You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. That's not even how the trojan gets installed. Windows doesn't "examine the file structure" to determine what type of file something is. Otherwise, changing filename extensions wouldn't even matter. This isn't some MacOS metadata system or something.
Next time you want to make shit up, try a better job.
I don't know who modded you as a troll, I hope the lose privleges though, it was wholly innapropriate abuse of the mod system.
I disagree with your opinions, but I greatly appreciate your saying that.
My point was (perhaps totally wrong though) that the new people have full access to wire feeds and untainted news. They then filter what they report on and we are somehow farther right then them?
The point isn't what political leanings the publics has (though most polls show a slight right of center). The point is that the media can be provably shown to slant news, or concentrate on a particular topic at the expense of another, or plaster something as a headline on the front page while ignoring something else.
Just off the top of my head, the LA Times actually hired people to go out and dig dirt on Mel Gibson and talk to his father. Mel Gibson was set to release "Passion of the Christ." They printed several front page articlese about how "anti-semitic" the movie was, how Mel was "risking" his career, and so on.
But when the film finally came out and broke records to become the highest-grossing movie of all time, where do you think they printed that? Buried in a two-paragraph filler near the back of the newspaper. That's just a small example, but it illustrates what people are talking about, that sort of subtle slant in reporting things. A completely baseless article was even written claiming Mel would "have trouble finding work" in Hollywood and said that people like Jeffrey Katzenburg were furious. When Katzenburg came out and said he wasn't, did you see a correction? Nope. It was a threat piece saying Gibson would have trouble finding work because he dared make a Jesus movie.
There are other things, like the constant reporting of Abu Ghraib even in the face of nothing new to report. Meanwhile, stories like the beheading of Nick Berg and others were reported for a couple of days at most, then it was right back to Abu Ghraib. Balanced reporting is certainly a hard line to define, but in a lot of cases, the line is crossed in the majority of the media. Most of them report themselves as "liberal." It's not so much that the liberal media intends to slant the news, it just doesn't know any better--it thinks its views are the norm. On CNN, the conservatives are always labelled "conservative" but the liberals are never labelled such. It's just assumed that everybody supports things like abortion, anti-Iraq, and so on, because that's what all their reporters believe, their bosses, their friends, and so on.
You complain about "lack of competition," but neglect to mention that Netscape fucking sucked by version 4. What's the point of bitching about competition if there wasn't actually any good competition? IE won out because it was the better browser.
Only to a geek would not installing another browser be "laziness." Calling it that illustrates the fundamental anti-socialist nature toward non-computer-literate people who don't even know what a "browser" is. We're not high and mighty and above other people just because we use something called "FireFox."
Who is the moron who "installed" the file to begin with?
As is usual with all user-run executable infections, I fully expect everybody to pretend it's IE's fault and that Firefox/Mozilla are somehow immune, despite cross-platform spyware XPI trojans.
Give Firefox the marketshare IE has and we'll see what happens. However, I do grant that Firefox is more secure with the lack of ActiveX and the pop-up blocking, but such controls are coming in IE SP2. It's about time, yes, but at least it's something to stave off attacks until everything goes.NET in Longhorn.
I was talking once to an associate of mine, and he was complaining about the left leanings of CNN and other news outlets, which is why he preferred Fox News Channel.
I responded, "but they're even more right-wing than you could possibly accuse cnn of being left-wing. They certainly provide a far more biased assessment of the news."
Well, first off, that's your opinion--according to a UCLA/Stanford study, FoxNews is centrist.
To this he responded, "Yeah, but Fox is more just commentary and editorials, not news reporting, unlike CNN or MSNBC."
"But is says news right in the name!" I countered. "It's Fox NEWS Channel, not Fox Commentary Channel."
Your friend misstated. You're confusing the hard news coverage with the afternoon editorial commentaries like The O'Reilly Factor. CNN used to have more of those types of shows as well, like Greta before FoxNews hired her up. FoxNews does plenty of hard news coverage throughout the day.
Needless to say, he's not my friend anymore./True story.
If your friends are chosen on the basis of the news networks they watch, I can't begin to tell you how much I pity you. You didn't prove a single thing other than you think FoxNews is biased for no reason given, and you have few friends (other than extremely stuck-up liberals, I'm guessing...).
Ummmm, this seems to be a significant problem with the study. The "true center" as compared to what? How did they measure that? Sure, if you think Drudge report is "centrist" then of course everything else seems "liberal."
The balanced percentage of reports on both the left and right is generally considered "centrist."
In general, members of the mass media are not guided primarily by being "liberal" or "conservative" but rather by doing what they perceive to be their jobs. Whether reporters vote for Bush or not is hardly an indication of how they will report the news.
