have the problem, because it hasn't been field tested or through several iterations.
It's all well and good for Microsoft to say "nailed it". That doesn't make it true. So I think it's probably safe to assume that unless Microsoft has done something remarkable, there's probably a bunch of places where they haven't fully locked it down.
Honestly, after AOL purchased Time Warner for $160 billion or so of what everybody knew at the time was grossly overrated stock, AOL is not an entity I've kept tabs on.
At the time that was happening everybody was like "wait, Time Warner has publishing, TV, print media, movies, and AOL has... email?".
Which means an awful lot of people were shaking their heads and thinking some executives had lost their mind, and that AOL had pulled off a massive scam.. which Time Warner came to realize.
Well, if AOL is an ad network, it's yet another reason why I know nothing about them and will block anything from them I see. Because I block all ads wherever I can.
Yeah, this is the same AOL who 'bought' Time Warner when they were massively overly valued in the dot com silliness, using over-inflated funny-money stocks.
Time Warner couldn't puke them out fast enough to get them off their back, because AOL was so grossly inflated in value it wasn't funny.
I sincerely hope from what I've heard of Verizon that they choke on AOL like Time Warner did.
Honestly, is AOL worth $4.4 billion? Someone better be doing some proper due diligence on this one.
Assuming that a particular attack vector couldn't ever happen sounds rather shortsighted.
What's more likely... this takes more work, but people will do it because of the same reasons they always write malware? Or that they'll just throw up their hands?
Because if there's money to be made, or fun to be had... why the hell wouldn't they exploit anything they can?
Want to know something else which is going to be harsh?
Other than you being some self aggrandizing ass on the web who thinks his job title in his signature should impress the rest of is, WTF would you know about it?
If you think changing how a major corporation does its infrastructure has NOTHING to do with lazy, and everything to do with corporate will and funding.
What you do to support yourself has nothing to do with supporting thousands of users who are running business critical things, and don't give a crap about someone who wants to evangelize about Linux.
So maybe instead of you calling me lazy you tell me how you've convinced a fortune 500 company to run Linux. Oh, what's that, you're not a CIO or CTO? Then what the hell do you know about it?
Otherwise I'm going to assume you're talking out of your ass.
You learning Libre Office is, at the end of the day, absolutely nothing at all like supporting thousands of users doing billions of dollars worth of business.
Because they sure as shit don't want to be told that this bodged together platform with no commercial support is nearly almost practically just as good. Not even a little.
LOL, have you seen the internet before? Or people for that matter?
Because, really, the aggregate behavior of the internet is only slightly less mature than an 11 year old with ADHD.
For as long as there have been humans, if you have an open, anonymous forum, you will get this kind of stuff.
The idiocy is pretending the world will magically behave to standards of being "adults" just because you think they should. In fact, that's bordering on irrational, because it's simply not founded in anything.
If you want nice things, make 'em yourself.. don't rely on the fucking internet to do it for you. And sure as hell don't be surprised when someone puts in a penis joke.
Humans are collectively base, puerile, childish, obscene, intelligent, contradictory, funny, stupid, smart... and everything else you can imagine.
Deal with it.
I'm firmly of the opinion that any crowd sourced data both should and will have dick and fart jokes. Because it's funny, and it demonstrates that the idea of expecting humanity to conform to your standards of behavior is idiotic, and completely ignorant of reality.
To most people the internet is a toy, a diversion, a source of amusement... that Google wants us to write them a product they can use to sell more ads... that's not our damned problem.
The internet is one thing, and one thing only: a Steaming Heap of Innovative Technology, in the hands of a billion poo-flinging monkeys.
Don't expect it to trend towards mature and erudite behavior. So far society hasn't done that on balance either.
Honestly, isn't this kind of an inherent thing with crowd sourced data?
It seems kind of dumb to on the one hand think you'll get everyone to help populate your data for free, and on the other hand that you'll get perfectly valid data in all cases.
Congratulations, you've opened up something as a free for all.. the anarchy, graffiti and pranks are an inherent part of that.
WTF to corporations think, crowd sourced data would be magically free, lucrative, and error free? Because that would be stupid.
