A kill command may not be the most "polite" way of retiring an old version of software, but for a free service I certainly don't expect them to invest huge amounts of time and money in figuring out how to support the old stuff forever.
Just because a company provides you with free software does not mean they get to disrupt your business.
Just because you make a mistake of being on a list does not mean a company gets to disrupt your business.
There is no point in even having antivirus software if you're happy for it to do things that screw up your servers. In that case it is the virus and you have intentionally installed it.
What if someone works out how to send you an final signature prematurely in order to shut down your business?
The software should have stopped accepting updates. It's not a question of politeness.
People have lost the plot when it comes to security.
Totally my own damned fault for not staying upgraded.
Do you enjoy whipping yourself too???
You had working but out of date anti-virus. That's bad, but not as bad as no anti-virus at all, and arguably not as bad as disruption of your business and no functionality. Yet you choose to blame yourself? What about the schmuck who has an out of date piece of software that doesn't play nice with a later version? Providing free software does not mean you get to fuck with my business! What is the point of having antivirus software anyway? It is to prevent disruptions to your business by viruses? The trade off for slowing down your system with antivirus scanning is suppose to be reduced risk and disruption for your business.
It is your fault. Your fault not just for failing to update your antivirus, but for being so accepting of this from an antivirus company. Security types seem to have lost their mind and lost their ability to reason lately.
I just had the experience of starting up my recently upgraded copy of openoffice on my linux box and seeing an oracle logo in the startup window. Feels kind of strange, like having your mom's underwear mixed in with your girlfriend's in the laundry basket.
Why is it that reading that analogy I don't think that's likely to be a problem for you?
I think White Hats need to not only use that threat, but follow up on it, more regularly so that serious flaws like this get the attention they deserve.
I recommend we coin a new term for this elite breed of white hat. White hats that are more aggressive. Not afraid to be an asshole when required. I would like to propose: "ass hats"
I was being fcetious. But I honestly hadn't heard of him. I just don't care about basketball celebrities. AT ALL. That doesn't make me a retard, or make me unaware of the existence of the game of basketball. But I don't know the rules off the top of my head and I'd only care if I was going to play. That you feel like abusing people for holding this attitude indicates you've been brainwashed.
Why do I suspect you are much closer to being a kid than to having one?
Because you're a moron. I'm a father with number 2 on the way.
Restrictions can tell a kid "I give a fuck about you," not just "I don't trust you."
Yeah fantastic, you can say both at the same time. Trouble is you shouldn't be saying "I don't trust you" and you should be preparing your child to take some responsibility for their actions.
A lack of restrictions can mean "I either don't give a shit about you or have given up."
Who said anything about a lack of restrictions? You enforce them in person, not via some fucking software.
If a kid already has a dogged determination to see porn and shock sites, then yes, it's probably shutting the barn doors after the cows have gotten out. But that's seldom the issue.
An interest in porn won't kill a kid. Interest in sex is natural. Interest in forbidden stuff and rebellion is natural. Not being able to come to mum and dad when in real trouble is not so natural. Not learning from your mistakes and keeping to your own boundaries can be fatal.
Children have no right to privacy. Teenagers chafe at the idea, of course, but the fact is that they are children, and good parenting means making decisions that are in their best interests, not their greatest desires. When they're able to weigh their actions with the consequences of those actions (i.e., becoming an adult), then they get privacy.
...and parents wonder why kids go wild as soon as parental supervision is removed. How well do you think your child will cope when suddenly given privacy? You should be teaching your child how to be responsible for their own actions, gradually letting go, and stepping in less and less and only when required. That does require knowledge but your children should trust you enough to know that you're not going to use information against them. In other words you need to be their confidant, and advisor. THAT is the role of a parent. If they're too scared or think you're so out of touch that they can't come to you with a problem, you have failed.
When your daughter starts googling birth control, it's time to have a chat.
It could be (probably is!) WAY too late by then. When she starts taking an interest in boys, you should have that chat, not when she's in a flustered panic googling birth control AFTER she's gone further than she intended to with some guy.