Yet if the opposite were true, I bet it would suddenly be an issue for you that most reporters voted for Bush.
Here are some articles refuting the myth of the liberal media. And here's a study that specifically counters the studies you quote.
For every article you link to, I could cite two more books by former CBS/NBC anchormen claiming the complete opposite. Hell, O'Reilly worked at both those channels and has his own personal experiences about people like Dan Rather.
Well if people with unfiltered access to the facts are farther left then the general populace I would take it as evidence of right leaning media.
What a spin! It's not unfiltered access to facts, the liberal bias comes from what they choose to report and how they report it. It's all about what facts they do report on and how it's presented.
Where is this magical "unfiltered access" idea coming from? Best spin I've seen yet.
Us (after these left biased outlets filter what we see and hear) 37% Bush Sr.
Why do you think FoxNews is the #1 news channel right now?
I like what Al Franken said (paraphrased).
Oh, gee, now that's a surprise, you like something Al Franken said, that political expert who knows all. You know, the guy who is literally working for no salary because Air America is doing so poorly. His book was rife with falsehoods, and when he was called on it, he called it "satire."
The left resorts to personal attacks and pessimism. Meanwhile, liberals accuse FoxNews of being biased without ever citing a single example. The UCLA/Stanford study showed that FoxNews and Drudge Report were centrist (and if you actually followed them both, you would see this...they report on both sides). Few people are even aware that the head of FoxNews was once accused of being "socialist liberal" in Australia because his newspaper aired liberal views along with the conservative ones.
Could it be you just hate hearing views that differ from your own? This is why the left has fallen apart since 2000. Hell, they still won't even accept the fact that a six-month study in 2001 done by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN showed that after counting all the ballots, Bush still won Florida. If you go and see "Fahrenheit 9/11," you won't hear about that at all...
Why come to Slashdot? You get yesterday's OSNews articles but with the biased spin of the editors changing headlines and adding commentary to incite flamewars (and generate page hits as a result).
I will say I have no interest in.NET, "managed code" and all the other well-meaning but ultimately frightening things that they are doing to the tools. I can tell you that every two or three years they regild OLE, tack a new name on it and try to sell it as something other than a hodge-podge of incomprehensible and poorly documented cookbook tools.
Clearly, you have absolutely no idea what.NET actually is. It has nothing to do with OLE.
Um...I don't think it's possible to build an X86 OS to operate from within a VM. Even.NET.
Why? Or are you talking about the kernel? Obviously the kernel won't be running in a VM, but the rest of the operating system will. Remember, the operating system is more than just the kernel. explorer.exe is already running as managed code in the current Longhorn builds.
Microsoft isn't shouting that shoddy programming practices cause security flaws...for them, that would be a really bad PR move.
You're lying out of your teeth. They've been very vocal about this, even if you haven't read about it on Slashdot. They're completely replacing Win32 with.NET. Hate them if you want, but don't say they haven't tried because they have.
On the same token, you can continue to use C and C++ to create managed code and communicate with the.NET framework. But it would be rather silly to do, as often 50-line tasks in C++ can be reduced to 5 or 10 in C#. It's not just the garbage collector that raises the security of C#/.NET above C/C++, but it is certainly a factor.
The truth of an opinion is subjective. It's impossible for you to declare an opinion to be "indeterminate" because that is your own subjective opinion on his opinion.
Instead of referencing dictionaries and attempting anal retentive debate tactics, how about taking a deep breath and realizing people have differing perspectives on things?
Maybe he's not trying to "prove" anything but merely state his opinion that Java is annoying and that people hate it.
Not everything has to be a thesis here, y'know. I don't get why people only ever demand proof for an opinion when it's an opinion that goes against the majority.
Using "managed code" does not "secure" your projects.
It sure helps. Type-safe, garbage-collected code running sandboxed as opposed to native Win32 junk?
Even DirectX has a Managed API now (and apparently offers 95%-99% performance of equivalent native code...we'll see once somebody actually codes a real engine in C#).
This load of crap is nothing more than the ranting of some social evolutionist who believes that humans are driven by nothing more than instinct and so tries to come up with some biological mechanism to explain why human men marry human women.
Why is it a "load of crap?" Because you disagree with it?
Are you arguing that humans AREN'T driven by instinct? The drive for sex is the single largest driving factor behind life. Call it "crap" all you want but those theories are supported by all current studies.
Studies have been done showing that women preferred more "feminine" features in a male when they weren't fertile. When they were fertile, they suddenly preferred more masculine features.
