Unfortunately, no. I've had to mute several people on my Twitter feed (from whom I normally enjoy seeing updates) because the controversy has not yet died.
"IBM corp's cybersecurity research team discovered the bug in May, describing it as a 'significant vulnerability' in the operating system.
"'The buggy code is at least 19 years old and has been remotely exploitable for the last 18 years,' IBM X-Force research team said in its blog on Tuesday."
I know you guys recently made a big deal out of attacking free software projects, and tried to exploit a couple of recent bugs in them to evangelize for paid development, so this reminder of how bad bugs frequently are in paid development software is pretty embarrassing. But in context, pretending this somehow demonstrates how good paid development models are just looks silly.
Incidently, you might want to take this one seriously -- in addition to poll after poll indicating women feel men should pay not only for the first date, but repeating down the line, more people felt rape was OK if the man pays for everything.
Obviously, that's screwed up, but clearly if one believes in equality, there's a couple of reasons to address all the forms it comes in--not just the forms that disadvantage you.
I disagree with this. Whether it's right or not, or whether feminists wish to make use of them, there are social advantages women enjoy that men do not. The expectation that men should pay (at least for the first date) is widespread among women, according to polls.
Eventual equality between the genders (and an honest assessment, I think would find that western culture affords a remarkably egalitarian approach already, though of course a few things remain to be addressed) will of necessity mean such conventions will need to be abandoned.
Actually, this isn't true. Several years back, men's rights groups and feminist groups actually joined forces in an attempt to make Selective Service gender-neutral. They failed.
These are all good points, but they do raise the question as to what advances in pay should be based upon, if not performance and time in job.
The problem, as I see it, is women who do NOT leave for childrearing or other pursuits still being paid less on the basis that males are the breadwinners in their families.
This is a thoughtful comment. One possible reason: the same beliefs that potentially lead to less pay for many women (e.g. an assumption women will bail for kids at some point, or that they're less competent in general, or that men really should be in the jobs because they're the family breadwinners) might also lead to preferential hiring of males.
While this response is cute, and I'm very much in favor of rectifying the very real discrepancies in pay for men vs. women, the denial that women enjoy any social advantages--usually though attacks on the men who point it out--helps no one.
I highly suspect many women would trade those advantages to resolve equal pay and other difficulties, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, or that many women don't make use of them.
I believe you are right when it comes to having an ability to override baser instincts with long-term concerns. However, I do believe humans consistently underestimate how much evolved behaviors play a part in our lives. The most salient example, of course, is the "tabula rasa" belief system that one encounters from time to time (in my experience, particularly among activists who see hypotheses of behaviors having a genetic origin as threatening to attempts to modify those behaviors).
Some researchers have, in fact, argued that altruism, empathy, etc. - behaviors that inherently involve longer-term goals from a selfish point-of-view - are also evolved traits. Which traits are expressed most strongly in a given person is probably itself a combination of nature and nurture...
And you're probably right.
On the other hand, history is littered with the dust of skeptics whose names have been forgotten, while the names of many of those they attacked are remembered. Which is as it should be: while skeptics are often right, knee-jerk skepticism is also a particularly risk-free approach to things, isn't it?
These researchers will have a chance to prove their results further, and others will attempt to replicate. We'll see what happens.
I don't think so. This isn't like siphoning energy from the E-field around a power line (which actually does result in loss of power): electromagnetic signals are radiated away and go to heating the environment if they're not received.
While true, many satellite earth stations require dishes that track satellites in order to provide an uplink (depends upon the band and the satellite system used). Within reason, a system can maintain a lock under a variety of circumstances. A hit from a missile and the resultant, immediate aircraft disintegration probably presents a situation that would make such a lock exceedingly difficult to maintain.
I work in this field (aeronautical communications, including satellite systems), and specifically with FAA personnel who are tasked with knowing and regulating such systems (spectrum managers). What I'm saying comes directly as an answer from them in response to a query about why we don't do exactly as you suggest.
It's not merely a question of the total satellite bandwidth available. Satellite bandwidth is used for a lot of things, remember -- and only a small subset is used for protected aeronautical satellite (AMS(R)S) assignments. It's not as simple as you suggest.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, no. I've had to mute several people on my Twitter feed (from whom I normally enjoy seeing updates) because the controversy has not yet died.
If you're talking about the IE vulnerability: according to IBM: 6,935.
Of course, if you want to count from the time IBM found the bug and reported it: roughly 180.
It would appear it's actually a "zero day [plus 18 years]".
"IBM corp's cybersecurity research team discovered the bug in May, describing it as a 'significant vulnerability' in the operating system.
"'The buggy code is at least 19 years old and has been remotely exploitable for the last 18 years,' IBM X-Force research team said in its blog on Tuesday."
http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/se...
