They had the patch ready months before a potential exploit became reality - the idiot system administrators who do not read security advisories are to blame.
You can't blame many of them for not applying patches. Patches are typically contained in a self-extracting executable which when executed can overwrite many of your system dll's and change many of your hard-earned settings. This breaks applications, and there's no way you can know for sure exactly what the patch touches.
On Linux, you can view the patch source code and get explicit instructions about what it fixes and why. You don't get huge exe's with hidden agendas . You just get the patch ma'am.
Ernie Ball is pretty much known as a musician's buddy. How does it feel to be a technology guru, as well? The myth has been built so big that you can't survive without Microsoft. I think it's great for me to be a technology influence. It shows how ridiculous it is that I can get press because I switched to OpenOffice. And the reason why is because the myth has been built so big that you can't survive without Microsoft, so that somebody who does get by without Microsoft is a story.
It's just software. You have to figure out what you need to do within your organization and then get the right stuff for that. And we're not a backwards organization. We're progressive; we've won communications and design awards...The fact that I'm not sending my e-mail through Outlook doesn't hinder us. It's just kind of funny. I'm speaking to a standing-room-only audience at a major technology show because I use a different piece of software--that's hysterical....
Look, when you've got Windows 98 not being supported, NT not being supported, OS/2 not being supported--if you're a decision maker in the IT field, you need to be able to look at Linux as something that's going to continue to be supported. It's a major consideration when you're making those decisions.
Has Microsoft tried to win you back?
Microsoft is a growing business with $49 billion in the bank. What do they care about me? If they cared about me, they wouldn't have approached me the way they did in the first place...And I'm glad they didn't try to get me back. I thank them for opening my eyes, because I'm definitely money ahead now and I'm definitely just as productive, and I don't have any problems communicating with my customers. So thank you, Microsoft.
-- end quote
Some great comments. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand the "free as in speech" of "free software":
"You see, I'm not in this just to get free software. No. 1, I don't think there's any such thing as free software. I think there's a cost in implementing all of it."
Nor does he say anything about contributing back to the open source community. But there's no question that open source has changed Ernie Ball's day to day operations and cut their expenses.
so logically unless Microsoft did something so horribly wrong that most users would prefer doing things a different way, make the command identical.
I agree with your reasoning, *except* they said replace existing commands. If they had said "augment" existing commands, I would have been satisfied. Right now, it sounds like the same thing with using some command with a cryptic command-line argument to replace ifconfig.
A new "net" command has been added. It is somewhat similar to
the "net" command in windows. Eventually we plan to replace
numerous other utilities (such as smbpasswd) with subcommands
in "net".
Why, oh why chunk everything into one huge and fumbly command? I find "net ???" on Windows to be a pain in the arse to use and usually end up going through several 'net help blah' sessions when looking for how to do something.
Keep smbpasswd separate. You can still chunk it by prefixing smb-related commands with "smb" (hit [tab] to see the list of commands and start with smb). Not good, or what? I think it's fine.
So basically when they say "We make sure that they get the information they need to fully and fairly investigate cases" between the lines they are saying that there is very little security to protect the personal information of their customers. They'll give it out for any reason to law enforcement officials. What a treasure trove.
One area where eBay has gotten consistently high marks is in collaborating with law enforcement.
"We treat law enforcement [agencies] like a customer," Chesnut says. "We make sure that they get the information they need to fully and fairly investigate cases." And eBay leverages its experience with serial auction fraud - like the Jay Nelson case - to try to figure out how it can prevent future occurrences.
"Resting on our laurels isn't something that crosses my mind," Chesnut says. "I'd sure like to have the reputation of being the worst place on the Internet to commit fraud, because we're going to come after you, and you will go to jail."
If they treat law enforcement as a "customer", then law inforcement must have a lot of unreturned emails and automated replies.
I challenge anyone to find a conspicous mention anywhere on the EBay site where you can phone and talk to someone about someone defrauding you money.
I've lost over $200 on EBay and have all the evidence in the world but EBay will not do anything about it or even acknowledge the problem by sending a human-generated response.
Is it me or is Homer's stupidity getting a little tiresome?
It's not just you. I haven't watched the Simpson's in about 2 years. It just sucks since they've made it darker and just stoop too low for the sake of "laughs". I'll laugh when it's gone.
Funny how shows start off great and then go to hell. Like "Friends". Whenever I hear something funny on that show, I turn my head and see that it's an older episode.
Is this some sort of FUD compaign by the United Tech Support Workers of America? Are they trying to turn the tables?