Most geeks don't, at least when it comes to the iphone. However, for most of the population, the requirements are different. They are not worried about "openness" (or Linux would have a much larger market share) but want something with a slick UI and is easy to use.
...and they get what they deserve since lots of cool stuff they would be interested in that is not sanctioned by Apple will never be available to them. It's not about geeks wanting to run Linux. Are you telling me none of them would want to run flash enabled web browsing?? Come on!
I honestly don't understand why Geeks put up with this and fall for the marketing propaganda. If all the world were Apple we'd not be able to hack a thing.
So an extra-solar planet is not a planet. A dwarf planet is not a planet. Why the hell does the word planet appear in the definition? It's unnecessarily confusing and you are defending the indefensible. This is exactly the kind of stupidity that gets scientists labelled as socially incompetent propeller heads.
Crashes are a hassle for sure, but if you're lucky and don't have an unstable plugin installed, you rarely crash. What I tend to see is runaway memory and CPU usage that forces me to close the browser and start again.
I think you'll find that what's actually occurred here is that just as a "dwarf planet" is technically not a planet, an "extra-solar planet" also doesn't fit the definition and therefore also isn't technically a planet.
A good definition makes things clearer. This definition clearly fails by that criteria.
Also my point about clearing the orbit was more about the formation of the planet. Even with a solid body formed and most of it's mass present, if it's still part of the solar disk and still subject to bombardment it is not a planet. What the hell it is during the early part of solar disk evolution isn't clear.
Most people agree that the original author should have control of his creation.
Bullshit. If something is sold, that should end a person's control over it. All that the original author does by retaining such controls is hinder other creative work. It is an unnatural restriction. The author should only be permitted to profit from work that they put in, not from everything that comes from it.
Moving slightly away from copyright, can you imagine what society would be like if there were terms of use for the wheel? Fire? The combustion engine? Electricity? If someone involved in their invention could just walk up and prevent a use you had for their invention? Or if there were patents on basic plumbing techniques? How do you feel about being locked out of using the sewerage system because some dumb fuck decides he can try to milk it for all it's worth by overcharging rich people.
For example, my sister was very upset that someone wrote a sequel to Gone With the Wind, because the original author didn't want a sequel to be written (it was written after her death).
Boo fucking hoo to your sister. Tell her not to watch the fucking sequel and let others who do want to enjoy it. Who the fuck is she to decide? She's not the author, and I've just argued that even the author should not have control.
A lot of people view the descendants of Tolkien as the official guardians of the lore, and would be annoyed if someone else tried to hijack that
Well double dumb ass to them. If you don't fucking like it, don't read, watch or listen to it you obsessive fucking geeks. Do not however prevent others from enjoying a creative work because it has some basis or link to some other piece of work?
All IP law is wasteful and unnatural. It prevents creation and the use of creation. It does not in any way enhance or promote it. The issue of compensating a creator is a separate one altogether and does not require the control of the creation itself.
I for one couldn't care less what category Pluto falls under. Planet, Dwarf Planet, Pototoid, Potato Chip. Who cares. I have no emotional attachment.
What I do care about is bad science and bad classification. The current definition stinks. The problems I have
1. A 'dwarf planet' is not a subclass of 'planet' as one would expect from the name. It should have been named something different. 2. The definitions refers to our the sun. Not the star which the planet orbits but 'the sun'. That makes it sound like extrasolar planets are not planets either. 3. The definition of planet requires that the body has cleared it's orbit. So while it is forming early in the solar system it is not a planet then one day "poof" by magic we have a planet. 4. The draft proposal was nothing like the final proposal. The definition was passed on the last day of that IAU conference when lots of scientists had already gone. That suggests a political pissing match rather than well thought out science. 5. The definition is not consistent with what had been taught for decades, and there was no good reason for that.
I have an Astronomy degree that I did for fun and that I have never used professionally. I lost all respect for the IAU on the day they released their crappy definition.
they've got all the mech and shooter experience one could hope for, but what about horror?
