At home that might be useful... kind of. But still insanely annoying to constantly have to switch stations. I stopped listening to the radio completely about 6 years ago because the ads got so bad, not just in number, but in sheer annoyance. Loud, rude, disgusting, it just got worse and worse. Coupled with the blanding of all radio station content and the already PITA of living where there are hills and having to switch radio stations while driving every 20 minutes.
XM solved everything. Nothing but music, everywhere I go. Well worth the subscription price! (to me)
You announce the vunerabilities AFTER the fixes are made. Not at the moment they are discovered!
This is eactly what MS gets hammered about. Have YOU not been paying attention?!?!?
You gave NO warning for anyone running broken code to either stop using it or try a fix themselves, thus leaving people open to potential attack.
You essentially kept the vuln. secret, and therefore... safe? Security by what now?
Apparently mozilla might be a better piece of software if you actually paid attention to what people are complaining about wrt the MS way of fixing bugs in IE.
I DLed FF 1.0PR yesterday, first time having seen it and I found somethings about it surprising. Namely, anti-security defaults and behavior.
It really doesn't seem that security is a main feature of FF at all.
Examples:
1) After install, the option to "Save passwords" was on by default. WTF? So anyone that logs into the family, one login machine now automatically has access to the bank accounts and whatever else you need a password on? We all know that "normal" people do not lift a finger to secure their machines, so most will probably never even realize that FF is storing passwords or even when they do realise it, know how to disable it.
2) I tried adding a search engine plug-in from the FF site. The plugin managed to show an icon but no text in the search window drop list. Hmmm. I selected it anyway. CRASH! So it is clear that either FF is buggy or the plugin was buggy which would mean that the FF team is not vetting the plugins on their own web page. Given that most of these plugins are from third parties, I see a huge security nightmare just waiting to happen here.
3) I do not have flash installed on my machine. Several web pages use it. When running into a media type that has no handler, the FF user is prompetd to "Install missing plugin..." without even being told what the missing plugin is. This method of allowing the user a single click to DL and install plugins is another vehicle for security problems (as we already know, such plugins are frequently supplied by untrusted and unvetted sources)
Some minor things that I found a bit annoying...
Unnecessary links added to my favorites list that I had to delete. (JUST LIKE IN IE!) Things like "Fire Fox Crew Picks" are really pretty worthless and frankly, just as annoying as MS adding it's commercial partners to my links list. If FF really is to be better than IE then it cannot copy some of IEs more annoying points. Be fair, be generic, don't push ideologies in your use of supplying preconfigured links.
The install program has no digital signature and when installing on Windows from IE, it looks for all the world like you are installing a trojan with all the warnings. How many people at that point will be scared off from installing it? This isn't expensive or rocket science to take care of, but it does smack as a tiny bit of effort. Do what it takes to prevent those warnings. (I certainly do in the software that I write)
This may be a debatable point, but I was annoyed that by default FF ignores installed proxies and goes straight to the net. IE tries to find proxies first, then goes to the net directly if not found.
So as a browser I give it a 95% score. I found that sites generally work pretty well, but as for security potential, I give it 10%. I feel that FF is a huge accident waiting to happen with the obvious and overt lack of secuirty planning evident in the way the entire FF archetecture and default settings currently exist (as observed by it's external behavior)
I think the mentality of "It won't happen to us" or maybe "It CAN'T happen to us" might be affecting the development of this software a bit too much. It seems that there have been no security lessons from IE's problems learned here at all.
Ok, but what is to stop someone from seeing that you are charging $100 for software X and then DLing your source, compiling it and selling it themselves for $50? Then the next guy for $10?
I think the fact that there are precious few people actually making more than "pizza money" on GPLed projects (Where a piece of proprietary hardware was not also required) pretty much makes the case that though it may be technically possible, practically, it is nearly impossible to do.
Even though the "Windows" key is used in several Linux windowing systems by default and can be mapped to anything they want, and even though some of them have for years wished there were more meta keys on the KB, I know some people that absolutely freak over the fact that there is a "Windows Key" on their keyboard, like the windows logo is printed in anthrax ink or something and they will die if they actually touch it. I'm dead serious. They spend inordinate amounts of time looking for Windows keyless KBs and complaining that they can't find any.
