Ya'll complain that Microsoft doesn't care about security, but when they release a MASSIVE security patch, you try to find (and if that fails, fabricate) any and all tiny inconveniences it causes.
As others here have pointed out, it doesn't block ALL outbound TCP connections, just incomplete ones. Would it kill an editor to come out and say for once that "Microsoft did a pretty good job here."?
If you were a criminal looking to jack up some guy for his wallet, would you think twice if it was very likely that the guy was carying a firearm? I know I would!
In areas like Washington D.C., which has some of the toughest gun laws in the state (and not coincidentally the highest rate of violent crime), law-abiding citizens have been disarmed and are at the mercy of armed criminals.
When you allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms, you take a HUGE advantage away from the criminals.
Now I'm not saying I think children should be packing heat in school, but the concept of an armed populace as a crime deterrant is hardly self-contradictory.
I downloaded a small XP hotfix the other day that had something to do with wireless network security, and it now seems to require me to manually connect to my wireless network with my WEP key. Before the patch, my machine would connect automagically, using the stored key.
I kind of liked it that way though. Perhaps I'm not as security-conscious as some, but I don't really like having to manually connect my laptop to my wireless network.
Has anyone else run into this? Is this dealt with in the SP2 update?
It's about some cowboys and some mining prospectors who are feudin' over some land, shoot a bunch of each other, and then they all get rich when they find gold. Everyone goes YAHOO, beacuse now they don't have to work or fight anymore. They eventually start a COMmunity together and prosper.
Once I publish my book, I'll be filing the necessary legal paperwork.
How long has this vulnerability been in libpng? It's easy to claim that Linux has zero-hour responses to bugs when you announce vulnerabilities after they're patched, but what I'd like to know is how long this has been a problem.
Correct me if I'm wrong here, but this doesn't sound real efficient. Here's how I'm seeing the system load being broken down (real simple breakdown):
1. system resources required to run modern OS and background processes
2. system resources required to run the emulator
3. system resources to run processes via the emulator.
So basically the emulator route would use roughly 2-3x the system resources compared to just running the original hardware/software. Would this really be cheaper/more efficient than just keeping the old stuff until it is replaced with a modern system?
I may be feeding a disgruntled troll here, but here goes:
"Yeah, but software patents aren't helping thinkers to eat. They're helping businesses stamp out competition from those with less money."
That's a result of piss-poor enforcement of patent laws, not patents themself.
Like the grandparent poster said, why would the 'littke guy' want to share their discovery if, in all likelihood, a corporation with more capital and marketing clout could take that idea, leverage it for profit, and leave the little guy with nothing to show for his hard work. There needs to be a system that lets the little guy profit from their work.
Now by no means do I praise what the patent system has become. However there needs to be a real tangible incentive for innovation (REAL innovation, not the bullshit that makes up a good part of Amazon.com's business model), with protections in place to prevent abuse of the system.
"If you buy a car, nobody expects you to apply patches to the brakes every other week to keep them working."
But of course there's a certain level of maintenance that is required to keep a car running.
And let's be clear on another thing. Windows doesn't easily break on its own due to "wear and tear" like a car does (not since ME anyway). When Windows breaks, it's generally because of the actions of someone like this worm creator.
To put that in the context of your car analogy, it is the same as somebody pouring sugar into the gas tank. That's called vandalism, which (now that I think about it) pretty accurately describes what worm/virus writers do to other people's computers.
"Could the teenager foresee the results of his action?"
In this case, I believe the worms' author was very well aware of the damage they were capable of causing, and they did exactly what they were intended to do. For that he bears the majority share of responsibility.
I would only blame Microsoft a little. Afterall, there were patches for the vulnerabilities these worms exploited long before they were released into the wild. If anyone shares blame with the worms' author, it's the lazy/incompetant sysadmins who didn't properly secure their systems.
And say what you will about Windows, but personally I haven't had any problems with worms or viruses because I keep my system patched and am smart about suspicious e-mails.
Easy one: the teenager. If not for the fact of the teenager lighting that firecracker, the bridge wouldn't have collapsed.
