I think he was trying to make the point that it doesn't matter if you are going 50 or 100, it's the sudden change in velocity to 0 that does most of the damage.
No, I wasn't. I was trying to make the point that when most accidents happen, the vehicle(s) is(are) travelling at less than the posted speed limit. Ergo, even brutally strict - and especially automated - enforcement of the legal limit generally achieves nothing (in terms of road safety), because it doesn't stop people driving recklessly, or too fast for the conditions.
[Warning: I am the original poster] People here do not use lights at night, never signal left or right, cross even 4 lanes if they want to turn. People don't use safety belts and very often they drive with their 3-yo in their lap. There are no traffic lights in the country (maybe 100, maybe 200).
That merely reinforces my point. Speeding is an incidental problem here. You're not going to save many lives when people are just plain reckless, especially when pedestrians are involved. You're as dead being hit by a car at 80km/h as you are at 120 - it's purely a matter of luck at that stage.
I know it sounds like typical western arrogance to suggest it, but I think the example of major cities in Europe and North America is informative here. You'll see that people will (mostly) honor traffic lights, but they will (mostly) ignore speed limits. It's probably because traffic light violations are (pardon the expression) black and white: either the light was red, or it wasn't, and a simple still camera can prove it one way or the other. By comparison, speed is more difficult to determine and prove (as anyone who has beaten a speeding ticket can confirm). The notion that radar guns and cameras will be effective in convicting perpetrators in a chaotic traffic environment is naive.
No, it's because they understand that not obeying traffic lights is nearly inescapably dangerous, whereas speeding is frequently not dangerous at all.
The majority of accidents happen at under the speed limit. The strictest speed enforcement in the world won't help when people are driving recklessly, or too fast for the conditions [but not over the speed limit].
Vista had an all-new driver architecture, and (so I'm told) the vendors didn't have enough time between getting driver SDKs and Vista's release to write good stable drivers.
They had plenty of time, they just didn't make use of it.
2) nVidia in particular but ATi as well are real good at writing drivers. They don't crash much, if ever. They are not going to be our source of instability.
I seem to recall a report from Microsoft not too long ago - drawn from the automated error reporting in Windows - showing that video card drivers are, by far, the single biggest cause of system instability.
It is OK? The card uses the USB2.0 connection (and not PCIe), so it's limited to 480Mb/s. I'd hardly call that OK:)
No, it uses the PCIe interface. This isn't explicitly in the Newegg specs page, though it is noted by several of the comments. I think if you look up the same (or similar) devices on Amazon, they explicitly mention it's PCIe.
Don't feed the troll. Does it not worry you that there are 2 unpatched and documented vulnerabilities?
Sure, but that's not really relevant to a discussion about "countless" unpatched vulnerabilities.
At least the linux team didn't know about this vulnerability.
They knew about it for at least 2 months. How long does it have to be before it's "too long" ? Note also that just because it's been fixed in the raw kernel release, doesn't mean it's been rolled into distributions, which could take anything from days to months.
Besides, only a small percentage of the user base actually know exactly what everything in the kernel does, let alone pick vulnerabilities in it. In a working distro, there should be NO documented vulnerabilities without a patch. In any case, when the Linux team got tipped off, the patch was fixed. For that, I am proud to belong to such a community.
And when Microsoft gets "tipped off", bugs in Windows get fixed. What's the difference ?
You are deliberately ignoring the "or took MS a long time to patch" part of this discussion.
Yes, because it's not relevant to the discussion *I'm* having.
We're not talking about current, live vulnerabilities. We're talking about a history of a long turn around time for patches of extreme security holes.
This thread, starting here, is most certainly only talking about "current, live vulnerabilities". In particular, the "countless" ones that digitalunity claims knowledge of (yet, unsurprisingly, is "too busy" to even hint at - I guess he must be heading to the gym in 26 minutes).
And you're sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring it because it hurts your stance.
No, I'm ignoring it because it's not relevant to the discussion I'm in. Even going back another 4 posts up the hierarchy, it's still only about "current, live vulnerabilities".
But the fact is, there are two that some random guy on the internet found. Any sane person will therefore admit that the bad guys seriously looking at this have found more. And there are probably more known vulnerabilities we're not discussing.