Wait for the DRM announcement. You'll need to be internet connected and supply a finger, eyeball, testicle or ovary when the game starts. "It's unfortunate that game piracy has driven us to these methods" said lead developer Richard Head. "But the game is fantastic and well worth it" as he proceeded to remove his own gonad and place it in the prototype dongle. "And once you're done identifying yourself, you're free to dispose of your body part any way you see fit. I'm having mine with sauce". When asked what happens when you run out of body parts Richard responded "That's the beauty of it. The game is designed so that by the time the victim...erm customer...has gone as far as removing their testicles, we have all their cash"
They all agree the battery costs $25mill, 2/3 agree that the 2nd transmission line will be built in 2012, and none of them agree on the price of the 2nd line.
You don't work in IT do you? If you did you'd realise that sounds like any typical project plan.
So it's only Apple's "cult" that bought 54 Million iPods last year, 20.5 Million iPhones, and 25% of all music sold in the US?
Considering that Apple only sold around 13 million Macs last year, I find that unbelievable.
Yeah it should apply to be recognised as an organised religion.
Besides that, why should Apple care about search engine market share? As the article stated, the prime goal would be to keep Google from being able to data mine information from iPhone/iPod Touch users.
I hope Apple don't. Apple has proven more than willing of censoring app content without explanation. I don't want them doing the same to search results.
Slashdot Mirror
A kill command may not be the most "polite" way of retiring an old version of software, but for a free service I certainly don't expect them to invest huge amounts of time and money in figuring out how to support the old stuff forever.
Just because a company provides you with free software does not mean they get to disrupt your business.
Just because you make a mistake of being on a list does not mean a company gets to disrupt your business.
There is no point in even having antivirus software if you're happy for it to do things that screw up your servers. In that case it is the virus and you have intentionally installed it.
What if someone works out how to send you an final signature prematurely in order to shut down your business?
The software should have stopped accepting updates. It's not a question of politeness.
People have lost the plot when it comes to security.
Totally my own damned fault for not staying upgraded.
Do you enjoy whipping yourself too???
You had working but out of date anti-virus. That's bad, but not as bad as no anti-virus at all, and arguably not as bad as disruption of your business and no functionality. Yet you choose to blame yourself? What about the schmuck who has an out of date piece of software that doesn't play nice with a later version? Providing free software does not mean you get to fuck with my business! What is the point of having antivirus software anyway? It is to prevent disruptions to your business by viruses? The trade off for slowing down your system with antivirus scanning is suppose to be reduced risk and disruption for your business.
It is your fault. Your fault not just for failing to update your antivirus, but for being so accepting of this from an antivirus company. Security types seem to have lost their mind and lost their ability to reason lately.
And you didn't, and now are going to complain when shit doesn't work?
Go fuck yourself.
So instead of leaving me with my working but out of date anti-virus you decide to remotely disable it? Go fuck yourself.
Would you trust an email server that is running a virus scanner that is more than a year out of date?
Would you trust a company who would remotely shut off your anti-virus?
Where the fuck were your parents in all this???
I just had the experience of starting up my recently upgraded copy of openoffice on my linux box and seeing an oracle logo in the startup window. Feels kind of strange, like having your mom's underwear mixed in with your girlfriend's in the laundry basket.
Why is it that reading that analogy I don't think that's likely to be a problem for you?
It's software and a logo dude...
I think White Hats need to not only use that threat, but follow up on it, more regularly so that serious flaws like this get the attention they deserve.
I recommend we coin a new term for this elite breed of white hat. White hats that are more aggressive. Not afraid to be an asshole when required. I would like to propose: "ass hats"
I was being fcetious. But I honestly hadn't heard of him. I just don't care about basketball celebrities. AT ALL. That doesn't make me a retard, or make me unaware of the existence of the game of basketball. But I don't know the rules off the top of my head and I'd only care if I was going to play. That you feel like abusing people for holding this attitude indicates you've been brainwashed.