Whenever I call tech support, I'm almost always faced with some clueless script-reader who doesn't know how to use common sense to solve the problem. Or I get the "I don't know, good luck" answers. WTF.
This goes for anybody I have had to phone - not just tech support. You end up having to call back several times and take the "average" of all the answers. Each one insists that the others have lost it and that they are definitely right. Wooh!
Now if a regular user like I was going to write a huge interview like that, I would be sorely disappointed if the review were rejected. What's the motivation for me to go out and try to produce something so lengthy and in-depth?
Not only does he acknowledge that he wrote a bunch, but he knows that he doesn't know everything.
I like the part where he mentioned the huge asterisk when scientists say they "know" something. It always bothers me when people say scientists "know" things. That's obviously not true, in most cases. They only believe it to be true and have a finite set of cases which seem to agree. We as a human race redefine what we know every day.
Well ok, but can you measure space without referring to matter/energy? Does that mean that space only exists in our minds to differenciate pieces of matter?
Perhaps I can: space is a placeholder for matter. A finite amount of matter can fit within a finite amount of space. You can measure space with a ruler. Our perception of space would seem to be defined by the matter contained within it. To the computer analogy, space is RAM. Matter is bits stored in RAM. Maybe.:)
You can measure across time, and this measurement cannot be expressed in terms of other dimensions. It's not the same as spacial dimensions, but there is a time dimension.
There is, but only in our minds.
So what is "rate"? What is "speed"? Can you define both of these without referring to time?
Take the definitions of rate and speed and substitute the classical view of time with my view of time, and the definitions of the words still work. Does that make sense? Since my argument is that there is no such thing as time, the meaning gets a little deeper. Say a car is going 60 miles per hour. We can expand this sentence to "a car is going 60 miles per 5 billion resonances of a cesium atom".
Can you tell me how time is measured without referring to change?
How is the accuracy of an atomic clock calculated?
Can we detect time, or are we really detecting change?
If we are just being "timesliced," then an outside observer could exist in the same time dimension, but that's a very strange and specific case, and it doesn't really address how time works anyway. (because you haven't examined the underlying time dimension at all.)
There is no time dimension: time is our perception of change. Our most accurate clocks are based on the rate of decay of an atom, or the rate of spin of an electron. A wind-up clock simply runs at a speed that we have determined will keep a reasonable account of time relative to other clocks. Time does not really exist - but it is useful for us to think of "time".
What does exist is change caused by the operation of our universe. Those outside our system could measure the number of cycles our universe has run for. It's a simple quantity.
1) How can there be infinitely small if you have a definite endpoint (zero)? Plus, if you go too small the distance between mirrors will be less than the size of a photon, so how can light bounce back and forth any longer?
I'm not a scientist, but something tells me what is time can't be measured by us because we are inside whatever makes everything tick. Only those outside our system could measure the time inside our system. I would liken it to a computer program: it can't tell when it's being timesliced by the operating system, and it seems like it is running seamlessly, but it is not.
- cars don't last long enough to make switching styles too practical
- new technologies and better emission standards will require a base upgrade
- with the tight economy, can they afford to take costly gambles like this?
Whatever happened to flying cars anyway? Or automated cars? I want something that makes it quicker, easier, and safer for me to get to and from work every day.
Some people need to re-read my post. I would _never_ suggest omitting the server-side checks. I'm suggesting that bad data can be flagged to the user by javascript rather than more complex code on the server side which repopulates form elements, etc.. and presents the data the user has entered plus any error messages. That part is tedious. The data is still validated on the server side but handler code can be as simple as "you entered an invalid address". Period.
As one poster replied, Struts can do more complex repopulation work for you, if using Struts is an option to your project.
If Xforms allows the browser to verify fields, doesn't that mean we base our security on trusting the client?
My take on this: if you can validate on the client side, it saves you from having fancy (and tedious to write) code on the server side which repopulates the HTML page and allows the user to fix the problem. You still check for invalid data on the server side, but error messages can be curt and no repopulating forms BS.
All depends on what kind of site you're designing, of course.
Slashdot Mirror
Though I always make multiple copies of really important files, the brand of CDR is very important.
I have 8 year old Sony CDRs that still work perfectly. That's a brand I really trust for long term backups.
I also have had lots of ~6 month (or less) old Memorex CDRs and they've been extremely unreliable for me. I've sworn them off.
TDK's are cheap and what I usually use. No problems at all.
