Not informative at all. Here's the real information: The patches can be applied to IE 6.0 OR IE 5.5 SP2 ONLY. If you do not have either of those you need to upgrade to one of them then apply the appropriate patch.
If you have not already upgraded to these versions then you are (and have been ) vunerable to numerous PAST holes. So if you haven't bothered to upgrade by now, why do you care about patching all of a sudden?
Not exactly, what's happening is that all the little 15 year old hackers in a neighborhood are getting togeather and sharing a single account between several residences. They are using the maximum throughput of the modem and paying only 1/10th the price. It is specifically because of this growing practice that AUP changes and in the future software changes will be made to make this impossible. THANK YOU 15 year olds!
I agree if it were all within your house, that's ok. But neighborhood lans are all the rage these days and they are using high bandwidth and paying very little for the priviledge. Get enough of that going on and you'll REALLY see the cable modems go bye bye.
It's the same reason you can't share your cable TV with the neighbors. I mean why not? The signal is there, who cares how much of it you use? Inside your own house? No prob. Share with the neighbors? They're stealing.
Uh, yeah, weeks after they knew about it and only after it was publicly announced. That's pretty fscked. No two ways about it. Stop trying to white-wash this.
No, issues with the chips. They run slow counter to marketing hype, they run at voltages that are higher than current intel and other manufactures chips do (therefore get no longer life, counter to marketing hype) and just in the last day or two they admitted that they cannot reliably produce enough new chips to make any money or fill any large orders (For atleast ANOTHER several months, course that has been par for the course since day one). So the question is not "Where?" but "Why on earth?". And it is ALL the chips fault. If Linus wasn't working there/. would be making as much fun of this company as MS.
XP is absolutely no more a ram hog than 2k is. There is no living room media application that would requre 512 meg in an XP box. Saying so is pure FUD. 256 meg (uh, $26-$36 USD) is MORE than enough.
Any "office" that lets it's users DL files and programs through IE from external sources is guilty of criminal policy neglect. IE can be locked down in an office network environment that makes this sort of thing impossible.
There are dozens of media players FGS, some free, some for pay. I use the ATI media player, clean and simple and I don't even have an ATI video card! It plays all properly installed video codecs on windows, windowed and full screen, no hassle. (Note that this does not include quicktime or real as they keep their codecs tied to their players). Annoyingly the Divx installer SAYS you HAVE to use their player (Playa) abd forces you to install it, but once installed, any VFW media player can playback Divx files (including the ati player I mentioned)
It COULD if apple actually properly embeded QT into windows as a video for windows codec. They don't becuase they don't want you to be able to choose a player other than the QT player to play QT files. If the QT codec on windows were a properly designed VFW codec and the QT player were a properly designed VFW player, then you coupld play ANY installed video format on the QT player if you wanted or play QT files on the windows media player or the ati media player or Jonneys whizbang ultra cool video player. Apple is being purposly selfish in this reguard.
And NO, there is NO performance gain from not doing so, in fact there may be a detriment to doing so as the VFW overlay on windows uses capabilities of your video card to accellerate the conversion and display of the data (If it supposrts it).
And your experience means that everything else is the same way? The article poster asked if anyone looked into his background before giving him a job. Have any of YOU looked into his background before flaming him to death? This is the/. hypocrisy at full bore.
Since the parent was marked as FLAIMBAIT by people that want to squash the awful truth. I'm reposting it:
From GNU's Free Documentation License:
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other written document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially.
It certainly seems that they don't feel that their license needs to be "free" is the sense of the word they apply to other written documents. Does the FSF offer some explanation for why some written documents should be "free" and others not? Does the same line of argument apply to software?
You mean like the NT/2k/XP service packs? Office service packs? VisualStudio service packs? That's exatly what Apple SHOULD have done with this point release of course.
If you're talking about an upgrade from 98 to XP, well that is an entire new OS, the upgrade disks have to have it all on there anyway. But Apple wasn't going that huge, a "service pack" would have worked fine for a 10.0 to 10.1.x upgrade.
