Somehow, though, I don't think beheading is among them.
No doubt they'd do it if they could. Not quite the RIAA, but to quote Maddox, "if the law let Hollywood producers shoot us on the street and take our wallets, you bet your ass they would all have pistols."
I always wondered why such tolerance didn't take over the religio-sphere, so to speak, since it should be more encompassing, more welcoming, more interesting.
Because organized religion is about control, not enlightenment.
The link was expired. But doing a little searching I see that the all-caps version, REALTOR, is a registered service mark. I don't know what that does to the lower case version. Interesting.
So it probably bugs them even more when people say "realator.":-)
If you look at the etymology of the word, you can get a good idea as to why it's spelled with an a instead of an e.
It's not a word I normally misspell. And in also speaking Spanish, there's no reason at all for me to make the mistake I did, as it's clearly an a not an e. I have no idea why I did it, and it bugged me when I saw it.:-)
I think it comes from a mix of happy new year and new year's day. Kinda like people saying "realator" from mis-seperating the sounds in "real estate" to "reala-state."
If you think that Mac users have any clue about what happens after they type the sudo password, you're kidding yourself.
It only takes one person to figure it out, not everybody. And since it would have been asking permission the very first day, someone would have figured it out soon after.
Are you implying that the.wmf interpreter trys to load EVERY file it happens across?
No. But according to TFA, renaming it to jpg and gif to mask it will still get the wmf DLL to process it. I don't know why, but I guess that when it fails to be a JPG, before giving up the WMF processor is given a shot at it.
True. But it's false nonetheless, for reasons (among others) that I went on to explain.
but I have downloaded programs to friends' OSX boxes, and run them, and gotten no such prompt. In which cases does the OS ask you this?
Every time.
Also, this example doesn't apply to Linux, so the argument isn't quite tired and old yet.
I didn't address Linux because I personally don't know enough about it. I'm sure someone else could explain what would happen if a rogue app tried to modify the OS.
User space is all you need for most spyware/malware/worms.
Not for the Sony root kit, which was the example I used. And not for the ones that install proxy servers, etc. So there is an entire class that functions on Windows that wouldn't work elsewhere. And they tend to be the more malicious ones as well.
Don't get too comfortable just because you don't run windows.
Good point. I am, however, way less uncomfortable.
That would prove nothing as Unix OS's don't have near the Desktop marketshare of Windows, not do they have the same type of userbase.
Boy that's a tired old argument. How far would the Sony root kit have gotten on, for instance, OS X? Nowhere, that's how far. The first thing that would happen is that you'd have been told that a program was trying to execute for the first time. And you'd have to agree to explicitly allow it. And then, even if you were that foolish, you'd still be forced to give administrative approval when that program tried to modify or install something outside the user space. This is true even if you were logged into an administrator account.
And yet on Windows it able to silently do its thing and go undetected for months.
Do I interpret that correctly? 73% of the DNA of the tuberculosis virus is identical to that of humans? Amazing. I presume the quantities are not the same, and so then it's 73% of the TB DNA, but a lesser % of human DNA, right? Or do I misunderstand?
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, wrong lunatic. It was this guy who said it.
No doubt they'd do it if they could. Not quite the RIAA, but to quote Maddox, "if the law let Hollywood producers shoot us on the street and take our wallets, you bet your ass they would all have pistols."
Because then they are giving tacit approval of the site. And you can bet they would get paid, as it's in effect a license to continue.
There, see? Sometimes it works.
I hear he did the Kessel Run in less than 12 parsecs.
Because organized religion is about control, not enlightenment.
Only if you use the wrong definition of free. I'd say it's closer to a pun than an oxymoron.
So it probably bugs them even more when people say "realator." :-)
It's not a word I normally misspell. And in also speaking Spanish, there's no reason at all for me to make the mistake I did, as it's clearly an a not an e. I have no idea why I did it, and it bugged me when I saw it. :-)
Realtor has been a plain ol' word for many years. Do you have a reference?
and of course when I say seperate, I mean separate ;-)
I think it comes from a mix of happy new year and new year's day. Kinda like people saying "realator" from mis-seperating the sounds in "real estate" to "reala-state."
Six months later. As for the rest of your comment, you seem to have ignored the actual content of the thread.
Ya gotta admire his stamina, though. That's 142 attempts per day.
Maybe. Go ahead and post it so the judges can see for themselves.
It only takes one person to figure it out, not everybody. And since it would have been asking permission the very first day, someone would have figured it out soon after.
No. But according to TFA, renaming it to jpg and gif to mask it will still get the wmf DLL to process it. I don't know why, but I guess that when it fails to be a JPG, before giving up the WMF processor is given a shot at it.
True. But it's false nonetheless, for reasons (among others) that I went on to explain.
but I have downloaded programs to friends' OSX boxes, and run them, and gotten no such prompt. In which cases does the OS ask you this?
Every time.
Also, this example doesn't apply to Linux, so the argument isn't quite tired and old yet.
I didn't address Linux because I personally don't know enough about it. I'm sure someone else could explain what would happen if a rogue app tried to modify the OS.
User space is all you need for most spyware/malware/worms.
Not for the Sony root kit, which was the example I used. And not for the ones that install proxy servers, etc. So there is an entire class that functions on Windows that wouldn't work elsewhere. And they tend to be the more malicious ones as well.
Don't get too comfortable just because you don't run windows.
Good point. I am, however, way less uncomfortable.
And so the world would have known the very first day that something was going on, instead of months later. Big difference.
Good advice.
From TFA:
"Operating system versions ranging from the current Windows XP to Windows 98 are affected."
A good start, but it turns out a wmf file renamed to (for instance) .jpg will still invoke the wmf processor.
Hey, that's why you're value added, and they're not.
Boy that's a tired old argument. How far would the Sony root kit have gotten on, for instance, OS X? Nowhere, that's how far. The first thing that would happen is that you'd have been told that a program was trying to execute for the first time. And you'd have to agree to explicitly allow it. And then, even if you were that foolish, you'd still be forced to give administrative approval when that program tried to modify or install something outside the user space. This is true even if you were logged into an administrator account.
And yet on Windows it able to silently do its thing and go undetected for months.
How could you know? They can do pretty much whatever they want to your* computer. There's no one single indication to look for.
*assuming "your" computer is running Windows.
Do I interpret that correctly? 73% of the DNA of the tuberculosis virus is identical to that of humans? Amazing. I presume the quantities are not the same, and so then it's 73% of the TB DNA, but a lesser % of human DNA, right? Or do I misunderstand?