Ok, apparently you're a FUCKING IDIOT, because the first (well, third, after drivers) thing I did after reinstalling XP was installing Firefox and disable IE.
Can I remove it? Well, no. Can I disable it and render it as impotent as you on a Saturday night? Well, yes. Well, nearly. It's at least still there.
Name-calling does not make your argument stronger. Though, I can understand why you would be tempted. You have a very weak argument.
Please tell me how you "disabled" IE... even when it's there? Yeah - you're running Firefox when you manually web browse. But what do you think all the libraries and components that make up "IE" are doing intertwined with your OS? Do you think Windows doesn't make use of those libraries? Do you think third party applications don't?
And even as I typed my comment... I knew some Windows fanboy troll would prove my point. Thank you, sir, for providing a prime example of not getting it.:P
You make a good point but...this has always happened between innovative companies and their competition. It is part of doing buisness. It is good to give the credit to Apple, but most people do not want to be hindered by proprietaty hardware. I think even PC users will agree that OS X is better than Windows, but it's limitations are not worth using Macs.
Keep in mind that it is Microsoft that likes to push "innovation" as something unique to Microsoft's environment. They use the term to induce fear of Open Source and they use it when comparing themselves to other competitors. It may be unfair to say Microsoft does not innovate at all. However, Microsoft is just as dependent on the environment around them for ideas as everyone else is. Much of what Microsoft does is not new and not innovation.
I do agree with your second statement. I believe that is where a lot of the Mac crowd's disdain comes from. Macs have a history of providing a truely unique and arguably superior environment to the market. Yet they were not market leaders. Little wonder Mac fans get irate.
A side note - Apple lost because IBM lost. When IBM lost control of its platform and it became a commodity hardware base, it was trouble for proprietary hardware outfits like Apple. What we're watching now is (possibly) the same market shift with software (and more specifically the OS).
BTW, isn't the Slashdot mentality great? Poor driver support for Linux: "Broadcom/ATI/whoever Is The Devil." Poor driver support for Windows: "Vista Beta 2 has Major Problems." Go Figure.
It seems to me that this is a little bit of "shoe on the other foot" treatment. Granted - the value is limited. It shows that Windows is no proof against hardware; that it's not Microsoft's work but rather hardware manufacturer support that is key here. The lesson is probably wasted on Windows fanboys. As soon as Vista comes pre-installed and all the work is done by OEMs to get it working on a particular given platform, it will be back to "Linux sucks - Windows just works."
I'm puzzled, there has been some speculation of Google working on Flash ads support, but I didn't expect videos to make it before Flash.
It's not speculation - it's a reality. Google has already began serving Flash animated ads. I don't know if they still do or not - I began to block them as soon as the first one showed up.
Side note - that ad was for Burger King. The fact that I remember this might be proof that the ad worked. However, the fact that I now immediately associate "Burger King" with "crappy advertising" rather than food might also be telling (I also noted they're jumping on the MySpace / FOX TV show download marketing scheme - and you thought McDonald's was desperate).
So how do you suppose extradition treaties should work? "Sure - you can come in and grab our citizens". Or do you not believe there are common grounds in law on which friendly countries can cooperate? Would you have a boarding pass for an international flight become a license to steal?
I don't care how good this "hacker" guy was. Yes, perhaps he should be punished, but if he was able to get at systems that are critical to national security at all, regardless of the means he used, then clearly someone in the military isn't doing his job. I think the people in charge in the military, who have a duty (unlike this UK civilian) to safeguard the American public, should be punished more severely.
It's a good point... but keep in mind that, despite what McKinnon would have us believe, I don't see any official claim these systems were critical. That doesn't mean his actions didn't cost time, effort, and perhaps equipment replacement. The damages are (arguably) real. The impact probably less so. For example... Building 8... not a super-secret, secure facility; a very unlikely storage facility for UFO evidence.
The thing is, he didn't find some box sitting in Bldg 8 of JSC available to the public Internet where he managed to log in and install RemotelyAnywhere (based on details in his interviews and court documents). To get to those systems, he had to make use of network trusts from other networks (again - interviews and court documents). Granted - getting a toehold may have involved taking advantage of lax security on a public system. But once he began jumping from box to box... installing software to do so... the exercise goes beyond innocent browsing.