Not really when the whole thing turns into a debacle and IBM and Linux get a black eye over it. It was a childish and irresponsible thing to do. It can only have hurt the cause. So I don't agree that it was cost effective to spend money making IBM and Linux look like a graphiti gang.
Similarly the defacing of the Windows XP billboards, funny though it may be, is not in any way helping the Linux image as a hackers OS.
Or MAYBE they made it super tough to transfer a domain so that crackers would have a hard time hijacking someones domain? We've been through this numerous times, You have to write them a letter and you have to PROVE that you are who you say you are. Sounds like tight security to me. We've never had any problem in the end, although the process can be a pain in the ass. Rather have that that someone who descides they hate me calling up EasyDNS and social hacking my domain away from me! But if everything wasn't a conspiricy, then/. would be a field of crickets...
You're kidding right? Linux has been ported to every freakin piece of hardware that has come down the pike. I've asked myself that same question at least 10 times in the past two years when I hear that someone has taken a perfectly working machine and hacked Linux on it just to stare at a command line. Why start questioning it now? Especially since, of all the latest ports, this one comes closest to being actually useful!
Perhapse, but what if gcc isn't the best compiler in the world? What if, besides caruso, Intel's compiler is actually a BETTER compiler than gcc on intel hardware? Then were stuck using gcc for compiling the kernel when something better is or might be some day available. Locking the kernel to a compiler is a BAD THING[tm].
Which is what they SHOULD have done in the first place. (As deplorable as that may be) It's not up to the U.S. to enforce French internal political adjenda! If that happens then NOTHING would be safe on the net.
Slashdot Mirror
Not informative at all. Here's the real information: The patches can be applied to IE 6.0 OR IE 5.5 SP2 ONLY. If you do not have either of those you need to upgrade to one of them then apply the appropriate patch.
If you have not already upgraded to these versions then you are (and have been ) vunerable to numerous PAST holes. So if you haven't bothered to upgrade by now, why do you care about patching all of a sudden?
Please mod me up to 5 now thank you.
Flamebait? Geez, how transperent can we get?
Not exactly, what's happening is that all the little 15 year old hackers in a neighborhood are getting togeather and sharing a single account between several residences. They are using the maximum throughput of the modem and paying only 1/10th the price. It is specifically because of this growing practice that AUP changes and in the future software changes will be made to make this impossible. THANK YOU 15 year olds!
I agree if it were all within your house, that's ok. But neighborhood lans are all the rage these days and they are using high bandwidth and paying very little for the priviledge. Get enough of that going on and you'll REALLY see the cable modems go bye bye.
It's the same reason you can't share your cable TV with the neighbors. I mean why not? The signal is there, who cares how much of it you use? Inside your own house? No prob. Share with the neighbors? They're stealing.
It didn't have a back door, it had a security hole (bug). Doh!
Easy, it's a hacking convention in security convention clothing...
Uh, yeah, weeks after they knew about it and only after it was publicly announced. That's pretty fscked. No two ways about it. Stop trying to white-wash this.
No, issues with the chips. They run slow counter to marketing hype, they run at voltages that are higher than current intel and other manufactures chips do (therefore get no longer life, counter to marketing hype) and just in the last day or two they admitted that they cannot reliably produce enough new chips to make any money or fill any large orders (For atleast ANOTHER several months, course that has been par for the course since day one). So the question is not "Where?" but "Why on earth?". And it is ALL the chips fault. If Linus wasn't working there /. would be making as much fun of this company as MS.
XP is absolutely no more a ram hog than 2k is. There is no living room media application that would requre 512 meg in an XP box. Saying so is pure FUD. 256 meg (uh, $26-$36 USD) is MORE than enough.
And on "UNIX" you can make ANY file executable by setting a permission bit! This is easily as bad if not worse! Jeez...
Any "office" that lets it's users DL files and programs through IE from external sources is guilty of criminal policy neglect. IE can be locked down in an office network environment that makes this sort of thing impossible.