I can see the point to a degree, it's a minor annoyance to have the windows logo on the KB when running Linux. But it is very useful to have another meta key in Linux just as it is in Windows. The vehement aversion to any KB that has it can almost be certifiable at times.
So yes, I think this KB will probably sell extemely well, software or no. Just having the logo and a "Tux Key" instead of a "Windows Key" is enough to guarantee big sales. This is one of those things that makes you think, "Why didn't Logitec do this already?" or "Why didn't I think of that?"
WARNING! here comes an opinion! It's on-topic and it may not jibe with your own opinion, but that does not make it a "troll"!
You are right, I believe that Google will be come an insanely huge advertising machine. At the same time it will do more to remove a persons on-line privacy than any company before.
They have already moved in both these directions in big ways in the last few years. Now that they are insanely flush with cash, it is a little frightening to think about how much further in both areas they may go.
At this point, based on past and current moves, I trust Google less than any other corporation.
Re:I just went into Best Buy yesterday ...
on
Best Buy Sued By Ohio
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I'm surprised that anyone buys the PSP at all for what they charge.
The only thing I've ever bought there was a pair of small chest freezers for about $180 each. The PSP they wanted to sell me was $80 for EACH freezer.
That may have been their intent when they filed for the patents, but at this point, they would be lucky to be able to use them as a last gasp attempt at staying in buisness.
Because most of my current 30+ YO color prints have faded badly. They have not been exposed to the light or any sort of extreme "weather". I live in a very dry state. The blue, and green is just gone. Left with red/yellow prints.
B&W prints do seem to last 80+ years, but color? Not that I've seen. Unless by "last" you mean "Can see any image at all". But the color fastness of the color process (at least 30-40 years ago) is (was) pretty bad!
I've also found that the optical printing process from digital source has a bit of blur introduced into the picture. It's slight, but visible to the naked eye, and very obvious when using a loupe.
Tests I've done with a profesional lab (No not the drug store, a real photographers lab) vs my own priting on a canon i9900 show that the printer produces a MUCH sharper and more color accurate print. The canon prints are razor sharp, people I've shown them too have been in awe, they had never seen such a sharp print before and they didn't even guess it was printed by a printer, it looks too good.
Comparing the optical print from digital source to optical prints from negative sources shows that there was nothing spefic about the digital source that was causing the blur, it's just part of the enlargement process.
We'll see about the longevity of printed images, but color film has so far had a pretty poor track record itself.
No, it means that they will finally have the cash to figure out how to index every persons hard drive and put it on line for instant searching!
Maybe they should hire a few "Morality Officers" to keep them honest and tell them when they've gone too far. That might have stopped a couple of recent privacy lawsuits!
Google is yet another childish tech company that has no idea what they are doing in the real world. Based on their actions, I can hear their boardroom conversations now...
"Tee hee! STOCK! We're going to be rich! Go us! SEC? What's that?!?!? What's the most we can suck from investors? Make it so! Pump the stock on Playboy! Who's information can we index next? Everyones? YES!"
Their behavior has been nothing less that completely stupid as far as their IPO goes. Their buisness practices are getting them sued left and right. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid= 1212&e=5&u=/pcworld/20040818/tc_pcworld/117449&sid =95612658) Their "services" beyond being a search engine (Google groups in several ways, GMail, etc) are nothing less than completely evil. (Here is a free service! Just give us your soul....)
I know that Google is a/. darling but they have gone too far in too many ways for anyone actually concerned with issues like "privacy" and "security" to even consider supporting them any longer. Where they go from here, pumped with billions of dollars in cash, I'd rather not even speculate on.:(
Exactly, the huge range of DRM technologies and the speed at which they change/multiply will pretty much make "buying" songs from the internet more like "renting" them for as long as you own your current player.
I still buy CDs and rip to mp3. I can play at home, in car, on hip, virtually anywhere. That's lasted me almost a decade now and the songs will probably decode on any curent and future players for some time to come.
