You're a troll, of course, but this provides the opportunity to point out that Skylarov's story tallies exactly with the EFF press release account, dated 12-13. So there's no need to "trust" Skylarov to believe him, assuming one trusts the EFF.
The government not only lied, but the lies were transparent to start with. If Skylarov had agreed to testify against his "former employers," why would this page be available?
Maybe you couldn't find it 'cause the game's name is Lineage: the Bloodpledge.
I think the Time-CNN story is more hype than fact, and my own experiences with Korean gamers is quite different from the original poster's. I don't frequent Battle.Net though.
basically, you're fighting a Mac versus Windows fight here. This is all off topic.
If the topic is OSX vs. Linux, the cost of entry for each platform is certainly part of the issue. Since OSX limits your choice of hardware, that's a negative, even if you think the balance sheet overall favors OSX.
The need to run Office seems to me a more likely reason for conference attendees to have ibooks, so your point isn't entirely off-topic either; usual brain-dead moderating...
Linux has always had two major things going for it. Free as in beer and speech, and the open source development model for the kernel. But at the same time, what it's had going against it were a difficult install (not difficult for me, difficult for grandma) and the clunky, quirky system that is X11.
You don't factor in something that's been mentioned only about a dozen times in posts above your own. Apple is in the business of moving iron, and running OSX requires that you buy one of their overpriced, proprietary systems. Nicht gut!
Linux not only costs less, you can get hardware that will run it for next-to-nothing. The article's notation of a proliferation of ibooks at this or that conference is close to meaningless. Those conferences are damn expensive! You would have seen the same people with Apple Newtons (or whatever other pricy-trendy gadget) a few years ago.
The reasoning here is, the end user CAN'T get the patch without exposing themselves to a hack
In the same way that you can't cross the street without exposing yourself to a Mack Truck. Pardon me, but Jesus Fuck! This kind of thinking plays right into the Feds contention that all hacking is cyberterrorism..."l33t d00ds" around every corner? What are they going to do, transmit messages to Osama through a network of XP holes?
So at the worst somebody gets into your box, what the hell are they going to do that you can't recover from?
A sophisticated user, eh? Go to the TOOLS menu in your browser and select Windows Update. Let it install the litle ActiveX "thingie" that scans for installed updates (and god knows what else, but you will be promised that no info will be sent to MS). Then see whether there are uninstalled critical updates. If there are, then the auto-update is not working for you. If there aren't, you have it set to install without bothering you about it.
Probably not since this "withering away" of power appears confined to exercising power over US corporations. Indeed the US federal government is currently seeking to increase powers over it's citizens, visitors and colonial subjects. Also it's ability to wage war is quite formidable.
Either the government has to hold rule over the corporations, or the corporations will rule the government. To what extent could the government's formidable war powers, and its powers over citizens, visitors and colonials, reasonably be viewed as an extension of corporate, rather than government interest? More today than yesterday?
Whenever you log in on your XP system (of course, no password in XP-home at least) a flurry of packets fly off to Mord- er Microsoft and to the OEM you bought the system from. You have no way of knowing the content of that communication. Since it's all closed source,no one can comb through it for vulnerabilities or trojans like they could for the code for apt or rpmfind. A typical user has no way of knowing that the communication is even taking place at all unless they are running something like tcpdump on the network.
I do ISP support, and when I used to be handling customers directly, barely a day went by that I did not have to disable Backweb on a Compaq in order to get things working correctly.
Of course, none of the people I was dealing had ever heard of Backweb, which they ran consantly. Since I was disabling it, I felt it my responsibility to explain what it was and why it was there.
Along the way, I'd explain that Compaq maintains a web page for the customer's particular computer model, containing any recommended updates, and that they could manually choose the updates they felt they needed.
Invariably, I could sense that this info entered the right ear, dully echoed around inside their skulls, and soon dribbled out the left.
I'm not fond of Backweb, or of MS's auto-update. But both are necessary for those people who are accustomed to appliances, and think of the PC as one. Otherwise, their LT Win modems would stop working permanently 3 to 6 months after purchase, and they'd have no idea why.