The general consensus was that the more emasculated males were friendlier and more likely to stick around.
For less than that I can buy a used NES and Excitebike cart and play it on my TV set at home.
So do it. Nobody's forcing you to buy the GBA version. But if you want the original box art, the original manuals, the most accurate NES emulator in existence (FINALLY, accurate sound in Legend of Zelda and Super Mario Bros.), and the ability to play the game two-player even if the other person doesn't have the cart, get the GBA version.
It's amusing you quote from FAIR, a well-known liberal-slanting group. This seems to be the standard tactic these days. A prominent liberal makes a claim, the subsidiary liberal groups list their "evidence" so the main guy can cite them as evidence, and so on.
I mean, come on:
Disney's ABC News prominently features John Stossel, who, though not explicitly partisan, advocates for a conservative philosophy in almost all his work:
This is bullshit. Stossel has even stated this. He used to go after companies all the time, and he was heralded by liberals. But when he was running out of companies to go after, he said he went looking for the worst examples of waste and corruption. Guess where he found it? In the government. So when he started going after shitty government programs that were wasting money when meanwhile the private equivalents were doing exceedingly well, suddenly he's labeled by the liberal media as a "conversative." I mean, he's citing actual examples and facts here, but still he gets accused of being partisan instead of just being factual.
"Dude," nobody's denying that Disney refused to distribute the film. But guess what? Disney told Moore they wouldn't distribute it as far back as last year.
NONE of your links showed Eisner or anybody from Disney stating that the reason they refused distribution was for tax breaks, which was what the guy was asking for. Guess who first brought up this claim? Michael Moore, stirring up more self-promotional controversy days before Cannes.
Guess when Moore suddenly decided to start whining about Disney's refusal in press releases, a whole year after being told the fact? Days before the Cannes film festival.
Slashdot Mirror
You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. That's not even how the trojan gets installed. Windows doesn't "examine the file structure" to determine what type of file something is. Otherwise, changing filename extensions wouldn't even matter. This isn't some MacOS metadata system or something.
Next time you want to make shit up, try a better job.
I don't know who modded you as a troll, I hope the lose privleges though, it was wholly innapropriate abuse of the mod system.
I disagree with your opinions, but I greatly appreciate your saying that.
My point was (perhaps totally wrong though) that the new people have full access to wire feeds and untainted news. They then filter what they report on and we are somehow farther right then them?
The point isn't what political leanings the publics has (though most polls show a slight right of center). The point is that the media can be provably shown to slant news, or concentrate on a particular topic at the expense of another, or plaster something as a headline on the front page while ignoring something else.
Just off the top of my head, the LA Times actually hired people to go out and dig dirt on Mel Gibson and talk to his father. Mel Gibson was set to release "Passion of the Christ." They printed several front page articlese about how "anti-semitic" the movie was, how Mel was "risking" his career, and so on.
But when the film finally came out and broke records to become the highest-grossing movie of all time, where do you think they printed that? Buried in a two-paragraph filler near the back of the newspaper. That's just a small example, but it illustrates what people are talking about, that sort of subtle slant in reporting things. A completely baseless article was even written claiming Mel would "have trouble finding work" in Hollywood and said that people like Jeffrey Katzenburg were furious. When Katzenburg came out and said he wasn't, did you see a correction? Nope. It was a threat piece saying Gibson would have trouble finding work because he dared make a Jesus movie.
There are other things, like the constant reporting of Abu Ghraib even in the face of nothing new to report. Meanwhile, stories like the beheading of Nick Berg and others were reported for a couple of days at most, then it was right back to Abu Ghraib. Balanced reporting is certainly a hard line to define, but in a lot of cases, the line is crossed in the majority of the media. Most of them report themselves as "liberal." It's not so much that the liberal media intends to slant the news, it just doesn't know any better--it thinks its views are the norm. On CNN, the conservatives are always labelled "conservative" but the liberals are never labelled such. It's just assumed that everybody supports things like abortion, anti-Iraq, and so on, because that's what all their reporters believe, their bosses, their friends, and so on.
You complain about "lack of competition," but neglect to mention that Netscape fucking sucked by version 4. What's the point of bitching about competition if there wasn't actually any good competition? IE won out because it was the better browser.
Only to a geek would not installing another browser be "laziness." Calling it that illustrates the fundamental anti-socialist nature toward non-computer-literate people who don't even know what a "browser" is. We're not high and mighty and above other people just because we use something called "FireFox."
Who is the moron who "installed" the file to begin with?
.NET in Longhorn.
As is usual with all user-run executable infections, I fully expect everybody to pretend it's IE's fault and that Firefox/Mozilla are somehow immune, despite cross-platform spyware XPI trojans.