Congress*people* are human (I think) and as animals, humans do what they can to survive. Some methods might be more shallow than others.
Unfortunately, some of us humans are subject to punishment for breaking the law trying to survive, and some of us are not.
They had the patch ready months before a potential exploit became reality - the idiot system administrators who do not read security advisories are to blame.
You can't blame many of them for not applying patches. Patches are typically contained in a self-extracting executable which when executed can overwrite many of your system dll's and change many of your hard-earned settings. This breaks applications, and there's no way you can know for sure exactly what the patch touches.
On Linux, you can view the patch source code and get explicit instructions about what it fixes and why. You don't get huge exe's with hidden agendas . You just get the patch ma'am.
-- begin quote
...
Ernie Ball is pretty much known as a musician's buddy. How does it feel to be a technology guru, as well?
The myth has been built so big that you can't survive without Microsoft.
I think it's great for me to be a technology influence. It shows how ridiculous it is that I can get press because I switched to OpenOffice. And the reason why is because the myth has been built so big that you can't survive without Microsoft, so that somebody who does get by without Microsoft is a story.
It's just software. You have to figure out what you need to do within your organization and then get the right stuff for that. And we're not a backwards organization. We're progressive; we've won communications and design awards...The fact that I'm not sending my e-mail through Outlook doesn't hinder us. It's just kind of funny. I'm speaking to a standing-room-only audience at a major technology show because I use a different piece of software--that's hysterical.
Look, when you've got Windows 98 not being supported, NT not being supported, OS/2 not being supported--if you're a decision maker in the IT field, you need to be able to look at Linux as something that's going to continue to be supported. It's a major consideration when you're making those decisions.
Has Microsoft tried to win you back?
Microsoft is a growing business with $49 billion in the bank. What do they care about me? If they cared about me, they wouldn't have approached me the way they did in the first place...And I'm glad they didn't try to get me back. I thank them for opening my eyes, because I'm definitely money ahead now and I'm definitely just as productive, and I don't have any problems communicating with my customers. So thank you, Microsoft.
-- end quote
Some great comments. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to understand the "free as in speech" of "free software":
"You see, I'm not in this just to get free software. No. 1, I don't think there's any such thing as free software. I think there's a cost in implementing all of it."
Nor does he say anything about contributing back to the open source community. But there's no question that open source has changed Ernie Ball's day to day operations and cut their expenses.
so logically unless Microsoft did something so horribly wrong that most users would prefer doing things a different way, make the command identical.
I agree with your reasoning, *except* they said replace existing commands. If they had said "augment" existing commands, I would have been satisfied. Right now, it sounds like the same thing with using some command with a cryptic command-line argument to replace ifconfig.
Why, oh why chunk everything into one huge and fumbly command? I find "net ???" on Windows to be a pain in the arse to use and usually end up going through several 'net help blah' sessions when looking for how to do something.
Keep smbpasswd separate. You can still chunk it by prefixing smb-related commands with "smb" (hit [tab] to see the list of commands and start with smb). Not good, or what? I think it's fine.
So basically when they say "We make sure that they get the information they need to fully and fairly investigate cases" between the lines they are saying that there is very little security to protect the personal information of their customers. They'll give it out for any reason to law enforcement officials. What a treasure trove.
If they treat law enforcement as a "customer", then law inforcement must have a lot of unreturned emails and automated replies.
I challenge anyone to find a conspicous mention anywhere on the EBay site where you can phone and talk to someone about someone defrauding you money.
I've lost over $200 on EBay and have all the evidence in the world but EBay will not do anything about it or even acknowledge the problem by sending a human-generated response.
Obviously, something is wrong here. Hardware rendering should always be faster than software rendering, if the hardware is being used properly.
In the stuff I've done, I'd guess a factor of 4 increase in speed at least.
Is it me or is Homer's stupidity getting a little tiresome?
It's not just you. I haven't watched the Simpson's in about 2 years. It just sucks since they've made it darker and just stoop too low for the sake of "laughs". I'll laugh when it's gone.
Funny how shows start off great and then go to hell. Like "Friends". Whenever I hear something funny on that show, I turn my head and see that it's an older episode.
In summary, it is awesome and will scare the crap out of your dog.
Ahh, quit blowing smoke up my ass.
Said the dog.
Is this some sort of FUD compaign by the United Tech Support Workers of America? Are they trying to turn the tables?
Whenever I call tech support, I'm almost always faced with some clueless script-reader who doesn't know how to use common sense to solve the problem. Or I get the "I don't know, good luck" answers. WTF.