Speaking as a non-American... who the f**k is Lebron James???
Who knows. I haven't heard of him either. Best guess based on this story: He probably plays Warcraft instead of Starcraft.
His first name is Jae Yoon, and his surname is Ma. Typically written in Korean with the surname first, as Ma Jae Yoon. Ja Mae Yoon is wrong.
Yes but it's pronounced: Haf Know Lyef
I'm not rascist. It's Haf Know Lyef no matter what language.
Why do I suspect you are much closer to being a kid than to having one?
Because you're a moron. I'm a father with number 2 on the way.
Restrictions can tell a kid "I give a fuck about you," not just "I don't trust you."
Yeah fantastic, you can say both at the same time. Trouble is you shouldn't be saying "I don't trust you" and you should be preparing your child to take some responsibility for their actions.
A lack of restrictions can mean "I either don't give a shit about you or have given up."
Who said anything about a lack of restrictions? You enforce them in person, not via some fucking software.
If a kid already has a dogged determination to see porn and shock sites, then yes, it's probably shutting the barn doors after the cows have gotten out. But that's seldom the issue.
An interest in porn won't kill a kid. Interest in sex is natural. Interest in forbidden stuff and rebellion is natural. Not being able to come to mum and dad when in real trouble is not so natural. Not learning from your mistakes and keeping to your own boundaries can be fatal.
you got a whole deal of connectivity/administration project there. quit your day job.
At home or in the work place, nothing says "I don't trust you" quite like Nazi parental controls.
Children have no right to privacy. Teenagers chafe at the idea, of course, but the fact is that they are children, and good parenting means making decisions that are in their best interests, not their greatest desires. When they're able to weigh their actions with the consequences of those actions (i.e., becoming an adult), then they get privacy.
...and parents wonder why kids go wild as soon as parental supervision is removed. How well do you think your child will cope when suddenly given privacy? You should be teaching your child how to be responsible for their own actions, gradually letting go, and stepping in less and less and only when required. That does require knowledge but your children should trust you enough to know that you're not going to use information against them. In other words you need to be their confidant, and advisor. THAT is the role of a parent. If they're too scared or think you're so out of touch that they can't come to you with a problem, you have failed.
When your daughter starts googling birth control, it's time to have a chat.
It could be (probably is!) WAY too late by then. When she starts taking an interest in boys, you should have that chat, not when she's in a flustered panic googling birth control AFTER she's gone further than she intended to with some guy.
Most geeks don't, at least when it comes to the iphone. However, for most of the population, the requirements are different. They are not worried about "openness" (or Linux would have a much larger market share) but want something with a slick UI and is easy to use.
...and they get what they deserve since lots of cool stuff they would be interested in that is not sanctioned by Apple will never be available to them. It's not about geeks wanting to run Linux. Are you telling me none of them would want to run flash enabled web browsing?? Come on!
I honestly don't understand why Geeks put up with this and fall for the marketing propaganda. If all the world were Apple we'd not be able to hack a thing.
So an extra-solar planet is not a planet. A dwarf planet is not a planet. Why the hell does the word planet appear in the definition? It's unnecessarily confusing and you are defending the indefensible. This is exactly the kind of stupidity that gets scientists labelled as socially incompetent propeller heads.
Crashes are a hassle for sure, but if you're lucky and don't have an unstable plugin installed, you rarely crash. What I tend to see is runaway memory and CPU usage that forces me to close the browser and start again.
I think you'll find that what's actually occurred here is that just as a "dwarf planet" is technically not a planet, an "extra-solar planet" also doesn't fit the definition and therefore also isn't technically a planet.
A good definition makes things clearer. This definition clearly fails by that criteria.
Also my point about clearing the orbit was more about the formation of the planet. Even with a solid body formed and most of it's mass present, if it's still part of the solar disk and still subject to bombardment it is not a planet. What the hell it is during the early part of solar disk evolution isn't clear.
Yes classification is hard, human language is imprecise, but there's no need to throw the baby out with the bath water.