I'll stick to that for the time being till something truly stable and universal shakes out of all this.
If MS had actually matched every feature of ZA and then some, then people would be saying they are driving buisness... out of buisness again. "Monopoly" they would all scream.
The fact is, MS specifically designed XP buit in functionality (Such as CD burning, zip file opening, picture viewing etc) to be minimally but usefully functional so that it does NOT get them into instant hot water.
Why are you complaining? Keep using ZA if you already bought it or need it's level of funtionality. But don't berate MS for providing what is actually a decent and functional firewall that is finally in the users face where it should be.
You can remove 200 to 500 meg from that by removing the various patch uninstalls from the/Windows folder once you are sure that your machine is working properly... (Must have the viewing of hidden/system files enabled)
Whay do people wait until final rollout before testing? This service pack has been available for months for large corps and software companies to test with.
Any software company that did not have a patch for their software or a roll out plan the day the SP was released is being criminally lazy.
But then the main reason that so many serious security holes exist is because of the amount of people that are too lazy to patch. If EVERYONE kept up to dat on ALL OSes, the amount of virii damage would be almost non-existant.
It is the universities responsibility to roll out this (or any other Windows or Linux) patch as quickly as possible. Ad in the case of SP2, given the months of prep time, that should have been THIS WEEK.
I would also vote for giving Windows or Microsoft their own category. Windows articles take up a larger percentage of space than any other category, if anything deserves to be categorized, it should be Windows/Microsft content.
This is ancient news/technology. It's been demonstrated at tech conventions for what... 5 years now?
Second. It really is very poor technology. "Neat" but completely unuseable. Having JUST run across this very monitor 3 weeks ago, I can tell you it has not improved over the years at all. You need to stand perfectly still at a 1/2 in wide sweetspot side to side and worse, you have to be standing at an exact distance from the monitor for the effet to work.
It would be completely useless for... well anything really. Using the standard shutter glasses for 3d viewing is far better than trying to use this monitor.
Suppose;ly there is about 30 MB of differences between RC2 and the release. Probably bugs and compatibility problems or futher recompiles. I'd update just to prevent future problems even if you weren't experiencing any right now.
If you use the windows update, I think you will only have to DL the 30 MB and not the full 75-90.
First, over the weekend I installed SP2 on 5 machines ranging from a laptop to a brand new machine to an old XP install with more hardware and software than can be imagined attached to it and even an OLD XP machine that was an upgraded 2k machine and have had no problems at all so far.
Both the firewall and the popup blocking actually work far better than I had been expecting. I was plesently suprised. (Though watch out for the inevitable ZA/Norton monopoly lawsuits!)
Second, people seem to be having difficulty with the "Security Center" "Alerts" that place an icon in the tray.
This suprises me as the answer to this problem pretty much stares you in the face upon reboot and if anyone is going to be curious about how the security center works and poke around at the various buttons, it should be anyone that posts to/.
Anyway to get rid of the icon do this:
1) Open the Security Center control panel 2) Click on "Change the way secuirty center alerts me" 3) Uncheck any alert options that you do not want to know about. No anti-virus installed? Turn off the alert, etc. Look! No more tray icon!
Does no one even bother looking at the security center that comes up after first reboot?
Ok after that trollish intro, do this:
* Open Control panel * Open "Security Center" * Click on "Change the way security center alerts me" * Turn off any alert options like virus scanning or firewall that you do not have or do not intend to have installed. * Tray icon goes away!
Slashdot Mirror
At home that might be useful... kind of. But still insanely annoying to constantly have to switch stations. I stopped listening to the radio completely about 6 years ago because the ads got so bad, not just in number, but in sheer annoyance. Loud, rude, disgusting, it just got worse and worse. Coupled with the blanding of all radio station content and the already PITA of living where there are hills and having to switch radio stations while driving every 20 minutes.
XM solved everything. Nothing but music, everywhere I go. Well worth the subscription price! (to me)
That is exactly the problem!