This goes for anybody I have had to phone - not just tech support. You end up having to call back several times and take the "average" of all the answers. Each one insists that the others have lost it and that they are definitely right. Wooh!
I agree, this interview is outstanding.
Now if a regular user like I was going to write a huge interview like that, I would be sorely disappointed if the review were rejected. What's the motivation for me to go out and try to produce something so lengthy and in-depth?
Not only does he acknowledge that he wrote a bunch, but he knows that he doesn't know everything.
I like the part where he mentioned the huge asterisk when scientists say they "know" something. It always bothers me when people say scientists "know" things. That's obviously not true, in most cases. They only believe it to be true and have a finite set of cases which seem to agree. We as a human race redefine what we know every day.
The universe is being restarted. Please save your work.
The universe has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down.
It is now safe to turn off your universe.
That's a real mind bender now! Thanks. I think I'll just ponder your questions for awhile and refine my ideas about time... or finally give in.
To the computer analogy, time is the CPU, and change is the instructions executed on it.
Well said! Is there time? I'd appreciate a conclusion if you have one. My head hurts.
Well ok, but can you measure space without referring to matter/energy? Does that mean that space only exists in our minds to differenciate pieces of matter?
:)
Perhaps I can: space is a placeholder for matter. A finite amount of matter can fit within a finite amount of space. You can measure space with a ruler. Our perception of space would seem to be defined by the matter contained within it. To the computer analogy, space is RAM. Matter is bits stored in RAM. Maybe.
You can measure across time, and this measurement cannot be expressed in terms of other dimensions. It's not the same as spacial dimensions, but there is a time dimension.
There is, but only in our minds.
So what is "rate"? What is "speed"? Can you define both of these without referring to time?
Take the definitions of rate and speed and substitute the classical view of time with my view of time, and the definitions of the words still work. Does that make sense? Since my argument is that there is no such thing as time, the meaning gets a little deeper. Say a car is going 60 miles per hour. We can expand this sentence to "a car is going 60 miles per 5 billion resonances of a cesium atom".
Can you tell me how time is measured without referring to change?
How is the accuracy of an atomic clock calculated?
Can we detect time, or are we really detecting change?
If we are just being "timesliced," then an outside observer could exist in the same time dimension, but that's a very strange and specific case, and it doesn't really address how time works anyway. (because you haven't examined the underlying time dimension at all.)
There is no time dimension: time is our perception of change. Our most accurate clocks are based on the rate of decay of an atom, or the rate of spin of an electron. A wind-up clock simply runs at a speed that we have determined will keep a reasonable account of time relative to other clocks. Time does not really exist - but it is useful for us to think of "time".
What does exist is change caused by the operation of our universe. Those outside our system could measure the number of cycles our universe has run for. It's a simple quantity.
Two observations of this thread:
1) How can there be infinitely small if you have a definite endpoint (zero)? Plus, if you go too small the distance between mirrors will be less than the size of a photon, so how can light bounce back and forth any longer?
2) Light actually can stand still.
I'm not a scientist, but something tells me what is time can't be measured by us because we are inside whatever makes everything tick. Only those outside our system could measure the time inside our system. I would liken it to a computer program: it can't tell when it's being timesliced by the operating system, and it seems like it is running seamlessly, but it is not.
I'm skeptical of a car base because:
- cars don't last long enough to make switching styles too practical
- new technologies and better emission standards will require a base upgrade
- with the tight economy, can they afford to take costly gambles like this?
Whatever happened to flying cars anyway? Or automated cars? I want something that makes it quicker, easier, and safer for me to get to and from work every day.
Some people need to re-read my post. I would _never_ suggest omitting the server-side checks. I'm suggesting that bad data can be flagged to the user by javascript rather than more complex code on the server side which repopulates form elements, etc.. and presents the data the user has entered plus any error messages. That part is tedious. The data is still validated on the server side but handler code can be as simple as "you entered an invalid address". Period.
As one poster replied, Struts can do more complex repopulation work for you, if using Struts is an option to your project.
If Xforms allows the browser to verify fields, doesn't that mean we base our security on trusting the client?
My take on this: if you can validate on the client side, it saves you from having fancy (and tedious to write) code on the server side which repopulates the HTML page and allows the user to fix the problem. You still check for invalid data on the server side, but error messages can be curt and no repopulating forms BS.
All depends on what kind of site you're designing, of course.
I dunno, but I'm still trying to get over the fact that an AOL customer built this thing.