I know you guys recently made a big deal out of attacking free software projects, and tried to exploit a couple of recent bugs in them to evangelize for paid development, so this reminder of how bad bugs frequently are in paid development software is pretty embarrassing. But in context, pretending this somehow demonstrates how good paid development models are just looks silly.
Depends on the headlines you read.
http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/v...
If you get your server administration advice from CNN's front page, perhaps your employer is not getting his/her money's worth.
Exactly. The only way anyone could think "Windows doesn't have holes like this" is if one literally pays no attention at all.
Or if one is here to spread misinformation as an AC.
Exactly. My goodness, Windows is legendary not only for having severe holes, but for Microsoft taking a long time to fix them.
Incidently, you might want to take this one seriously -- in addition to poll after poll indicating women feel men should pay not only for the first date, but repeating down the line, more people felt rape was OK if the man pays for everything.
Obviously, that's screwed up, but clearly if one believes in equality, there's a couple of reasons to address all the forms it comes in--not just the forms that disadvantage you.
I disagree with this. Whether it's right or not, or whether feminists wish to make use of them, there are social advantages women enjoy that men do not. The expectation that men should pay (at least for the first date) is widespread among women, according to polls. Eventual equality between the genders (and an honest assessment, I think would find that western culture affords a remarkably egalitarian approach already, though of course a few things remain to be addressed) will of necessity mean such conventions will need to be abandoned.
Likewise, another potentially big target, DD-WRT, uses the plain Bourne shell by default, not BASH.
Actually, this isn't true. Several years back, men's rights groups and feminist groups actually joined forces in an attempt to make Selective Service gender-neutral. They failed.
These are all good points, but they do raise the question as to what advances in pay should be based upon, if not performance and time in job.
The problem, as I see it, is women who do NOT leave for childrearing or other pursuits still being paid less on the basis that males are the breadwinners in their families.
This is a thoughtful comment. One possible reason: the same beliefs that potentially lead to less pay for many women (e.g. an assumption women will bail for kids at some point, or that they're less competent in general, or that men really should be in the jobs because they're the family breadwinners) might also lead to preferential hiring of males.
While this response is cute, and I'm very much in favor of rectifying the very real discrepancies in pay for men vs. women, the denial that women enjoy any social advantages--usually though attacks on the men who point it out--helps no one.
I highly suspect many women would trade those advantages to resolve equal pay and other difficulties, but that doesn't mean they don't exist, or that many women don't make use of them.
This.
I believe you are right when it comes to having an ability to override baser instincts with long-term concerns. However, I do believe humans consistently underestimate how much evolved behaviors play a part in our lives. The most salient example, of course, is the "tabula rasa" belief system that one encounters from time to time (in my experience, particularly among activists who see hypotheses of behaviors having a genetic origin as threatening to attempts to modify those behaviors).
Some researchers have, in fact, argued that altruism, empathy, etc. - behaviors that inherently involve longer-term goals from a selfish point-of-view - are also evolved traits. Which traits are expressed most strongly in a given person is probably itself a combination of nature and nurture...
The great thing about science and scientific predictions: in the end, whether it's right or wrong doesn't depend upon your political biases.
You will be remembered for your contributions on this issue, I'm sure. What I'm not sure about is whether you'll like how you're remembered.
Yep. it's exhausting keeping up with these young whippersnappers.
I think you need to re-read the post above yours.
And you're probably right. On the other hand, history is littered with the dust of skeptics whose names have been forgotten, while the names of many of those they attacked are remembered. Which is as it should be: while skeptics are often right, knee-jerk skepticism is also a particularly risk-free approach to things, isn't it? These researchers will have a chance to prove their results further, and others will attempt to replicate. We'll see what happens.
Exactly. It's like saying a telescope sucks power out of whatever it looks at. Electromagnetic radiation doesn't work that way.
I don't think so. This isn't like siphoning energy from the E-field around a power line (which actually does result in loss of power): electromagnetic signals are radiated away and go to heating the environment if they're not received.
While true, many satellite earth stations require dishes that track satellites in order to provide an uplink (depends upon the band and the satellite system used). Within reason, a system can maintain a lock under a variety of circumstances. A hit from a missile and the resultant, immediate aircraft disintegration probably presents a situation that would make such a lock exceedingly difficult to maintain.
I work in this field (aeronautical communications, including satellite systems), and specifically with FAA personnel who are tasked with knowing and regulating such systems (spectrum managers). What I'm saying comes directly as an answer from them in response to a query about why we don't do exactly as you suggest. It's not merely a question of the total satellite bandwidth available. Satellite bandwidth is used for a lot of things, remember -- and only a small subset is used for protected aeronautical satellite (AMS(R)S) assignments. It's not as simple as you suggest.