The ODF spec only briefly refers to this issue at all. IIRC it permits apps to do this perservation, but does not require it or provide any facilities to support it. If apps aren't required to preserve your markup, then in my view it's not much darn good - it's somewhat like saying that apps may preserve your document text and structure. OpenOffice doesn't preserve foreign markup at all. If it's not directly in the ODF spec, you can't use it. This really loses one of the great advantages that XML has, and is very disappointing.
My (admittedly very limited) understanding is that this protects the standard from embrace-and-extend tactics. This prevents one from claiming compatibility with the standard while making key functionality dependent on obscured, proprietary data tucked away in non-standard markup. Granted - such intentional limitation can be a double-edged sword.
Leaving conspiracy theories aside for a second, isn't it just as interesting and worth commenting on that several American military administrator users that are accessible over the internet aren't password protected...
The guy didn't just stumble on a public service available to the general Internet which just happened to be a workstation for the imaging department located in Building 8 of JSC. The attack would have to have been more complex. Its not outside the realm of possibility that he did ultimately find a workstation for the imaging group in Building 8 while scanning for default accounts (I would like to hear how he managed to target specific hosts for that group in that building). But its a little naive to suggest that doing so was a simple mistake.
As for the degree of vulnerability of these networks... the devil's in the details. I agree that many of these networks have been far more vulnerable then they should be (it should be noted there has been improvements over the years). But again - such a trivial attack would require some degree of luck in stumbling on the right trusts that get you to your target. Networks of these sizes may offer that kind of luck. But one really needs more detail, and knowledge of the environment, to be able to tell if what he claims was in fact possible (or even happened).
I know we're discarding the conspiracy theories and whatnot here... but I can't help but detect a pattern. All claims made should be met with a healthy degree of skepticism - especially in light of a decided lack of proof or detail.
"The cat got butchered, but it has spawned a cottage industry," said the device's inventor, J. Hutton Pulitzer, who now operates a patent holding company in Dallas. Mr. Pulitzer (who changed his name in recent years from J. Jovan Philyaw) laments that he let himself get swept up in the Wall Street frenzy of the late 1990s. "Hindsight is just that," he said. "You can't do anything about it."
It should be noted that this minor "cottage industry" success appeared despite efforts to the contrary by Mr. Philyaw (or whatever name he calls himself now or the future). Referring to the device as "butchered" is telling.
As an aside, it's interesting that he now operates a "patent holding company" and changed his name. Even more so is his choice of name. The guy's a class act all the way.
I really liked Webvan. But I suspect it was doomed - even without the complexities of building your own logistics infrastructure.
I probably was a prime candidate for Webvan. But I really didn't like the idea of letting someone else pick out my perishables (meat, produce, etc.). So I never even thought of hitting their site. Then, in a particularly busy month, the family car broke down. We were out a car while it was in repair and by the time I got home from work - it was very late. So my wife made a quick grocery order via Webvan. Nothing big. Just enough to pad out the groceries until we could make a real run. And the service was great. The produce was top-notch. And soon the majority of our groceries came via Webvan.
But despite this - I just don't see that many other people giving them the chance. And without that, you're certainly not going to pay off that expensive logistics infrastructure.
Show me your great-great-great grandparents' legal/signed/stamped/approved immigration papers. Either that, or get the fuck out.
The legal status of my family's immigration has no bearing on the issue. But nice rhetoric.
Oh, I am sure the OP could have _said_ "illegal" were that their POV. Think, dumbass.
Wal-Mart did not face charges and fines over hiring immigrants. There was no big scandal over Wal-Mart's willingness to hire other-than-naturalized-citizens, people with work visas, etc. The issue was over employees who were in the country in violation of immigration law. You may disagree with that law. Fine. But no amount of rhetoric or emotional outbursts will change the fact.
And if the OP really did mean "immigrant", then they are actually quite wrong.
No. I mean illegal immigrants. The term "un-documented residents" is the nice, politically correct, soft-sell term. Anyone forgetting or substituting the "illegal" part is trying to make this an issue about immigration itself.
Slashdotters -- where is your integrity? Where is your will to be honest, to follow through on what you agree to, to do without something that it would be dishonest or illegal to take without paying for?
My will to be honest and follow through with what I've agreed to was sold out with my eroding rights and other shenanigans pulled in the name of marketing and profit. It has evaporated inversely with the increase in things I have "agreed to" sight unseen.