I rank this as a big giant "no freakin' kidding". This is what happens when you expect the intertubes to make you a commercial product.
I work on mission critical software that runs on Linux... When I say mission critical I mean failure can mean people die and property is destroyed.
But that in no way means that all mission critical/enterprise software has any meaningful open source analogs.
I'm not saying it's not possible to run mission critical software on Linux, but I'm saying all the drooling idiots who say "yarg, run teh linux and teh open sores" are usually talking out of the ass and don't know a damned thing.
Sorry, but I run stuff which has been around for 10+ years, has millions invested in it, and impacts many aspects of company business.
So when some whiny punk says "just run Linux", they demonstrate how utterly clueless they are. In the real world, that's rarely an option.
Switch to GNU/Linux - there are THOUSANDS of flavours, some of which "just work" right out the box in 99% of the cases - or, if you don't like GNU/Linux, maybe switch to some flavour of BSD? I hear they are also good.
But now I'll hear you say:
"But anonymous coward, my favourite (closed source, obviously) application that does XXX doesn't work on the FREE operating system"
Blah blah blah blah... spoken like a clueless halfwit who doesn't work in industry on anything significant, and who naively believes OSS has viable alternatives to actual products used in the real world
Sorry, some cobbled together built-it-yourself and then support-it-yourself isn't a viable option for a massive amount of stuff.
I likes me some OSS stuff, but the naivete of "just run Linux or in a VM under Wine" makes you an idiot with nothing real to contribute here.
Fuck but you people can be delusional. And this is precisely why incorporate environments people roll their eyes at the people who say this stuff without knowing anything about it.
You sound like a bunch of children... multi-billion dollar corporations running mission critical stuff don't want some half ass OSS solution with no vendor who can be held to account.
That's we we spend millions of dollars on our platforms in the fist place.
Some anonymous Pimply Faced Young with no real experience isn't someone whose opinion I give a damn about.
If it makes sense to release something called Windows 10 R2, Windows 11, or Windows Yoghurt â" seriously, who cares? â" then they'll do that.
Who cares? The problem with all of this is Microsoft seems to be saying "we reserve the right to drastically change your computer as we see fit, and if it breaks that will be your problem".
And, I'm sorry, but both for the computers I maintain at work, and my personal machine... they're not the property of Microsoft. They're used for stuff that we need to maintain, and we'll decide what version we run and when/how we upgrade the system.
If Microsoft thinks they're going to do anything but piss of the world by suddenly deploying mandatory updates of what their vision of the future is, or by dropping functionality, or deciding we should all have new GUIS... they can piss off.
Microsoft seems to be angling towards them being able to inform us what we're running, how it looks, and when that gets deployed.
And I'm sorry, Microsoft, but we neither trust your competence nor your motivations in this regard.
Sorry, in my experience these web based applications are crap, and they started around the.com era where suddenly everybody thought everything belonged on the web.
The "problem of needing offline access" most certainly has not been solved, and not all of us want our data in the cloud.
If the web browser is going to become our operating system, we're fucked -- because we'll all be running garbage code which covers some of the use-cases, but which generally has terrible interfaces as we try to shoehorn every problem into something which doesn't lend itself to the web.
Many of us have lamented the move to web-first technologies as a byproduct of lazy corporations writing mediocre software.
If you think the end of desktop applications is nigh, I sincerely hope you're wrong -- because the endless stream of crap web pages which almost work is getting tedious.
And it mostly ends up in greedy corporations more worried about analytics and advertising, than writing usable software which actually solves the problems.
We don't give a damn if they have some money. But when they constantly have their ad campaign which says "yarg, donate now or we'll have to close and go dark", and in fact they're sitting on pile of money... well, then we think we've been had.
This isn't a few bucks for a rainy day... this is years worth of operating costs.
With this in mind, debate is ongoing on the mailing list over the appropriateness of the banners. Wikimedia software developer Ori Livneh writes that "the urgency and alarm of the copy is not commensurate with my (admittedly limited) understanding of our financial situation," and that "Quantitative assessments of fundraising strategy ought to consider impact on all assets, tangible or not. This includes the Foundation's goodwill and reputation, which are (by common wisdom) easy to squander and hard to repair."