I am sure that someone could human engineer the error messages. and since they would actually never go to MS, but maybe to some Bogus Site, like Microsoft-security.com some folks could be fooled by this.
The patois calls this "social engineering," and it has nothing to do with the platform one is running; it's based on stupidity/gullibility. A malicious phone tech could get a newbie Linux user to delete his partition...does that mean Linux isn't secure?
I wouldn't say it's entirely irrelevant; vulnerabilities in a widely-used OS are more serious, and you'd think a company's deeper pockets could be used to ensure security.
The vulnerability here involves, largely, the implementation of certain remote services, like "Universal Plug And Play." UPnP has been implemented on other platforms; so why aren't those other OS's also vulnerable? Could it be that, sometimes, making decisions on a not-for-profit basis can be a good (more secure) thing?
The article says, "..and leaves AT&T with its shrinking consumer and business long-distance telephone and data operations." Are they TRYING to destroy themselves? Sell a good chunk of the customers! Raise prices! Drop out half our customer's internet service for a week and replace it with slower service! This does not sound like a good company.
AT&T has been aware that its core businesses are shrinking, have been aware for a long time. The big purchase of broadband interests was Michael Armstrong's plan to reposition the company.
But these businesses were purchased at the peak of the Bubble. Much debt accrued. And the Bubble burst. Hence the need to sell, in order to service the debt that is crushing the company. Hence also the need for AT&T to try to price services in a way that will minimize their loss per customer.
You're right, the company is in godawful shape, but if you understand the forces at work, it's not difficult to understand why.
Is that a joke? @Home is unrelated to this deal. ATT had a minority equity interest in "Excite@Home," the company that went bankrupt. AT&T is just a losing investor there.
"AT&T@Home" was a brand name for @Home service distributed by AT&T Digital Cable, not a corporate entity.
Slashdot Mirror
Idiots who can read?
You're a troll, of course, but this provides the opportunity to point out that Skylarov's story tallies exactly with the EFF press release account, dated 12-13. So there's no need to "trust" Skylarov to believe him, assuming one trusts the EFF.
The government not only lied, but the lies were transparent to start with. If Skylarov had agreed to testify against his "former employers," why would this page be available?
scuzee, i am still stuck in '95 sometimes...the link is there, anyway...so it's kawaii and 10 gb.
Maybe you couldn't find it 'cause the game's name is Lineage: the Bloodpledge.
I think the Time-CNN story is more hype than fact, and my own experiences with Korean gamers is quite different from the original poster's. I don't frequent Battle.Net though.
Further exploration of the article's links shows the Tiger deal to be the Cappucino. Still, why the price difference?
Theonly advantage this has is the kawai factor (Japanese for cute). An 8 Mb HD? 750 mHz? $1500+?
How about 10 MB hd, a gigahertz CPU and $500?
Anyone have a good idea why one is $1000 more than the other?
basically, you're fighting a Mac versus Windows fight here. This is all off topic.
If the topic is OSX vs. Linux, the cost of entry for each platform is certainly part of the issue. Since OSX limits your choice of hardware, that's a negative, even if you think the balance sheet overall favors OSX.
The need to run Office seems to me a more likely reason for conference attendees to have ibooks, so your point isn't entirely off-topic either; usual brain-dead moderating...
You don't factor in something that's been mentioned only about a dozen times in posts above your own. Apple is in the business of moving iron, and running OSX requires that you buy one of their overpriced, proprietary systems. Nicht gut!
I don't agree with him either, but it's neither blind hope nor fact, this is an example of what English-speakers call an opinion.
Linux not only costs less, you can get hardware that will run it for next-to-nothing. The article's notation of a proliferation of ibooks at this or that conference is close to meaningless. Those conferences are damn expensive! You would have seen the same people with Apple Newtons (or whatever other pricy-trendy gadget) a few years ago.
The reasoning here is, the end user CAN'T get the patch without exposing themselves to a hack
In the same way that you can't cross the street without exposing yourself to a Mack Truck. Pardon me, but Jesus Fuck! This kind of thinking plays right into the Feds contention that all hacking is cyberterrorism..."l33t d00ds" around every corner? What are they going to do, transmit messages to Osama through a network of XP holes?