You announce the vunerabilities AFTER the fixes are made. Not at the moment they are discovered!
This is eactly what MS gets hammered about. Have YOU not been paying attention?!?!?
You gave NO warning for anyone running broken code to either stop using it or try a fix themselves, thus leaving people open to potential attack.
You essentially kept the vuln. secret, and therefore... safe? Security by what now?
Apparently mozilla might be a better piece of software if you actually paid attention to what people are complaining about wrt the MS way of fixing bugs in IE.
Just a thought.
I DLed FF 1.0PR yesterday, first time having seen it and I found somethings about it surprising. Namely, anti-security defaults and behavior.
It really doesn't seem that security is a main feature of FF at all.
Examples:
1) After install, the option to "Save passwords" was on by default. WTF? So anyone that logs into the family, one login machine now automatically has access to the bank accounts and whatever else you need a password on? We all know that "normal" people do not lift a finger to secure their machines, so most will probably never even realize that FF is storing passwords or even when they do realise it, know how to disable it.
2) I tried adding a search engine plug-in from the FF site. The plugin managed to show an icon but no text in the search window drop list. Hmmm. I selected it anyway. CRASH! So it is clear that either FF is buggy or the plugin was buggy which would mean that the FF team is not vetting the plugins on their own web page. Given that most of these plugins are from third parties, I see a huge security nightmare just waiting to happen here.
3) I do not have flash installed on my machine. Several web pages use it. When running into a media type that has no handler, the FF user is prompetd to "Install missing plugin..." without even being told what the missing plugin is. This method of allowing the user a single click to DL and install plugins is another vehicle for security problems (as we already know, such plugins are frequently supplied by untrusted and unvetted sources)
Some minor things that I found a bit annoying...
Unnecessary links added to my favorites list that I had to delete. (JUST LIKE IN IE!) Things like "Fire Fox Crew Picks" are really pretty worthless and frankly, just as annoying as MS adding it's commercial partners to my links list. If FF really is to be better than IE then it cannot copy some of IEs more annoying points. Be fair, be generic, don't push ideologies in your use of supplying preconfigured links.
The install program has no digital signature and when installing on Windows from IE, it looks for all the world like you are installing a trojan with all the warnings. How many people at that point will be scared off from installing it? This isn't expensive or rocket science to take care of, but it does smack as a tiny bit of effort. Do what it takes to prevent those warnings. (I certainly do in the software that I write)
This may be a debatable point, but I was annoyed that by default FF ignores installed proxies and goes straight to the net. IE tries to find proxies first, then goes to the net directly if not found.
So as a browser I give it a 95% score. I found that sites generally work pretty well, but as for security potential, I give it 10%. I feel that FF is a huge accident waiting to happen with the obvious and overt lack of secuirty planning evident in the way the entire FF archetecture and default settings currently exist (as observed by it's external behavior)
I think the mentality of "It won't happen to us" or maybe "It CAN'T happen to us" might be affecting the development of this software a bit too much. It seems that there have been no security lessons from IE's problems learned here at all.
Ok, but what is to stop someone from seeing that you are charging $100 for software X and then DLing your source, compiling it and selling it themselves for $50? Then the next guy for $10?
I think the fact that there are precious few people actually making more than "pizza money" on GPLed projects (Where a piece of proprietary hardware was not also required) pretty much makes the case that though it may be technically possible, practically, it is nearly impossible to do.
Even though the "Windows" key is used in several Linux windowing systems by default and can be mapped to anything they want, and even though some of them have for years wished there were more meta keys on the KB, I know some people that absolutely freak over the fact that there is a "Windows Key" on their keyboard, like the windows logo is printed in anthrax ink or something and they will die if they actually touch it. I'm dead serious. They spend inordinate amounts of time looking for Windows keyless KBs and complaining that they can't find any.
I can see the point to a degree, it's a minor annoyance to have the windows logo on the KB when running Linux. But it is very useful to have another meta key in Linux just as it is in Windows. The vehement aversion to any KB that has it can almost be certifiable at times.
