I'd submit that the fault lies with the writer rather than the reader.
You're correct about the average participant's level of political savvy, of course, but maybe the following should have been an indicator of the tone of the post:
Besides, 9 out of 10 people know you can use statistics prove anything!
Exactly how pedantic does one have to be? As a rule, I prefer to reserve my babytalk for my toddler and assume I am dealing with people who are capable of abstract thought. If I'm at fault, it's for not learning the oft-repeated lesson to the contrary. I'm not suggesting you're in that camp. I don't know you, and I wouldn't presume.
Nice play of the "I've been debating politics on the Internet longer than you" card, though. Really classy...
Simply putting in effort to do something, no matter how cool or difficult it is, doesn't give you the right to prevent others from doing it again, no matter how easy it may be afterward.
AC didn't put in the effort to do anything again, and wouldn't have infringed copyright if he had. Restricting, as in censoring, the free flow of information and copying and pasting someone else's commercial work are two very different things.
A valid observation, but how many exploits were found without access to the source? If that number were low, the security-through-source-obscurity would be valid, but unfortunately for MS's credibility, it isn't low.
It just turns out this one was extra easy to find because the code could be read. It would have been equally easy to fix as to exploit (had non-assholes been reading the source, but fear of contamination is keeping most credible OSS engineers from touching that stuff with a 10-ft debugger), bringing us right back around to the superior security of open-source position.
Funny, yes, but in the interest of full disclosure it's worth noting for the credulous that this code was perhaps only vulnerable because it had not been open for audit before.
In other words, had the source code for IE been OSS from day one, then the bug might very well have been found and fixed before the application was widely distributed.
Just a little teasing. If I'd really thought you were trolling, I wouldn't have responded. I just meant that I figured you'd have seen that question batted around before.
I'm a Mozilla devote' as well. I used Opera before, but Moz won me over.
The "alternative" clients typically do not do things like run scripts, overwrite files, etc without at least a confirmation from the user. The problem is that IE and Outlook are so feature rich, and so easily configured (historically by default) to gullibly trust any command that comes down the pipe, that they pose a severe risk to exactly the class of users (i.e. inexperienced or ignorant) that most frequently use them.
So, in effect, yes, there is an aspect to the other clients that is inherently more secure, but users savvy enough to obtain and use them could probably also configure and use most modern MS products fairly securely as well. It is a combination of user behavior and software design security.
For the record, I find it hard to believe that someone with a 5-digit/. ID could ask this question and not be trolling...;-)
Your story "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty", by Stephen Evans, has to be the most misinformed and misguided piece on the topic I have yet read, and I have unfortunately read a substantial volume.
Despite initial suspicions that the MyDoom worm might have been created to target SCO as revenge for their attacks on Linux, it is widely accepted among security analysts who have monitored the worm that (1) it originated in Russia, (2) its real motive is to plant a trojan key-capture program to steal user's personal information, and (3) the attacks on SCO and MS are a smokescreen.
I expect this kind of credulous gulping of SCO's press releases from CNN, but thought better of the BBC.
For the record, violating DMCA requires circumvention of an encryption mechanism. I don't think it could apply when the security wasn't enabled and, therefore, no circumvention occured.
There may be a case for more traditional computer tresspass, but since it was a shared server that both parties had legitimate access to, it could be difficult even to press that.
Whatever the case, it was certainly ethically rotten!
I think that's an unfair stab at AO. It solves the problem it was meant to solve, and the results are remarkable.
I'd agree (well, actually I already said as much) that they aren't the be-all-end-all of observational astronomy, but they serve a useful purpose that is complementary to orbiters imaging at other wavelengths.
My TV doesn't come to me for free, except one very fuzzy over-air broadcast channel.
Move out of the sticks, dude.;-)
Seriously, though, I get what you're saying. Viewing the ISP as the equivalent of a basic cable provider, it is easy to see that commercial-free Web sites are like premium cable channels. i.e. you only have to watch commercials for their own products!
Interstitial ads don't bother me that much. One of the sites I use frequently has them, and I figure they're a tolerable obstruction to get the otherwise free information. Having to sit through 30 seconds of video and noise might make me rethink that, though...
Slashdot Mirror
Everyone is complaining. They are also still watching, so what's that complaint worth?
Seems the first suit is going to be against the MLUG!
Absolutely! I hate to get involved in these tedious flame threads, but even more I hate being misunderstood. Ah, that's where we began wasn't it.
Cheers!
I'm embarrassed at the degree to which my post was modded up. It show's that the moderators didn't get it either...
You're correct about the average participant's level of political savvy, of course, but maybe the following should have been an indicator of the tone of the post:
Exactly how pedantic does one have to be? As a rule, I prefer to reserve my babytalk for my toddler and assume I am dealing with people who are capable of abstract thought. If I'm at fault, it's for not learning the oft-repeated lesson to the contrary. I'm not suggesting you're in that camp. I don't know you, and I wouldn't presume.