I'm sure. The points are, a) if there are "countless" (the other AC's Lawyer-like answer notwithstanding) such vulnerabilities, why is it a list of 10 is so hard to generate (especially on one of the internet's premier anti-Microsoft sites), and, b) if it really is that hard then, hey, maybe things aren't quite so bad after all ?
Because not every "child rapist" is someone who actually raped a child.
To say nothing of the specification creep that would inevitably happen (as it has already) to encompass all the "sex crimes" that exist today, so you'd have people going to jail for life - with no possibility of parole - because they were unlucky enough to flip onto the wrong Chatroulette channel and not close it quick enough, because their "child" boy/girlfriend emailed them some naughty pictures, because they were caught taking a piss behind a tree next to a sports field where "children" were playing, etc, etc.
Just like gun control supposes someone will obey a gun ownership restriction, even though they are going to MURDER someone ("I'll kill someone, but I won't violate the gun laws". Yeah right - and don't say they can't get guns illegally - you have to be naive beyond belief to think that).
The primary objective of gun control is to reduce the number of accidental and unplanned deaths - by *far* the largest proportion - by a) only letting physically and mentally capable people own guns and b) reduce the sheer volume of guns in circulation (thus making them harder for criminals to acquire and use).
I feel fine calling someone else out on their biases. It's especially fun when they rant about bias to support their bias.
Er, yeah, except none of the examples you linked to show any sort real bias on behalf of the poster you were criticising.
"Doesn't hate X with a passion" isn't the same thing as "is biased towards X" (unless you're an American, I suppose, and have difficulty dealing with non-extreme viewpoints).
There, 10 vulnerabilities, which either took Microsoft months after visibility to patch, or still aren't patched.
Actually, there were about 6 unique vulnerabilities listed, only 2 of which remain unpatched.
Congratulations. Only 8 more to go. I'm surprised it's so hard, given how "countless" they are - I was expecting to get at least 25 listed by various posters within an hour.
10 years ago the Slashdot readership may have shown a large bias as you say, but not so much anymore.
Say what ? 10 years ago this was still a site where technology for technology's sake was still considered interesting. These days - and probably for the last 4 or 5 years - if it's technology out of Microsoft, it's automatically bad, and if it's technology out of open source, it's automatically good.
The problem is getting worse, not better (thanks in no small part to kdawson, but he's hardly the only one).
No they'd just say it's not a bug and that they have no intention of fixing it.
That's because it isn't. From that very web page:
All of this only affects the default account type and UAC level of Windows 7 (builds 7000 & 7022, but probably also the retail given Microsoft's stance so far). If you go against the defaults and run as a non-admin user or turn UAC up to the Always Prompt level, so it behaves like it did in Vista, then it is no longer possible for code-injection from unelevated processes to bypass UAC prompts.
Not to mention it requires the end user to manually run untrusted code.
At _worst_ it's a configuration issue. It's as much of a "bug" as the default timeout for sudo.
But Slashdot *is* biased, quite heavily, towards Linux and Open Source (and against anything not anti-Microsoft). Your previous post is, indeed, an excellent example of that bias.
Slashdot Mirror
I think he was trying to make the point that it doesn't matter if you are going 50 or 100, it's the sudden change in velocity to 0 that does most of the damage.
No, I wasn't. I was trying to make the point that when most accidents happen, the vehicle(s) is(are) travelling at less than the posted speed limit. Ergo, even brutally strict - and especially automated - enforcement of the legal limit generally achieves nothing (in terms of road safety), because it doesn't stop people driving recklessly, or too fast for the conditions.
[Warning: I am the original poster] People here do not use lights at night, never signal left or right, cross even 4 lanes if they want to turn. People don't use safety belts and very often they drive with their 3-yo in their lap. There are no traffic lights in the country (maybe 100, maybe 200).
That merely reinforces my point. Speeding is an incidental problem here. You're not going to save many lives when people are just plain reckless, especially when pedestrians are involved. You're as dead being hit by a car at 80km/h as you are at 120 - it's purely a matter of luck at that stage.