So their goodwill and reputation could get a hard yank as people say "fuck you you greedy bastards".
Because people don't like being constantly told to donate or we go bust by organizations which are nowhere near that -- it smacks of self entitled assholes lying to their donors to make something sound far more urgent that it really is.
You're going to have to understand the term "work for hire" -- which basically means in most cases when you work for a company and do stuff for them, they own it, and not you.
You might be exceedingly lucky and find an employer who will sign off on that.
But for the most part, your employer doesn't give a fuck about what Young Developers want in terms of ownership of code.
Why would a corporation be paying you to develop stuff for them that you're going to turn around and sell to other people.
Only someone young and new to the industry would be so self entitled as to ask what you're demanding. Because the laws surrounding "work for hire" have been around for decades... and they won't change just because you deem yourself special.
Most companies will tell you to piss off if you suggest that.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll tell you what. We'll lock you in a box with no *real* outside view, but a camera view.
We may or may not make the monitors fail. We may or may not put you into a car crash.
You tell us how you feel about the experience.
I simply think people will flat out refuse to get into the damned things. I know for a fact I would.
Oh, shit .. my first thought wast they meant Microsoft Windows.
What idiot thinks people are going to want to spend any time in a friggin car (self driving or not) without any damned windows?
Congratulations, Peter Wayner ... that's one of the dumbest things I've heard in weeks.
Because dogs love it, and because there is nothing funnier than a dog with its face and ears flapping in the wind, drool splashing on the windshield of the car behind.
Honestly, picture Dug from Up ... in full gloriously happy tongue wagging happiness.
A dog with his head out the car windows is such an unbridled expression of glee+goofy it makes me smile just thinking of it.
Let's see a damned cat do that. You can't, because cats are stupid pets.
Of course at the time I had an onion on my belt, because that was the style back then ... wait? What?
Get off my damned lawn you darned cat lover!!
Now, prove that its safe.
The problem is if they say "absent proof this is dangerous, we'll assume it's safe".
And, I'm sorry, but in a context where to can be guaranteed human pathogens and disease will be present, you need much more proof that it's safe.
So, yes, if it's safe that's great. But can they prove it's safe? Or are they inferring it is?
If these things are shipped with weak security which allows an account with a default password to access the router from the outside ... then no bloody wonder.
How could people not go for such trivial attacks?
I can see it being bad enough that behind the router you have default passwords, you're doing it wrong.
When you ship crap like that, you are basically shipping without any actual security in the first place.
That's completely idiotic.
The problem is that new code is just that ... new and untested.
So you build something new from scratch and say "wow, we did awesome at teh security". Well, OK, now you release it into the wild and wait for people to abuse it -- that's when you find out how well you've done.
Any new code is going to have the problem, because it hasn't been field tested or through several iterations.
It's all well and good for Microsoft to say "nailed it". That doesn't make it true. So I think it's probably safe to assume that unless Microsoft has done something remarkable, there's probably a bunch of places where they haven't fully locked it down.
Yeah, thanks ... I know ... it was a rhetorical statement. I just don't care what they're worth.
Stock valuations have been available on the intertubes since ... well, since AOL was relevant.
So, your pedantry meets my indifference to what AOL is worth, because I don't give a damn.
Honestly, after AOL purchased Time Warner for $160 billion or so of what everybody knew at the time was grossly overrated stock, AOL is not an entity I've kept tabs on.
At the time that was happening everybody was like "wait, Time Warner has publishing, TV, print media, movies, and AOL has ... email?".
Which means an awful lot of people were shaking their heads and thinking some executives had lost their mind, and that AOL had pulled off a massive scam .. which Time Warner came to realize.
Well, if AOL is an ad network, it's yet another reason why I know nothing about them and will block anything from them I see. Because I block all ads wherever I can.
Yeah, this is the same AOL who 'bought' Time Warner when they were massively overly valued in the dot com silliness, using over-inflated funny-money stocks.