So yes, I think this KB will probably sell extemely well, software or no. Just having the logo and a "Tux Key" instead of a "Windows Key" is enough to guarantee big sales. This is one of those things that makes you think, "Why didn't Logitec do this already?" or "Why didn't I think of that?"
WARNING! here comes an opinion! It's on-topic and it may not jibe with your own opinion, but that does not make it a "troll"!
You are right, I believe that Google will be come an insanely huge advertising machine. At the same time it will do more to remove a persons on-line privacy than any company before.
They have already moved in both these directions in big ways in the last few years. Now that they are insanely flush with cash, it is a little frightening to think about how much further in both areas they may go.
At this point, based on past and current moves, I trust Google less than any other corporation.
I'm surprised that anyone buys the PSP at all for what they charge.
The only thing I've ever bought there was a pair of small chest freezers for about $180 each. The PSP they wanted to sell me was $80 for EACH freezer.
45%? WTF? It was completely insane.
I should be so lucky to have someone reading all my email and then spamming me with crap theoretically "directed" towards my "interests".
Never mind that I may be bitching about how crappy the AVP movie is, I'll now be bombarded with AVP merchandise ads! Brilliant.
Frankly, I feel pretty lucky that at this point in time, I still have a relatively unfettered email service.
That may have been their intent when they filed for the patents, but at this point, they would be lucky to be able to use them as a last gasp attempt at staying in buisness.
Is this some NEW kind of photographic process?
Because most of my current 30+ YO color prints have faded badly. They have not been exposed to the light or any sort of extreme "weather". I live in a very dry state. The blue, and green is just gone. Left with red/yellow prints.
B&W prints do seem to last 80+ years, but color? Not that I've seen. Unless by "last" you mean "Can see any image at all". But the color fastness of the color process (at least 30-40 years ago) is (was) pretty bad!
I've also found that the optical printing process from digital source has a bit of blur introduced into the picture. It's slight, but visible to the naked eye, and very obvious when using a loupe.
Tests I've done with a profesional lab (No not the drug store, a real photographers lab) vs my own priting on a canon i9900 show that the printer produces a MUCH sharper and more color accurate print. The canon prints are razor sharp, people I've shown them too have been in awe, they had never seen such a sharp print before and they didn't even guess it was printed by a printer, it looks too good.
Comparing the optical print from digital source to optical prints from negative sources shows that there was nothing spefic about the digital source that was causing the blur, it's just part of the enlargement process.
We'll see about the longevity of printed images, but color film has so far had a pretty poor track record itself.
No, it means that they will finally have the cash to figure out how to index every persons hard drive and put it on line for instant searching!
Maybe they should hire a few "Morality Officers" to keep them honest and tell them when they've gone too far. That might have stopped a couple of recent privacy lawsuits!
Google is yet another childish tech company that has no idea what they are doing in the real world. Based on their actions, I can hear their boardroom conversations now...
= 1212&e=5&u=/pcworld/20040818/tc_pcworld/117449&sid =95612658) Their "services" beyond being a search engine (Google groups in several ways, GMail, etc) are nothing less than completely evil. (Here is a free service! Just give us your soul....)
/. darling but they have gone too far in too many ways for anyone actually concerned with issues like "privacy" and "security" to even consider supporting them any longer. Where they go from here, pumped with billions of dollars in cash, I'd rather not even speculate on. :(
"Tee hee! STOCK! We're going to be rich! Go us! SEC? What's that?!?!? What's the most we can suck from investors? Make it so! Pump the stock on Playboy! Who's information can we index next? Everyones? YES!"
Their behavior has been nothing less that completely stupid as far as their IPO goes. Their buisness practices are getting them sued left and right. (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid
I know that Google is a
Exactly, the huge range of DRM technologies and the speed at which they change/multiply will pretty much make "buying" songs from the internet more like "renting" them for as long as you own your current player.
I still buy CDs and rip to mp3. I can play at home, in car, on hip, virtually anywhere. That's lasted me almost a decade now and the songs will probably decode on any curent and future players for some time to come.
I'll stick to that for the time being till something truly stable and universal shakes out of all this.