Regardless of how lazy people are when it comes to keeping their machines patched (there were patches for this particular vulnerability long before these worms came out), it doesn't excuse the actions of the person who actually caused the damage. Just as a burglar isn't excused if the doors of the house they rob are unlocked.
What are we to think of Google now that they are becoming a publicly traded for-profit corporate conglomerate? Instead of serving the anti-establishment community, they have become the establishment, serving only rich white guys with stock prices out of reach of the common man! They have become everything that Slashdot hates!
Comparing tape-to-tape copying with CD-ripping/P2P is apples/oranges.
There is a definite cost to illegally mass-distributing music by making multiple copies of a cassette. You'd have to buy a TON of blank tapes (not cheap). You'd only be able to make one copy at a time. You'd need a means to physically transport the copied tape to the recipient. All of that costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time to do.
On the other hand, today all you need is a PC, CD-ripping software, and P2P software like Kazaa.
There is virtually no cost associated with CD-to-P2P distribution (about 15 minutes to convert an entire album to.mp3). Therefore there is little to discourage people from engaging in illegal copyright violation.
And by no means am I a RIAA apologist. It's just that the RIAA is far more concerned about P2P than they were about cassettes because the threat to their (outdated) business model posed by P2P is much greater.
That's called treating the symptom, not the problem.
The problem is that entertainers (I refuse to call most of them "artists") are still signing contracts with the RIAA.
Any solution to the "P2P conflict" will have to center around getting entertainers to stop signing with the RIAA. Once that happens, the RIAA has absolutely no power over the entertainer and the means they choose to distribute their music.
Good job spotting that troll. It's funny when the tinfoil hats come out and theorize that X game company is in bed with A, B, and C company to sell overpriced hardware.
And besides, everybody knows that iD is conspiring with Alienware!:)
"The US has by far the highest p/c GDP of any of these countries, and is certainly rich enough to pay for it if they wanted"
So what? What about the people who don't want or have no use for broadband Internet access? Why should the be forced to pay for a service they don't need?
Ya see, that's the beauty of capitalism. You get to buy the stuff you want, and don't have to pay for things you don't need. It's sad that we're abandoning that philosophy in favor of a socialistic parental government.
Slashdot Mirror
...even if it isn't true.
Ya'll complain that Microsoft doesn't care about security, but when they release a MASSIVE security patch, you try to find (and if that fails, fabricate) any and all tiny inconveniences it causes.
As others here have pointed out, it doesn't block ALL outbound TCP connections, just incomplete ones. Would it kill an editor to come out and say for once that "Microsoft did a pretty good job here."?
And no, I'm not new here.
If you're going to sum it up like that, at least be fair and mention that it comes with free Internet access.
In areas like Washington D.C., which has some of the toughest gun laws in the state (and not coincidentally the highest rate of violent crime), law-abiding citizens have been disarmed and are at the mercy of armed criminals.
When you allow law-abiding citizens to carry firearms, you take a HUGE advantage away from the criminals.
Now I'm not saying I think children should be packing heat in school, but the concept of an armed populace as a crime deterrant is hardly self-contradictory.
I kind of liked it that way though. Perhaps I'm not as security-conscious as some, but I don't really like having to manually connect my laptop to my wireless network.
Has anyone else run into this? Is this dealt with in the SP2 update?
How so?
I don't suppose you'd care to back this ridiculous claim up with some facts.
But who would IBM send the letter to? It's not like there's a "Linux Inc." entity that deals with matters concerning Linux, including litigation.
Once I publish my book, I'll be filing the necessary legal paperwork.
How long has this vulnerability been in libpng? It's easy to claim that Linux has zero-hour responses to bugs when you announce vulnerabilities after they're patched, but what I'd like to know is how long this has been a problem.
1. system resources required to run modern OS and background processes
2. system resources required to run the emulator
3. system resources to run processes via the emulator.
So basically the emulator route would use roughly 2-3x the system resources compared to just running the original hardware/software. Would this really be cheaper/more efficient than just keeping the old stuff until it is replaced with a modern system?