Time Warner couldn't puke them out fast enough to get them off their back, because AOL was so grossly inflated in value it wasn't funny.
I sincerely hope from what I've heard of Verizon that they choke on AOL like Time Warner did.
Honestly, is AOL worth $4.4 billion? Someone better be doing some proper due diligence on this one.
Honestly, it's an attack vector.
Assuming that a particular attack vector couldn't ever happen sounds rather shortsighted.
What's more likely ... this takes more work, but people will do it because of the same reasons they always write malware? Or that they'll just throw up their hands?
Because if there's money to be made, or fun to be had ... why the hell wouldn't they exploit anything they can?
Microsoft is investing in tasty network capacity for its cloud computing so the NSA et al will be able to demand access.
I sincerely hope everybody tells MS to go piss up a rope because they can't be trusted.
Because, as long as the Patriot Act is in effect, Microsoft can't be trusted. Nor can any US cloud provider.
Want to know something else which is going to be harsh?
Other than you being some self aggrandizing ass on the web who thinks his job title in his signature should impress the rest of is, WTF would you know about it?
If you think changing how a major corporation does its infrastructure has NOTHING to do with lazy, and everything to do with corporate will and funding.
What you do to support yourself has nothing to do with supporting thousands of users who are running business critical things, and don't give a crap about someone who wants to evangelize about Linux.
So maybe instead of you calling me lazy you tell me how you've convinced a fortune 500 company to run Linux. Oh, what's that, you're not a CIO or CTO? Then what the hell do you know about it?
Otherwise I'm going to assume you're talking out of your ass.
You learning Libre Office is, at the end of the day, absolutely nothing at all like supporting thousands of users doing billions of dollars worth of business.
Because they sure as shit don't want to be told that this bodged together platform with no commercial support is nearly almost practically just as good. Not even a little.
Now, with more boobies.
(Honestly, the only thing I know bout Fark is the "Fark and Boobies" meme)
So, they're soulless and evil abominations, then? Basically the undead?
I think that explains a lot, actually.
LOL, have you seen the internet before? Or people for that matter?
Because, really, the aggregate behavior of the internet is only slightly less mature than an 11 year old with ADHD.
For as long as there have been humans, if you have an open, anonymous forum, you will get this kind of stuff.
The idiocy is pretending the world will magically behave to standards of being "adults" just because you think they should. In fact, that's bordering on irrational, because it's simply not founded in anything.
If you want nice things, make 'em yourself .. don't rely on the fucking internet to do it for you. And sure as hell don't be surprised when someone puts in a penis joke.
Humans are collectively base, puerile, childish, obscene, intelligent, contradictory, funny, stupid, smart ... and everything else you can imagine.
Deal with it.
I'm firmly of the opinion that any crowd sourced data both should and will have dick and fart jokes. Because it's funny, and it demonstrates that the idea of expecting humanity to conform to your standards of behavior is idiotic, and completely ignorant of reality.
To most people the internet is a toy, a diversion, a source of amusement ... that Google wants us to write them a product they can use to sell more ads ... that's not our damned problem.
The internet is one thing, and one thing only: a Steaming Heap of Innovative Technology, in the hands of a billion poo-flinging monkeys.
Don't expect it to trend towards mature and erudite behavior. So far society hasn't done that on balance either.
Honestly, isn't this kind of an inherent thing with crowd sourced data?
It seems kind of dumb to on the one hand think you'll get everyone to help populate your data for free, and on the other hand that you'll get perfectly valid data in all cases.
Congratulations, you've opened up something as a free for all .. the anarchy, graffiti and pranks are an inherent part of that.
WTF to corporations think, crowd sourced data would be magically free, lucrative, and error free? Because that would be stupid.
I rank this as a big giant "no freakin' kidding". This is what happens when you expect the intertubes to make you a commercial product.
But that in no way means that all mission critical/enterprise software has any meaningful open source analogs.
I'm not saying it's not possible to run mission critical software on Linux, but I'm saying all the drooling idiots who say "yarg, run teh linux and teh open sores" are usually talking out of the ass and don't know a damned thing.