A thread that talks about the hassles a paying customer has to go through just to use the product they've paid for makes a rather poor base for a tirade on morality. It also does little to back up your tirade about capitalism. Capitalism does not demand that the customer be an unwitting pawn sacrificed to profit. Capitalism ultimately serves the consumer; those who do so reaps rewards for their effort. Since you like to use platitudes - let's simplify it as such: the customer is always right.
Because pure-"Bayesian" analysis of spam routinely gets 95%+ accuracy, which if we're not talking about the content of any specific message but are trying to measure trends between time periods is plenty good enough.
Yes - I'm sure mood can easily be interpreted with Bayesian analysis. Human communication isn't much more complex than spam, after all.
Quick exercise to the reader - was that earnest or sarcasm?
Cool idea though. I'm sure there is some degree of analysis that can be done. It'd be interesting to see how specific the application would have to be to get any degree of accuracy.
Great. Humans already have trouble interpreting the tone of electronic messages. On top of that, let's have some algorithm tack on the subtle clues so necessary for proper interpretation of human communication. After all, computers have already shown a bang-up track record dealing with Human languages.
Cool project though. Hilarity will undoubtedly ensue.
Microsoft effects them at thier home and work, while Cisco only effects them at work and then in a very limited way. If you want to see network manufacturers treated the same way microsoft just look at linksys or belkin, and they just are primarily for home use.
Alright - let's take Belkin and Linksys as examples. Where's the big uproar over how either Belkin or Linksys is evil? Sure - they've done some evil things. And people have called them on those things. But it is hardly the same degree of criticism Microsoft faces.
It should be noted that Cisco has the potential to affect more people than Microsoft. With more and more applications being networked, almost anything you do touches Cisco kit. The fact that it isn't apparent is partially due to the nature of the market Cisco is in - but also due to Cisco respecting it (for the most part). The same SHOULD be said for Microsoft... but instead they are noted as being "evil".
As another example one need only look at IBM. They use to be the flak receivers of the tech world, and where present in all aspects of work and probably at home. Now since about the only place you see them is at work and in small amounts they are kind of the darlings of the tech world, and they have not changed in actions from the days when they were the big evil computer company.
If you don't think IBM has changed, you've been missing a good 10 years of IT history. That doesn't mean IBM is all softy and cuddly now days. But there has been considerable change from when they absolutely dominated the industry.
You do bring up the interesting point of consumer perception. How the general consumer public views Microsoft has been changing over the years. Its something that's been building up for years now. But it is not the source of their problems. It is a symptom of a situation that has gotten well out of hand.
The general public are generally ignorant of any given involved subject. IT is a fairly confusing field to the consumer; something that easily overwhelms the neophyte. The average consumer is glad to glom on to something that works for them. And they're likely to stick with it as long as possible (or that thing no longer works for them). But they will listen to the advice of trusted techies who do understand the sordid details of technology (or at least sound like they do).
Consumers don't know much about Microsoft, IBM, Cisco, Linksys, or Belkin. And as such - it is not the average consumer sitting at home that's pushing the "evil" meme. But if they keep getting that meme from their trusted advisors, they are likely to hold on to it themselves. For the "evil" meme to have picked up enough momentum to have jumped from techies to non-techies, you have a public relations issue that has long past gained critical mass. And that critical mass was generated among the working tech crowd - not the home computer user.
Slashdot Mirror
Name-calling does not make your argument stronger. Though, I can understand why you would be tempted. You have a very weak argument.
Please tell me how you "disabled" IE... even when it's there? Yeah - you're running Firefox when you manually web browse. But what do you think all the libraries and components that make up "IE" are doing intertwined with your OS? Do you think Windows doesn't make use of those libraries? Do you think third party applications don't?
Yet your computer that "just works" doesn't always "just work". But hey - like I said... the lesson is lost. Pity.
And even as I typed my comment... I knew some Windows fanboy troll would prove my point. Thank you, sir, for providing a prime example of not getting it. :P
Keep in mind that it is Microsoft that likes to push "innovation" as something unique to Microsoft's environment. They use the term to induce fear of Open Source and they use it when comparing themselves to other competitors. It may be unfair to say Microsoft does not innovate at all. However, Microsoft is just as dependent on the environment around them for ideas as everyone else is. Much of what Microsoft does is not new and not innovation.
