They (used to) sell coffee at the exact same temperature as every other coffee outlet. Thankfully the other coffee places didn't cave in and start selling luke warm coffee out of fear. Coffee is hot.. it is scalding hot. That's the way it is served.
America is full of god damn pussies who can't handle the slight possibility that they might get hurt or have to take responsibility for their own clumsiness.
Oh, and most of you retards wouldn't know good coffee if it was spilt on your groin.
We've got this idea for a game see, and it's about spies, but rather than come up with any truly compelling gameplay we're just going have a really big world and put it online.
Ever played Blackjack in California? It's crazy. The "bank" is some guy who works for a mob called "The Corporation" and you pay tribute to the "house" every hand.. working out the odds is a waste of time as basically they're under 50%.. it's a horrid game.
In a much fairer way, this is what I think they should do with FPS games.. there should be a ladder, at the top are the absolute best players, they get there by starting at the bottom and scoring more than a standard deviation of points over all the other players. That way the rest of us average (or, in my case, terrible noob high ping bastard) players don't have to put up with being continually schooled. In the case of blackjack, they should just cap your bets. You wanna count cards? Sure, but you don't go off the $10 table ok?
I didn't bother replying to the other guy as he's obviously uninterested in security, but you seem to care a little.. so am I the only person around here that remembers that remote kernel level exploits are not exactly unheard of? They happen, and you don't need any ports "listening" to be affected by them. Similarly, browsers have flaws in them that can be exploited by any old transparent proxying technology you care to mention.
The point of my post, which unfortunately has been lost in the "Linux is the secure" advocacy is that Linux is only as secure as the administrator who is diligent enough to apply the latest security patches. And LiveCDs are, necessarily, not patched up to date.
Yes, because everyone else has patched the bug.. Microsoft hasn't. But if you're using a LiveCD from before they patched the bug, then you are no more protected than the bozos using IE5.
If you regularly have to create a LiveCD, and you're the kind of person who is susceptible to malware attack, then:
1) You're not going to do it, and
2) You're likely going to get owned during the LiveCD creation chain..
It kinda seems like all the value of using a LiveCD disappears as soon as you start trying to update it.. which is why I was bothering to object to suggesting to people that they use a LiveCD, as they necessarily contain software that is not patched up-to-date.
None of this is new BTW, it's just that a pundit has stumbled into this old discussion.
sigh. Just off the top of my head I can think of about a dozen attacks one could direct against a bank user who thinks they're bulletproof because they're using a Linux LiveCD. For example, booting off a LiveCD won't save you from the truncated SSL cert attack that was demonstrated in the direction of PayPal the other day.. only having an up-to-date browser will do that. Encouraging people to use unpatched known-vulnerable software to do their banking just so they can avoid malware on their regularly patched machines makes no sense at all. Of course, that's the extreme case.. suggesting people use a LiveCD of Linux instead of an unpatched copy of Windows XP SP1 is a different kettle of fish.
Ya, it stops key loggers, and that's great, but it aint going to do much for your browser security unless you keep your LiveCD up to date, and hey, who says your CD burning software isn't infected - implications on trusting trust and all.
If you want to write a pretentious article about how people don't understand security of the interwebs, at least get the name right. That's right, SSL hasn't been considered "secure" for at least a decade.
Riight. 1. If I was one of Murdoch's techs I'd be keeping particularly quiet about how stupid he sounds.. and 2. I expect Murdoch wouldn't even consider the possibility that other people see things differently to him, let alone that he might be wrong about something, or not understand it fully.
umm.. I know lots of "computer literate" people who have never heard of robots.txt.. the vast majority of people I know actually. This whole internet thing is still just magic to most people.
Oh yeah, I love that news wire article.. it was repeated dozens of times in different magazines and news papers. Unfortunately, no-one has bothered to actually track down a reference to a scholarly publication for it. In fact, there is none, the technique was presented at a conference and no-one has reproduced it.. there's no papers quantifying exactly how much antimatter was made and at what temperatures.
Wow.. either you're incredibly naive or you're just a trolling idiot. The point is not that people who disagreed with the Dixie Chicks refused to buy their records.. that's exactly what George W. Bush said and why everyone with a clue hung their head in shame. The point is, people who *agreed* with the Dixie Chicks were unable to buy their records or their movies or hear them on the radio or see them on tv, because the people who disagreed had arranged for them to be banned. Surely you remember all this? It really wasn't that long ago.
Sure, the masses would be MitM vulnerable, but right now they're even worse off, and can be effortlessly sniffed.