I know it sounds like typical western arrogance to suggest it, but I think the example of major cities in Europe and North America is informative here. You'll see that people will (mostly) honor traffic lights, but they will (mostly) ignore speed limits. It's probably because traffic light violations are (pardon the expression) black and white: either the light was red, or it wasn't, and a simple still camera can prove it one way or the other. By comparison, speed is more difficult to determine and prove (as anyone who has beaten a speeding ticket can confirm). The notion that radar guns and cameras will be effective in convicting perpetrators in a chaotic traffic environment is naive.
No, it's because they understand that not obeying traffic lights is nearly inescapably dangerous, whereas speeding is frequently not dangerous at all.
The majority of accidents happen at under the speed limit. The strictest speed enforcement in the world won't help when people are driving recklessly, or too fast for the conditions [but not over the speed limit].
Catching speeders imposes no new restrictions - it's just about enforcing the rules that are already in place.
Which may or may not - probably the latter - make the roads any *safer*.
The question is whether the objective is increasing safety or increasing compliance.
Not even close. MXM has been in multiple laptop models. It's what's labeled/advertised as 'discrete' graphics.
Does anyone actually sell MXM video cards in retail channels though ?
Vista had an all-new driver architecture, and (so I'm told) the vendors didn't have enough time between getting driver SDKs and Vista's release to write good stable drivers.
They had plenty of time, they just didn't make use of it.
2) nVidia in particular but ATi as well are real good at writing drivers. They don't crash much, if ever. They are not going to be our source of instability.
I seem to recall a report from Microsoft not too long ago - drawn from the automated error reporting in Windows - showing that video card drivers are, by far, the single biggest cause of system instability.
This is a one-way ticket to the cessation of all innovation in the field of computing.
Rubbish.
It is OK? The card uses the USB2.0 connection (and not PCIe), so it's limited to 480Mb/s. I'd hardly call that OK :)
No, it uses the PCIe interface. This isn't explicitly in the Newegg specs page, though it is noted by several of the comments. I think if you look up the same (or similar) devices on Amazon, they explicitly mention it's PCIe.
Does anyone actually make decent expresscard SSDs?
As it's been quite a while since I looked, your post inspired me to see if the landscape had improved at all.
It seems this one is ok, once you manage to find one that actually works.
Don't feed the troll. Does it not worry you that there are 2 unpatched and documented vulnerabilities?
Sure, but that's not really relevant to a discussion about "countless" unpatched vulnerabilities.
At least the linux team didn't know about this vulnerability.
They knew about it for at least 2 months. How long does it have to be before it's "too long" ? Note also that just because it's been fixed in the raw kernel release, doesn't mean it's been rolled into distributions, which could take anything from days to months.
Besides, only a small percentage of the user base actually know exactly what everything in the kernel does, let alone pick vulnerabilities in it. In a working distro, there should be NO documented vulnerabilities without a patch. In any case, when the Linux team got tipped off, the patch was fixed. For that, I am proud to belong to such a community.
And when Microsoft gets "tipped off", bugs in Windows get fixed. What's the difference ?
You are deliberately ignoring the "or took MS a long time to patch" part of this discussion.
Yes, because it's not relevant to the discussion *I'm* having.
We're not talking about current, live vulnerabilities. We're talking about a history of a long turn around time for patches of extreme security holes.
This thread, starting here, is most certainly only talking about "current, live vulnerabilities". In particular, the "countless" ones that digitalunity claims knowledge of (yet, unsurprisingly, is "too busy" to even hint at - I guess he must be heading to the gym in 26 minutes).
And you're sticking your fingers in your ears and ignoring it because it hurts your stance.
No, I'm ignoring it because it's not relevant to the discussion I'm in. Even going back another 4 posts up the hierarchy, it's still only about "current, live vulnerabilities".
But the fact is, there are two that some random guy on the internet found. Any sane person will therefore admit that the bad guys seriously looking at this have found more. And there are probably more known vulnerabilities we're not discussing.
I'm sure. The points are, a) if there are "countless" (the other AC's Lawyer-like answer notwithstanding) such vulnerabilities, why is it a list of 10 is so hard to generate (especially on one of the internet's premier anti-Microsoft sites), and, b) if it really is that hard then, hey, maybe things aren't quite so bad after all ?