Nice play of the "I've been debating politics on the Internet longer than you" card, though. Really classy...
To you and the ACs who don't deserve a direct reply:
Do I have to put the *joke* markup around every freaking bit of sarcasm I post on this board?
If there's any consistent issue I have with the Republicans or their defenders it's that they apparently have no sense of humor...
For the record, I could have, and have, made the same "tool" crack about congress(wo)men of the Democratic stripe as well.
You realize the 9/10 quote was also Homer S, right? :-)
No problem about the rant. I'm a little prone myself, especially when I see math abuse...
Good God, man...
Go back and read the sentence again, and then slap yourself in the forehead...
It was a *joke*
I don't recall the argument being that Republicans were rich. It was that they are the tools of the rich...
Besides, 9 out of 10 people know you can use statistics to prove anything!
AC didn't put in the effort to do anything again, and wouldn't have infringed copyright if he had. Restricting, as in censoring, the free flow of information and copying and pasting someone else's commercial work are two very different things.
Answer me this:
Where would that information you're whining about Salon "restricting" be if Salon hadn't been there to develop and publish it?
You aren't new here. You should know that slams against religion, Microsoft, and SCO are always fair game for jumping to conclusions on slashdot...
Er.. No. If the code were OSS, then it wouldn't have been "Microsoftie" code, but would have been community code.
I don't get your argument at all.
A valid observation, but how many exploits were found without access to the source? If that number were low, the security-through-source-obscurity would be valid, but unfortunately for MS's credibility, it isn't low.
It just turns out this one was extra easy to find because the code could be read. It would have been equally easy to fix as to exploit (had non-assholes been reading the source, but fear of contamination is keeping most credible OSS engineers from touching that stuff with a 10-ft debugger), bringing us right back around to the superior security of open-source position.
Funny, yes, but in the interest of full disclosure it's worth noting for the credulous that this code was perhaps only vulnerable because it had not been open for audit before.
In other words, had the source code for IE been OSS from day one, then the bug might very well have been found and fixed before the application was widely distributed.
Just a little teasing. If I'd really thought you were trolling, I wouldn't have responded. I just meant that I figured you'd have seen that question batted around before.
I'm a Mozilla devote' as well. I used Opera before, but Moz won me over.
The "alternative" clients typically do not do things like run scripts, overwrite files, etc without at least a confirmation from the user. The problem is that IE and Outlook are so feature rich, and so easily configured (historically by default) to gullibly trust any command that comes down the pipe, that they pose a severe risk to exactly the class of users (i.e. inexperienced or ignorant) that most frequently use them.
/. ID could ask this question and not be trolling... ;-)
So, in effect, yes, there is an aspect to the other clients that is inherently more secure, but users savvy enough to obtain and use them could probably also configure and use most modern MS products fairly securely as well. It is a combination of user behavior and software design security.
For the record, I find it hard to believe that someone with a 5-digit
Your story "Linux cyber-battle turns nasty", by Stephen Evans, has to be the most misinformed and misguided piece on the topic I have yet read, and I have unfortunately read a substantial volume.
Despite initial suspicions that the MyDoom worm might have been created to target SCO as revenge for their attacks on Linux, it is widely accepted among security analysts who have monitored the worm that (1) it originated in Russia, (2) its real motive is to plant a trojan key-capture program to steal user's personal information, and (3) the attacks on SCO and MS are a smokescreen.
I expect this kind of credulous gulping of SCO's press releases from CNN, but thought better of the BBC.
Where is the circumvention when the access control is not enabled?
I certainly don't mean to defend this behavior, but without the circumvention, where is the DMCA applicability?
Excellent karma troll, red floyd.
For the record, violating DMCA requires circumvention of an encryption mechanism. I don't think it could apply when the security wasn't enabled and, therefore, no circumvention occured.
There may be a case for more traditional computer tresspass, but since it was a shared server that both parties had legitimate access to, it could be difficult even to press that.
Whatever the case, it was certainly ethically rotten!
Right. For that you need really big fans.
I think that's an unfair stab at AO. It solves the problem it was meant to solve, and the results are remarkable.
I'd agree (well, actually I already said as much) that they aren't the be-all-end-all of observational astronomy, but they serve a useful purpose that is complementary to orbiters imaging at other wavelengths.
Adaptive optics can do a lot to cancel atmospherics. The real problem is that the atmosphere just plain obstructs much of the spectrum.
Which of those advanced systems are going to allow for observing at wavelengths to which our atmosphere is opaque?
Move out of the sticks, dude.
Seriously, though, I get what you're saying. Viewing the ISP as the equivalent of a basic cable provider, it is easy to see that commercial-free Web sites are like premium cable channels. i.e. you only have to watch commercials for their own products!
Interstitial ads don't bother me that much. One of the sites I use frequently has them, and I figure they're a tolerable obstruction to get the otherwise free information. Having to sit through 30 seconds of video and noise might make me rethink that, though...