We don't have to wait for the robots to go nuts and start killing people, we'll just teach them how first!
If MS had actually matched every feature of ZA and then some, then people would be saying they are driving buisness ... out of buisness again. "Monopoly" they would all scream.
The fact is, MS specifically designed XP buit in functionality (Such as CD burning, zip file opening, picture viewing etc) to be minimally but usefully functional so that it does NOT get them into instant hot water.
Why are you complaining? Keep using ZA if you already bought it or need it's level of funtionality. But don't berate MS for providing what is actually a decent and functional firewall that is finally in the users face where it should be.
You can remove 200 to 500 meg from that by removing the various patch uninstalls from the /Windows folder once you are sure that your machine is working properly... (Must have the viewing of hidden/system files enabled)
Actually, "bad for them".
Whay do people wait until final rollout before testing? This service pack has been available for months for large corps and software companies to test with.
Any software company that did not have a patch for their software or a roll out plan the day the SP was released is being criminally lazy.
But then the main reason that so many serious security holes exist is because of the amount of people that are too lazy to patch. If EVERYONE kept up to dat on ALL OSes, the amount of virii damage would be almost non-existant.
It is the universities responsibility to roll out this (or any other Windows or Linux) patch as quickly as possible. Ad in the case of SP2, given the months of prep time, that should have been THIS WEEK.
I would also vote for giving Windows or Microsoft their own category. Windows articles take up a larger percentage of space than any other category, if anything deserves to be categorized, it should be Windows/Microsft content.
This is ancient news/technology. It's been demonstrated at tech conventions for what... 5 years now?
Second. It really is very poor technology. "Neat" but completely unuseable. Having JUST run across this very monitor 3 weeks ago, I can tell you it has not improved over the years at all. You need to stand perfectly still at a 1/2 in wide sweetspot side to side and worse, you have to be standing at an exact distance from the monitor for the effet to work.
It would be completely useless for... well anything really. Using the standard shutter glasses for 3d viewing is far better than trying to use this monitor.
If your company followed the "rules" the computer case will have a sticker on it (usually on the back) with the "Product Key" on it.
If not, there are tools on the net for sucking the Product Key out of a working copy of XP so you can wipe and reinstall it. Google for it.
Suppose;ly there is about 30 MB of differences between RC2 and the release. Probably bugs and compatibility problems or futher recompiles. I'd update just to prevent future problems even if you weren't experiencing any right now.
If you use the windows update, I think you will only have to DL the 30 MB and not the full 75-90.
First, over the weekend I installed SP2 on 5 machines ranging from a laptop to a brand new machine to an old XP install with more hardware and software than can be imagined attached to it and even an OLD XP machine that was an upgraded 2k machine and have had no problems at all so far.
/.
Both the firewall and the popup blocking actually work far better than I had been expecting. I was plesently suprised. (Though watch out for the inevitable ZA/Norton monopoly lawsuits!)
Second, people seem to be having difficulty with the "Security Center" "Alerts" that place an icon in the tray.
This suprises me as the answer to this problem pretty much stares you in the face upon reboot and if anyone is going to be curious about how the security center works and poke around at the various buttons, it should be anyone that posts to
Anyway to get rid of the icon do this:
1) Open the Security Center control panel
2) Click on "Change the way secuirty center alerts me"
3) Uncheck any alert options that you do not want to know about. No anti-virus installed? Turn off the alert, etc. Look! No more tray icon!
Does no one even bother looking at the security center that comes up after first reboot?
Ok after that trollish intro, do this:
* Open Control panel
* Open "Security Center"
* Click on "Change the way security center alerts me"
* Turn off any alert options like virus scanning or firewall that you do not have or do not intend to have installed.
* Tray icon goes away!
Through windows update it will be 75 to 90 megs as the DL items will depend on the computer configuration.
On anything above dial-up, this is not a big deal. Dial-up users though...
The main size difference is that the MSDN .iso contains a new 150 meg symbol file for all of XP+SP2
But it also includes several admin tools and other things that the consumer version does not.