"Yeah, but software patents aren't helping thinkers to eat. They're helping businesses stamp out competition from those with less money."
That's a result of piss-poor enforcement of patent laws, not patents themself.
Like the grandparent poster said, why would the 'littke guy' want to share their discovery if, in all likelihood, a corporation with more capital and marketing clout could take that idea, leverage it for profit, and leave the little guy with nothing to show for his hard work. There needs to be a system that lets the little guy profit from their work.
Now by no means do I praise what the patent system has become. However there needs to be a real tangible incentive for innovation (REAL innovation, not the bullshit that makes up a good part of Amazon.com's business model), with protections in place to prevent abuse of the system.
The French turned out to be much more clever than we all gave them credit for.
But of course there's a certain level of maintenance that is required to keep a car running.
And let's be clear on another thing. Windows doesn't easily break on its own due to "wear and tear" like a car does (not since ME anyway). When Windows breaks, it's generally because of the actions of someone like this worm creator.
To put that in the context of your car analogy, it is the same as somebody pouring sugar into the gas tank. That's called vandalism, which (now that I think about it) pretty accurately describes what worm/virus writers do to other people's computers.
In this case, I believe the worms' author was very well aware of the damage they were capable of causing, and they did exactly what they were intended to do. For that he bears the majority share of responsibility.
I would only blame Microsoft a little. Afterall, there were patches for the vulnerabilities these worms exploited long before they were released into the wild. If anyone shares blame with the worms' author, it's the lazy/incompetant sysadmins who didn't properly secure their systems.
And say what you will about Windows, but personally I haven't had any problems with worms or viruses because I keep my system patched and am smart about suspicious e-mails.
Regardless of how lazy people are when it comes to keeping their machines patched (there were patches for this particular vulnerability long before these worms came out), it doesn't excuse the actions of the person who actually caused the damage. Just as a burglar isn't excused if the doors of the house they rob are unlocked.
What are we to think of Google now that they are becoming a publicly traded for-profit corporate conglomerate? Instead of serving the anti-establishment community, they have become the establishment, serving only rich white guys with stock prices out of reach of the common man! They have become everything that Slashdot hates!
This guy wrote the worms. He is directly responsible for 100% of the damage they caused.
I'd say people are justified to be angry at him.
Just wait. This could get real (no pun intended) bitter.
There is a definite cost to illegally mass-distributing music by making multiple copies of a cassette. You'd have to buy a TON of blank tapes (not cheap). You'd only be able to make one copy at a time. You'd need a means to physically transport the copied tape to the recipient. All of that costs a lot of money and takes a lot of time to do.
On the other hand, today all you need is a PC, CD-ripping software, and P2P software like Kazaa.
There is virtually no cost associated with CD-to-P2P distribution (about 15 minutes to convert an entire album to .mp3). Therefore there is little to discourage people from engaging in illegal copyright violation.
And by no means am I a RIAA apologist. It's just that the RIAA is far more concerned about P2P than they were about cassettes because the threat to their (outdated) business model posed by P2P is much greater.
The problem is that entertainers (I refuse to call most of them "artists") are still signing contracts with the RIAA.
Any solution to the "P2P conflict" will have to center around getting entertainers to stop signing with the RIAA. Once that happens, the RIAA has absolutely no power over the entertainer and the means they choose to distribute their music.
That may all be true, but it still doesn't explain the "invasive" charge.
And besides, everybody knows that iD is conspiring with Alienware! :)
And how does one prove that's been done?
The short answer is that you can't. And I think it's fair to say that people haven't earned the benefit of the doubt. Hence we have "draconian" EULAs.
Slashdotters and other theft apologists have nobody but themselves to blame.
Your confusion is understandable. Government control is good on Tuesdays and Thursdays, bad on Mondays and Wednesdays, and Friday is for anarchists.
So what? What about the people who don't want or have no use for broadband Internet access? Why should the be forced to pay for a service they don't need?
Ya see, that's the beauty of capitalism. You get to buy the stuff you want, and don't have to pay for things you don't need. It's sad that we're abandoning that philosophy in favor of a socialistic parental government.