So at the worst somebody gets into your box, what the hell are they going to do that you can't recover from?
A sophisticated user, eh? Go to the TOOLS menu in your browser and select Windows Update. Let it install the litle ActiveX "thingie" that scans for installed updates (and god knows what else, but you will be promised that no info will be sent to MS). Then see whether there are uninstalled critical updates. If there are, then the auto-update is not working for you. If there aren't, you have it set to install without bothering you about it.
XP Update has three classifications: Critical, Non-Critical, and Drivers.
Probably not since this "withering away" of power appears confined to exercising power over US corporations. Indeed the US federal government is currently seeking to increase powers over it's citizens, visitors and colonial subjects. Also it's ability to wage war is quite formidable.
Either the government has to hold rule over the corporations, or the corporations will rule the government. To what extent could the government's formidable war powers, and its powers over citizens, visitors and colonials, reasonably be viewed as an extension of corporate, rather than government interest? More today than yesterday?
Whenever you log in on your XP system (of course, no password in XP-home at least) a flurry of packets fly off to Mord- er Microsoft and to the OEM you bought the system from. You have no way of knowing the content of that communication. Since it's all closed source,no one can comb through it for vulnerabilities or trojans like they could for the code for apt or rpmfind. A typical user has no way of knowing that the communication is even taking place at all unless they are running something like tcpdump on the network.
I do ISP support, and when I used to be handling customers directly, barely a day went by that I did not have to disable Backweb on a Compaq in order to get things working correctly.
Of course, none of the people I was dealing had ever heard of Backweb, which they ran consantly. Since I was disabling it, I felt it my responsibility to explain what it was and why it was there.
Along the way, I'd explain that Compaq maintains a web page for the customer's particular computer model, containing any recommended updates, and that they could manually choose the updates they felt they needed.
Invariably, I could sense that this info entered the right ear, dully echoed around inside their skulls, and soon dribbled out the left.
I'm not fond of Backweb, or of MS's auto-update. But both are necessary for those people who are accustomed to appliances, and think of the PC as one. Otherwise, their LT Win modems would stop working permanently 3 to 6 months after purchase, and they'd have no idea why.
I am sure that someone could human engineer the error messages. and since they would actually never go to MS, but maybe to some Bogus Site, like Microsoft-security.com some folks could be fooled by this.
The patois calls this "social engineering," and it has nothing to do with the platform one is running; it's based on stupidity/gullibility. A malicious phone tech could get a newbie Linux user to delete his partition...does that mean Linux isn't secure?
There's no bulletproofing for ignorance.
What do you want, the guy's a Christian. If Jesus died for him, asking you to do his research is not that big a deal...
I wouldn't say it's entirely irrelevant; vulnerabilities in a widely-used OS are more serious, and you'd think a company's deeper pockets could be used to ensure security.
The vulnerability here involves, largely, the implementation of certain remote services, like "Universal Plug And Play." UPnP has been implemented on other platforms; so why aren't those other OS's also vulnerable? Could it be that, sometimes, making decisions on a not-for-profit basis can be a good (more secure) thing?
AT&T has been aware that its core businesses are shrinking, have been aware for a long time. The big purchase of broadband interests was Michael Armstrong's plan to reposition the company.
But these businesses were purchased at the peak of the Bubble. Much debt accrued. And the Bubble burst. Hence the need to sell, in order to service the debt that is crushing the company. Hence also the need for AT&T to try to price services in a way that will minimize their loss per customer.
You're right, the company is in godawful shape, but if you understand the forces at work, it's not difficult to understand why.
and that's worth...? There's nothing left to control, now that they've run it to ground.
Yes their deal was a controlling interest, but only 25% of equity.
Is that a joke? @Home is unrelated to this deal. ATT had a minority equity interest in "Excite@Home," the company that went bankrupt. AT&T is just a losing investor there.
"AT&T@Home" was a brand name for @Home service distributed by AT&T Digital Cable, not a corporate entity.
Who exactly thought this?
Me. It's about time I got some recognition!
Gee that site slashdotted fast....
Some tags were omitted:
(irony) (/irony)
Copy and paste these around any other boggling statements you see around here....