This was unfairly modded to -1 so I am reposting it for everyones benefit:
You Assume that most of this software would NOT have been purchased... thats a bad assumption...
MOM
There are dozens of media players FGS, some free, some for pay. I use the ATI media player, clean and simple and I don't even have an ATI video card! It plays all properly installed video codecs on windows, windowed and full screen, no hassle. (Note that this does not include quicktime or real as they keep their codecs tied to their players). Annoyingly the Divx installer SAYS you HAVE to use their player (Playa) abd forces you to install it, but once installed, any VFW media player can playback Divx files (including the ati player I mentioned)
"...why can't Qt"
It COULD if apple actually properly embeded QT into windows as a video for windows codec. They don't becuase they don't want you to be able to choose a player other than the QT player to play QT files. If the QT codec on windows were a properly designed VFW codec and the QT player were a properly designed VFW player, then you coupld play ANY installed video format on the QT player if you wanted or play QT files on the windows media player or the ati media player or Jonneys whizbang ultra cool video player. Apple is being purposly selfish in this reguard.
And NO, there is NO performance gain from not doing so, in fact there may be a detriment to doing so as the VFW overlay on windows uses capabilities of your video card to accellerate the conversion and display of the data (If it supposrts it).
Most brilliant people ARE fools...
Guilt by association is not guilt! It's predjudice. nothing else.
And your experience means that everything else is the same way? The article poster asked if anyone looked into his background before giving him a job. Have any of YOU looked into his background before flaming him to death? This is the /. hypocrisy at full bore.
Since the parent was marked as FLAIMBAIT by people that want to squash the awful truth. I'm reposting it:
From GNU's Free Documentation License:
The purpose of this License is to make a manual, textbook, or other written document "free" in the sense of freedom: to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially.
It certainly seems that they don't feel that their license needs to be "free" is the sense of the word they apply to other written documents. Does the FSF offer some explanation for why some written documents should be "free" and others not? Does the same line of argument apply to software?
You mean like the NT/2k/XP service packs? Office service packs? VisualStudio service packs? That's exatly what Apple SHOULD have done with this point release of course.
If you're talking about an upgrade from 98 to XP, well that is an entire new OS, the upgrade disks have to have it all on there anyway. But Apple wasn't going that huge, a "service pack" would have worked fine for a 10.0 to 10.1.x upgrade.
Not really when the whole thing turns into a debacle and IBM and Linux get a black eye over it. It was a childish and irresponsible thing to do. It can only have hurt the cause. So I don't agree that it was cost effective to spend money making IBM and Linux look like a graphiti gang.
Similarly the defacing of the Windows XP billboards, funny though it may be, is not in any way helping the Linux image as a hackers OS.
And, uh... so does wu-ftp...
Or MAYBE they made it super tough to transfer a domain so that crackers would have a hard time hijacking someones domain? We've been through this numerous times, You have to write them a letter and you have to PROVE that you are who you say you are. Sounds like tight security to me. We've never had any problem in the end, although the process can be a pain in the ass. Rather have that that someone who descides they hate me calling up EasyDNS and social hacking my domain away from me! But if everything wasn't a conspiricy, then /. would be a field of crickets...
You're kidding right? Linux has been ported to every freakin piece of hardware that has come down the pike. I've asked myself that same question at least 10 times in the past two years when I hear that someone has taken a perfectly working machine and hacked Linux on it just to stare at a command line. Why start questioning it now? Especially since, of all the latest ports, this one comes closest to being actually useful!
And the water is already boiling! That's not JUST for dramatic effect in the opening shots :)
Perhapse, but what if gcc isn't the best compiler in the world? What if, besides caruso, Intel's compiler is actually a BETTER compiler than gcc on intel hardware? Then were stuck using gcc for compiling the kernel when something better is or might be some day available. Locking the kernel to a compiler is a BAD THING[tm].
Which is what they SHOULD have done in the first place. (As deplorable as that may be) It's not up to the U.S. to enforce French internal political adjenda! If that happens then NOTHING would be safe on the net.