I do agree with your second statement. I believe that is where a lot of the Mac crowd's disdain comes from. Macs have a history of providing a truely unique and arguably superior environment to the market. Yet they were not market leaders. Little wonder Mac fans get irate.
A side note - Apple lost because IBM lost. When IBM lost control of its platform and it became a commodity hardware base, it was trouble for proprietary hardware outfits like Apple. What we're watching now is (possibly) the same market shift with software (and more specifically the OS).
It seems to me that this is a little bit of "shoe on the other foot" treatment. Granted - the value is limited. It shows that Windows is no proof against hardware; that it's not Microsoft's work but rather hardware manufacturer support that is key here. The lesson is probably wasted on Windows fanboys. As soon as Vista comes pre-installed and all the work is done by OEMs to get it working on a particular given platform, it will be back to "Linux sucks - Windows just works."
It's not speculation - it's a reality. Google has already began serving Flash animated ads. I don't know if they still do or not - I began to block them as soon as the first one showed up.
Side note - that ad was for Burger King. The fact that I remember this might be proof that the ad worked. However, the fact that I now immediately associate "Burger King" with "crappy advertising" rather than food might also be telling (I also noted they're jumping on the MySpace / FOX TV show download marketing scheme - and you thought McDonald's was desperate).
The applications listed by the parent poster you replied to... all Windows apps. This is not a "Linux" discussion.
Nice side discussion, though.
So how do you suppose extradition treaties should work? "Sure - you can come in and grab our citizens". Or do you not believe there are common grounds in law on which friendly countries can cooperate? Would you have a boarding pass for an international flight become a license to steal?
It's a good point... but keep in mind that, despite what McKinnon would have us believe, I don't see any official claim these systems were critical. That doesn't mean his actions didn't cost time, effort, and perhaps equipment replacement. The damages are (arguably) real. The impact probably less so. For example... Building 8... not a super-secret, secure facility; a very unlikely storage facility for UFO evidence.
The thing is, he didn't find some box sitting in Bldg 8 of JSC available to the public Internet where he managed to log in and install RemotelyAnywhere (based on details in his interviews and court documents). To get to those systems, he had to make use of network trusts from other networks (again - interviews and court documents). Granted - getting a toehold may have involved taking advantage of lax security on a public system. But once he began jumping from box to box... installing software to do so... the exercise goes beyond innocent browsing.
My (admittedly very limited) understanding is that this protects the standard from embrace-and-extend tactics. This prevents one from claiming compatibility with the standard while making key functionality dependent on obscured, proprietary data tucked away in non-standard markup. Granted - such intentional limitation can be a double-edged sword.
The guy didn't just stumble on a public service available to the general Internet which just happened to be a workstation for the imaging department located in Building 8 of JSC. The attack would have to have been more complex. Its not outside the realm of possibility that he did ultimately find a workstation for the imaging group in Building 8 while scanning for default accounts (I would like to hear how he managed to target specific hosts for that group in that building). But its a little naive to suggest that doing so was a simple mistake.
As for the degree of vulnerability of these networks... the devil's in the details. I agree that many of these networks have been far more vulnerable then they should be (it should be noted there has been improvements over the years). But again - such a trivial attack would require some degree of luck in stumbling on the right trusts that get you to your target. Networks of these sizes may offer that kind of luck. But one really needs more detail, and knowledge of the environment, to be able to tell if what he claims was in fact possible (or even happened).
I know we're discarding the conspiracy theories and whatnot here... but I can't help but detect a pattern. All claims made should be met with a healthy degree of skepticism - especially in light of a decided lack of proof or detail.
It should be noted that this minor "cottage industry" success appeared despite efforts to the contrary by Mr. Philyaw (or whatever name he calls himself now or the future). Referring to the device as "butchered" is telling.
As an aside, it's interesting that he now operates a "patent holding company" and changed his name. Even more so is his choice of name. The guy's a class act all the way.
I really liked Webvan. But I suspect it was doomed - even without the complexities of building your own logistics infrastructure.
I probably was a prime candidate for Webvan. But I really didn't like the idea of letting someone else pick out my perishables (meat, produce, etc.). So I never even thought of hitting their site. Then, in a particularly busy month, the family car broke down. We were out a car while it was in repair and by the time I got home from work - it was very late. So my wife made a quick grocery order via Webvan. Nothing big. Just enough to pad out the groceries until we could make a real run. And the service was great. The produce was top-notch. And soon the majority of our groceries came via Webvan.