Why do we let child rapists out?
Because not every "child rapist" is someone who actually raped a child.
To say nothing of the specification creep that would inevitably happen (as it has already) to encompass all the "sex crimes" that exist today, so you'd have people going to jail for life - with no possibility of parole - because they were unlucky enough to flip onto the wrong Chatroulette channel and not close it quick enough, because their "child" boy/girlfriend emailed them some naughty pictures, because they were caught taking a piss behind a tree next to a sports field where "children" were playing, etc, etc.
Just like gun control supposes someone will obey a gun ownership restriction, even though they are going to MURDER someone ("I'll kill someone, but I won't violate the gun laws". Yeah right - and don't say they can't get guns illegally - you have to be naive beyond belief to think that).
The primary objective of gun control is to reduce the number of accidental and unplanned deaths - by *far* the largest proportion - by a) only letting physically and mentally capable people own guns and b) reduce the sheer volume of guns in circulation (thus making them harder for criminals to acquire and use).
Phew! Thank goodness that users never do that!
No security system in the world can help you when you're ready and willing to turn it off and invite the robbers inside.
Microsoft has thousands of programmers working full-time; Linux is maintained by volunteers, working in their spare time.
False. The majority of work on Linux is done by fulltime employees of companies like Red Hat.
I didn't claim not to be biased.
Nor did I say you did.
I feel fine calling someone else out on their biases. It's especially fun when they rant about bias to support their bias.
Er, yeah, except none of the examples you linked to show any sort real bias on behalf of the poster you were criticising.
"Doesn't hate X with a passion" isn't the same thing as "is biased towards X" (unless you're an American, I suppose, and have difficulty dealing with non-extreme viewpoints).
There, 10 vulnerabilities, which either took Microsoft months after visibility to patch, or still aren't patched.
Actually, there were about 6 unique vulnerabilities listed, only 2 of which remain unpatched.
Congratulations. Only 8 more to go. I'm surprised it's so hard, given how "countless" they are - I was expecting to get at least 25 listed by various posters within an hour.
10 years ago the Slashdot readership may have shown a large bias as you say, but not so much anymore.
Say what ? 10 years ago this was still a site where technology for technology's sake was still considered interesting. These days - and probably for the last 4 or 5 years - if it's technology out of Microsoft, it's automatically bad, and if it's technology out of open source, it's automatically good.
The problem is getting worse, not better (thanks in no small part to kdawson, but he's hardly the only one).
No they'd just say it's not a bug and that they have no intention of fixing it.
That's because it isn't. From that very web page:
All of this only affects the default account type and UAC level of Windows 7 (builds 7000 & 7022, but probably also the retail given Microsoft's stance so far). If you go against the defaults and run as a non-admin user or turn UAC up to the Always Prompt level, so it behaves like it did in Vista, then it is no longer possible for code-injection from unelevated processes to bypass UAC prompts.
Not to mention it requires the end user to manually run untrusted code.
At _worst_ it's a configuration issue. It's as much of a "bug" as the default timeout for sudo.
Your support of an assertion claiming "countless" unpatched privilege escalation bugs is a single, already patched, bug ?
Whatever. He's calling Slashdot biased. Pot, meet kettle.
But Slashdot *is* biased, quite heavily, towards Linux and Open Source (and against anything not anti-Microsoft). Your previous post is, indeed, an excellent example of that bias.
You're either with us or with them, eh ?
Who would have thought George W posted on Slashdot ?
So yes, if they felt that the threat to their profits is large enough they will take action... else they will not.
Yet regularly and frequently they release bugfixes for problems that are neither high profile, nor "embarrassing". Strange.
Oh god they're countless.
List 10.
That's actually pretty saddening. I would have hoped that people were more honest and trustworthy than that:(
Makes sense to me. Companies generally don't show any loyalty to their employees[0], so obviously employees are going to start behaving the same way.
As ye sow, so shall ye reap, etc, etc. These organisations have no-one to blame but themselves.
[0] The only exception to this I've seen in the last ~10 years is small, family run businesses where the employee knows the family socially.