Most people agree that the original author should have control of his creation.
Bullshit. If something is sold, that should end a person's control over it. All that the original author does by retaining such controls is hinder other creative work. It is an unnatural restriction. The author should only be permitted to profit from work that they put in, not from everything that comes from it.
Moving slightly away from copyright, can you imagine what society would be like if there were terms of use for the wheel? Fire? The combustion engine? Electricity? If someone involved in their invention could just walk up and prevent a use you had for their invention? Or if there were patents on basic plumbing techniques? How do you feel about being locked out of using the sewerage system because some dumb fuck decides he can try to milk it for all it's worth by overcharging rich people.
For example, my sister was very upset that someone wrote a sequel to Gone With the Wind, because the original author didn't want a sequel to be written (it was written after her death).
Boo fucking hoo to your sister. Tell her not to watch the fucking sequel and let others who do want to enjoy it. Who the fuck is she to decide? She's not the author, and I've just argued that even the author should not have control.
A lot of people view the descendants of Tolkien as the official guardians of the lore, and would be annoyed if someone else tried to hijack that
Well double dumb ass to them. If you don't fucking like it, don't read, watch or listen to it you obsessive fucking geeks. Do not however prevent others from enjoying a creative work because it has some basis or link to some other piece of work?
All IP law is wasteful and unnatural. It prevents creation and the use of creation. It does not in any way enhance or promote it. The issue of compensating a creator is a separate one altogether and does not require the control of the creation itself.
I for one couldn't care less what category Pluto falls under. Planet, Dwarf Planet, Pototoid, Potato Chip. Who cares. I have no emotional attachment.
What I do care about is bad science and bad classification. The current definition stinks. The problems I have
1. A 'dwarf planet' is not a subclass of 'planet' as one would expect from the name. It should have been named something different.
2. The definitions refers to our the sun. Not the star which the planet orbits but 'the sun'. That makes it sound like extrasolar planets are not planets either.
3. The definition of planet requires that the body has cleared it's orbit. So while it is forming early in the solar system it is not a planet then one day "poof" by magic we have a planet.
4. The draft proposal was nothing like the final proposal. The definition was passed on the last day of that IAU conference when lots of scientists had already gone. That suggests a political pissing match rather than well thought out science.
5. The definition is not consistent with what had been taught for decades, and there was no good reason for that.
I have an Astronomy degree that I did for fun and that I have never used professionally. I lost all respect for the IAU on the day they released their crappy definition.
they've got all the mech and shooter experience one could hope for, but what about horror?
Wait for the DRM announcement. You'll need to be internet connected and supply a finger, eyeball, testicle or ovary when the game starts. "It's unfortunate that game piracy has driven us to these methods" said lead developer Richard Head. "But the game is fantastic and well worth it" as he proceeded to remove his own gonad and place it in the prototype dongle. "And once you're done identifying yourself, you're free to dispose of your body part any way you see fit. I'm having mine with sauce". When asked what happens when you run out of body parts Richard responded "That's the beauty of it. The game is designed so that by the time the victim...erm customer...has gone as far as removing their testicles, we have all their cash"
Oh the HORROR!!!!
Come on dude this is slashdot. If it can't be read on an iPad or Kindle, it's not worth bidding on;-)
They all agree the battery costs $25mill, 2/3 agree that the 2nd transmission line will be built in 2012, and none of them agree on the price of the 2nd line.
You don't work in IT do you? If you did you'd realise that sounds like any typical project plan.
So it's only Apple's "cult" that bought 54 Million iPods last year, 20.5 Million iPhones, and 25% of all music sold in the US?
Considering that Apple only sold around 13 million Macs last year, I find that unbelievable.
Yeah it should apply to be recognised as an organised religion.
Besides that, why should Apple care about search engine market share? As the article stated, the prime goal would be to keep Google from being able to data mine information from iPhone/iPod Touch users.
I hope Apple don't. Apple has proven more than willing of censoring app content without explanation. I don't want them doing the same to search results.