Give Firefox the marketshare IE has and we'll see what happens. However, I do grant that Firefox is more secure with the lack of ActiveX and the pop-up blocking, but such controls are coming in IE SP2. It's about time, yes, but at least it's something to stave off attacks until everything goes
Sheesh. How this kind of garbage gets modded up as insightful is beyond me.
Can you prove my post is garbage? Can you disprove someone's opinion that my post is insightful?
I'll let you think about it.
I was talking once to an associate of mine, and he was complaining about the left leanings of CNN and other news outlets, which is why he preferred Fox News Channel.
/True story.
I responded, "but they're even more right-wing than you could possibly accuse cnn of being left-wing. They certainly provide a far more biased assessment of the news."
Well, first off, that's your opinion--according to a UCLA/Stanford study, FoxNews is centrist.
To this he responded, "Yeah, but Fox is more just commentary and editorials, not news reporting, unlike CNN or MSNBC."
"But is says news right in the name!" I countered. "It's Fox NEWS Channel, not Fox Commentary Channel."
Your friend misstated. You're confusing the hard news coverage with the afternoon editorial commentaries like The O'Reilly Factor. CNN used to have more of those types of shows as well, like Greta before FoxNews hired her up. FoxNews does plenty of hard news coverage throughout the day.
Needless to say, he's not my friend anymore.
If your friends are chosen on the basis of the news networks they watch, I can't begin to tell you how much I pity you. You didn't prove a single thing other than you think FoxNews is biased for no reason given, and you have few friends (other than extremely stuck-up liberals, I'm guessing...).
True, Fox is anything but unbiased.
Prove it. Nobody ever does. Liberals just repeat it over and over.
Ummmm, this seems to be a significant problem with the study. The "true center" as compared to what? How did they measure that? Sure, if you think Drudge report is "centrist" then of course everything else seems "liberal."
The balanced percentage of reports on both the left and right is generally considered "centrist."
In general, members of the mass media are not guided primarily by being "liberal" or "conservative" but rather by doing what they perceive to be their jobs. Whether reporters vote for Bush or not is hardly an indication of how they will report the news.
Yet if the opposite were true, I bet it would suddenly be an issue for you that most reporters voted for Bush.
Here are some articles refuting the myth of the liberal media. And here's a study that specifically counters the studies you quote.
For every article you link to, I could cite two more books by former CBS/NBC anchormen claiming the complete opposite. Hell, O'Reilly worked at both those channels and has his own personal experiences about people like Dan Rather.
Nice attempt to dance around hard numbers.
Well if people with unfiltered access to the facts are farther left then the general populace I would take it as evidence of right leaning media.
What a spin! It's not unfiltered access to facts, the liberal bias comes from what they choose to report and how they report it. It's all about what facts they do report on and how it's presented.
Where is this magical "unfiltered access" idea coming from? Best spin I've seen yet.
Us (after these left biased outlets filter what we see and hear) 37% Bush Sr.
Why do you think FoxNews is the #1 news channel right now?
I like what Al Franken said (paraphrased).
Oh, gee, now that's a surprise, you like something Al Franken said, that political expert who knows all. You know, the guy who is literally working for no salary because Air America is doing so poorly. His book was rife with falsehoods, and when he was called on it, he called it "satire."
The left resorts to personal attacks and pessimism. Meanwhile, liberals accuse FoxNews of being biased without ever citing a single example. The UCLA/Stanford study showed that FoxNews and Drudge Report were centrist (and if you actually followed them both, you would see this...they report on both sides). Few people are even aware that the head of FoxNews was once accused of being "socialist liberal" in Australia because his newspaper aired liberal views along with the conservative ones.
Could it be you just hate hearing views that differ from your own? This is why the left has fallen apart since 2000. Hell, they still won't even accept the fact that a six-month study in 2001 done by the New York Times, the Washington Post, and CNN showed that after counting all the ballots, Bush still won Florida. If you go and see "Fahrenheit 9/11," you won't hear about that at all...
Why come to Slashdot? You get yesterday's OSNews articles but with the biased spin of the editors changing headlines and adding commentary to incite flamewars (and generate page hits as a result).
I will say I have no interest in .NET, "managed code" and all the other well-meaning but ultimately frightening things that they are doing to the tools. I can tell you that every two or three years they regild OLE, tack a new name on it and try to sell it as something other than a hodge-podge of incomprehensible and poorly documented cookbook tools.
.NET actually is. It has nothing to do with OLE.