But despite this - I just don't see that many other people giving them the chance. And without that, you're certainly not going to pay off that expensive logistics infrastructure.
Just because the NSA is listening to you, doesn't mean they're gonna make your decisions for you.
(that's the job of Congress and industry trade groups)
The legal status of my family's immigration has no bearing on the issue. But nice rhetoric.
Wal-Mart did not face charges and fines over hiring immigrants. There was no big scandal over Wal-Mart's willingness to hire other-than-naturalized-citizens, people with work visas, etc. The issue was over employees who were in the country in violation of immigration law. You may disagree with that law. Fine. But no amount of rhetoric or emotional outbursts will change the fact.
And if the OP really did mean "immigrant", then they are actually quite wrong.
No. I mean illegal immigrants. The term "un-documented residents" is the nice, politically correct, soft-sell term. Anyone forgetting or substituting the "illegal" part is trying to make this an issue about immigration itself.
Just to nit-pick a bit, I believe you meant illegal immigrants.
Hey - glad to see someone else thinks less-than-highly of Nancy Grace. She strikes me as an educated idiot.
Is there a TV news agency that's NOT pandering to this brand of foolishness?
My will to be honest and follow through with what I've agreed to was sold out with my eroding rights and other shenanigans pulled in the name of marketing and profit. It has evaporated inversely with the increase in things I have "agreed to" sight unseen.
A thread that talks about the hassles a paying customer has to go through just to use the product they've paid for makes a rather poor base for a tirade on morality. It also does little to back up your tirade about capitalism. Capitalism does not demand that the customer be an unwitting pawn sacrificed to profit. Capitalism ultimately serves the consumer; those who do so reaps rewards for their effort. Since you like to use platitudes - let's simplify it as such: the customer is always right.
Yes - I'm sure mood can easily be interpreted with Bayesian analysis. Human communication isn't much more complex than spam, after all.
Quick exercise to the reader - was that earnest or sarcasm?
Cool idea though. I'm sure there is some degree of analysis that can be done. It'd be interesting to see how specific the application would have to be to get any degree of accuracy.
Friday - Mood: In Love
Hair: Flock of Seagulls
Great. Humans already have trouble interpreting the tone of electronic messages. On top of that, let's have some algorithm tack on the subtle clues so necessary for proper interpretation of human communication. After all, computers have already shown a bang-up track record dealing with Human languages.
Cool project though. Hilarity will undoubtedly ensue.
3) Claim that you told Edgar to do it... knowing full well that Edgar is dead.
Alright - let's take Belkin and Linksys as examples. Where's the big uproar over how either Belkin or Linksys is evil? Sure - they've done some evil things. And people have called them on those things. But it is hardly the same degree of criticism Microsoft faces.
It should be noted that Cisco has the potential to affect more people than Microsoft. With more and more applications being networked, almost anything you do touches Cisco kit. The fact that it isn't apparent is partially due to the nature of the market Cisco is in - but also due to Cisco respecting it (for the most part). The same SHOULD be said for Microsoft... but instead they are noted as being "evil".
If you don't think IBM has changed, you've been missing a good 10 years of IT history. That doesn't mean IBM is all softy and cuddly now days. But there has been considerable change from when they absolutely dominated the industry.
You do bring up the interesting point of consumer perception. How the general consumer public views Microsoft has been changing over the years. Its something that's been building up for years now. But it is not the source of their problems. It is a symptom of a situation that has gotten well out of hand.
The general public are generally ignorant of any given involved subject. IT is a fairly confusing field to the consumer; something that easily overwhelms the neophyte. The average consumer is glad to glom on to something that works for them. And they're likely to stick with it as long as possible (or that thing no longer works for them). But they will listen to the advice of trusted techies who do understand the sordid details of technology (or at least sound like they do).
Consumers don't know much about Microsoft, IBM, Cisco, Linksys, or Belkin. And as such - it is not the average consumer sitting at home that's pushing the "evil" meme. But if they keep getting that meme from their trusted advisors, they are likely to hold on to it themselves. For the "evil" meme to have picked up enough momentum to have jumped from techies to non-techies, you have a public relations issue that has long past gained critical mass. And that critical mass was generated among the working tech crowd - not the home computer user.