Sorry, but I run stuff which has been around for 10+ years, has millions invested in it, and impacts many aspects of company business.
So when some whiny punk says "just run Linux", they demonstrate how utterly clueless they are. In the real world, that's rarely an option.
Blah blah blah blah ... spoken like a clueless halfwit who doesn't work in industry on anything significant, and who naively believes OSS has viable alternatives to actual products used in the real world
Sorry, some cobbled together built-it-yourself and then support-it-yourself isn't a viable option for a massive amount of stuff.
I likes me some OSS stuff, but the naivete of "just run Linux or in a VM under Wine" makes you an idiot with nothing real to contribute here.
Fuck but you people can be delusional. And this is precisely why incorporate environments people roll their eyes at the people who say this stuff without knowing anything about it.
You sound like a bunch of children ... multi-billion dollar corporations running mission critical stuff don't want some half ass OSS solution with no vendor who can be held to account.
That's we we spend millions of dollars on our platforms in the fist place.
Some anonymous Pimply Faced Young with no real experience isn't someone whose opinion I give a damn about.
The test pilot blender is almost complete, I see.
This is like disabling the safety protocols on the holodeck.
Who cares? The problem with all of this is Microsoft seems to be saying "we reserve the right to drastically change your computer as we see fit, and if it breaks that will be your problem".
And, I'm sorry, but both for the computers I maintain at work, and my personal machine ... they're not the property of Microsoft. They're used for stuff that we need to maintain, and we'll decide what version we run and when/how we upgrade the system.
If Microsoft thinks they're going to do anything but piss of the world by suddenly deploying mandatory updates of what their vision of the future is, or by dropping functionality, or deciding we should all have new GUIS ... they can piss off.
Microsoft seems to be angling towards them being able to inform us what we're running, how it looks, and when that gets deployed.
And I'm sorry, Microsoft, but we neither trust your competence nor your motivations in this regard.
Sorry, in my experience these web based applications are crap, and they started around the .com era where suddenly everybody thought everything belonged on the web.
The "problem of needing offline access" most certainly has not been solved, and not all of us want our data in the cloud.
If the web browser is going to become our operating system, we're fucked -- because we'll all be running garbage code which covers some of the use-cases, but which generally has terrible interfaces as we try to shoehorn every problem into something which doesn't lend itself to the web.
Many of us have lamented the move to web-first technologies as a byproduct of lazy corporations writing mediocre software.
If you think the end of desktop applications is nigh, I sincerely hope you're wrong -- because the endless stream of crap web pages which almost work is getting tedious.
And it mostly ends up in greedy corporations more worried about analytics and advertising, than writing usable software which actually solves the problems.
We don't give a damn if they have some money. But when they constantly have their ad campaign which says "yarg, donate now or we'll have to close and go dark", and in fact they're sitting on pile of money ... well, then we think we've been had.
This isn't a few bucks for a rainy day ... this is years worth of operating costs.
So their goodwill and reputation could get a hard yank as people say "fuck you you greedy bastards".
Because people don't like being constantly told to donate or we go bust by organizations which are nowhere near that -- it smacks of self entitled assholes lying to their donors to make something sound far more urgent that it really is.
Except apparently the "primary stable source of income" is continuously begging and saying "if you don't donate we'll go offline".
From the sounds of it, they've already reached a stable source of income, but keep begging for more.
Well, Young Developer.
You're going to have to understand the term "work for hire" -- which basically means in most cases when you work for a company and do stuff for them, they own it, and not you.
You might be exceedingly lucky and find an employer who will sign off on that.
But for the most part, your employer doesn't give a fuck about what Young Developers want in terms of ownership of code.
Why would a corporation be paying you to develop stuff for them that you're going to turn around and sell to other people.
Only someone young and new to the industry would be so self entitled as to ask what you're demanding. Because the laws surrounding "work for hire" have been around for decades ... and they won't change just because you deem yourself special.
Most companies will tell you to piss off if you suggest that.
They cost less money.
That's it. There is nothing else.
They're not better because they're foreign. They're "better" because they're cheaper.