Clearly, you have absolutely no idea what
Replacing native code with code run in a secure environment isn't even close to the same thing as promoting the safe usage of native code.
Obviously, because it's not native code anymore.
Do you even have a single clue about what managed code actually means?
Um...I don't think it's possible to build an X86 OS to operate from within a VM. Even .NET.
.NET. Hate them if you want, but don't say they haven't tried because they have.
Why? Or are you talking about the kernel? Obviously the kernel won't be running in a VM, but the rest of the operating system will. Remember, the operating system is more than just the kernel. explorer.exe is already running as managed code in the current Longhorn builds.
Microsoft isn't shouting that shoddy programming practices cause security flaws...for them, that would be a really bad PR move.
You're lying out of your teeth. They've been very vocal about this, even if you haven't read about it on Slashdot. They're completely replacing Win32 with
On the same token, you can continue to use C and C++ to create managed code and communicate with the .NET framework. But it would be rather silly to do, as often 50-line tasks in C++ can be reduced to 5 or 10 in C#. It's not just the garbage collector that raises the security of C#/.NET above C/C++, but it is certainly a factor.
The truth of an opinion is subjective. It's impossible for you to declare an opinion to be "indeterminate" because that is your own subjective opinion on his opinion.
Instead of referencing dictionaries and attempting anal retentive debate tactics, how about taking a deep breath and realizing people have differing perspectives on things?
Maybe he's not trying to "prove" anything but merely state his opinion that Java is annoying and that people hate it.
Not everything has to be a thesis here, y'know. I don't get why people only ever demand proof for an opinion when it's an opinion that goes against the majority.
Using "managed code" does not "secure" your projects.
It sure helps. Type-safe, garbage-collected code running sandboxed as opposed to native Win32 junk?
Even DirectX has a Managed API now (and apparently offers 95%-99% performance of equivalent native code...we'll see once somebody actually codes a real engine in C#).
Unfortunately, unless someone as big as Microsoft (ha!) or IBM gets behind the message, you're not going to see much come of it.
.NET. Longhorn will be entirely .NET-based.
They have--see C# and
This load of crap is nothing more than the ranting of some social evolutionist who believes that humans are driven by nothing more than instinct and so tries to come up with some biological mechanism to explain why human men marry human women.
Why is it a "load of crap?" Because you disagree with it?
Are you arguing that humans AREN'T driven by instinct? The drive for sex is the single largest driving factor behind life. Call it "crap" all you want but those theories are supported by all current studies.
Studies have been done showing that women preferred more "feminine" features in a male when they weren't fertile. When they were fertile, they suddenly preferred more masculine features.
The general consensus was that the more emasculated males were friendlier and more likely to stick around.
For less than that I can buy a used NES and Excitebike cart and play it on my TV set at home.
So do it. Nobody's forcing you to buy the GBA version. But if you want the original box art, the original manuals, the most accurate NES emulator in existence (FINALLY, accurate sound in Legend of Zelda and Super Mario Bros.), and the ability to play the game two-player even if the other person doesn't have the cart, get the GBA version.
It's amusing you quote from FAIR, a well-known liberal-slanting group. This seems to be the standard tactic these days. A prominent liberal makes a claim, the subsidiary liberal groups list their "evidence" so the main guy can cite them as evidence, and so on.
I mean, come on:
Disney's ABC News prominently features John Stossel, who, though not explicitly partisan, advocates for a conservative philosophy in almost all his work:
This is bullshit. Stossel has even stated this. He used to go after companies all the time, and he was heralded by liberals. But when he was running out of companies to go after, he said he went looking for the worst examples of waste and corruption. Guess where he found it? In the government. So when he started going after shitty government programs that were wasting money when meanwhile the private equivalents were doing exceedingly well, suddenly he's labeled by the liberal media as a "conversative." I mean, he's citing actual examples and facts here, but still he gets accused of being partisan instead of just being factual.
It's silly.
"Dude," nobody's denying that Disney refused to distribute the film. But guess what? Disney told Moore they wouldn't distribute it as far back as last year.
NONE of your links showed Eisner or anybody from Disney stating that the reason they refused distribution was for tax breaks, which was what the guy was asking for. Guess who first brought up this claim? Michael Moore, stirring up more self-promotional controversy days before Cannes.
Guess when Moore suddenly decided to start whining about Disney's refusal in press releases, a whole year after being told the fact? Days before the Cannes film festival.
Yawn.
They're charging on value. Not how much space the game happens to take up in a standard GBA cartridge. What the hell does filesize matter?
Myst doesn't take up the whole CD it sits on, yet I was charged $50 back in the day, and even after Riven came out on DVD, Myst was still around $20.