Wow, I must be incredibly uninformed about what is possible with unauthenticated encryption.. please, tell us how to do unauthenticated encryption that requires a MitM attack rather than just passive sniffing to defeat.
Short memories. There was a time when the Dixie Chicks were barred from radio, television, etc. They made their own movie instead, and stores wouldn't stock it. So now that you've had a refresher course of recent history, maybe you'd like to think about what I said. If it was a government that was doing this you'd say it must be communist China. No way would the US Government ban someone from the airwaves for having a political opinion. And you'd be right, it wasn't a government action. However, the people of the US are quite willing to "shut up" those who say things they don't like. The censorial actions of these network affiliated scumbags is perfectly acceptable behavior in your fine land of the free. Apparently when they hear something they don't like your fellow countrymen no longer think people should be free to speak.
And that's how you get governments that think the same. Of the people, by the people and for the people.
Of course, now you're going to say that it wasnt the *government* which tried to censor them, it was just people who didn't like what they had to say. Sigh. A nation that turns to censorship every time someone says something they don't like is destined to become a police state.
Slashdot Mirror
So basically it's like meeting an American in Europe?
Yeah, you don't actually think they'll have NPCs do ya? Or, if they do, they'll allow them to be turned off. Or, they'll be clearly marked as such..
This is much like The Matrix Online.. getting a rich urban world to work is hard enough without trying to populate it too.
They (used to) sell coffee at the exact same temperature as every other coffee outlet. Thankfully the other coffee places didn't cave in and start selling luke warm coffee out of fear. Coffee is hot.. it is scalding hot. That's the way it is served.
America is full of god damn pussies who can't handle the slight possibility that they might get hurt or have to take responsibility for their own clumsiness.
Oh, and most of you retards wouldn't know good coffee if it was spilt on your groin.
We've got this idea for a game see, and it's about spies, but rather than come up with any truly compelling gameplay we're just going have a really big world and put it online.
Yep, but FPS = First Person Shooter, which is what the policy of "you're too good, go away" reminded me of.
Ever played Blackjack in California? It's crazy. The "bank" is some guy who works for a mob called "The Corporation" and you pay tribute to the "house" every hand.. working out the odds is a waste of time as basically they're under 50%.. it's a horrid game.
In a much fairer way, this is what I think they should do with FPS games.. there should be a ladder, at the top are the absolute best players, they get there by starting at the bottom and scoring more than a standard deviation of points over all the other players. That way the rest of us average (or, in my case, terrible noob high ping bastard) players don't have to put up with being continually schooled. In the case of blackjack, they should just cap your bets. You wanna count cards? Sure, but you don't go off the $10 table ok?
That joke has been up for decades now.. and yet people keep falling for it.
The only good thing about Escapist Magazine is Zero Punctuation:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/916-Wolfenstein
Yeah, he's that good.
I didn't bother replying to the other guy as he's obviously uninterested in security, but you seem to care a little.. so am I the only person around here that remembers that remote kernel level exploits are not exactly unheard of? They happen, and you don't need any ports "listening" to be affected by them. Similarly, browsers have flaws in them that can be exploited by any old transparent proxying technology you care to mention.
The point of my post, which unfortunately has been lost in the "Linux is the secure" advocacy is that Linux is only as secure as the administrator who is diligent enough to apply the latest security patches. And LiveCDs are, necessarily, not patched up to date.
Every implementation of SSL had this issue.. some just fixed it faster than others.
Yes, because everyone else has patched the bug.. Microsoft hasn't. But if you're using a LiveCD from before they patched the bug, then you are no more protected than the bozos using IE5.
Oh please, there's a lot of malware out there that checks to see if you're making a bootable CD and adds itself to the boot chain.
There's also malware out there that modifies your bios so it doesn't matter if you boot off a CD or a hard drive.
If you regularly have to create a LiveCD, and you're the kind of person who is susceptible to malware attack, then:
1) You're not going to do it, and
2) You're likely going to get owned during the LiveCD creation chain..
It kinda seems like all the value of using a LiveCD disappears as soon as you start trying to update it.. which is why I was bothering to object to suggesting to people that they use a LiveCD, as they necessarily contain software that is not patched up-to-date.
None of this is new BTW, it's just that a pundit has stumbled into this old discussion.
sigh. Just off the top of my head I can think of about a dozen attacks one could direct against a bank user who thinks they're bulletproof because they're using a Linux LiveCD. For example, booting off a LiveCD won't save you from the truncated SSL cert attack that was demonstrated in the direction of PayPal the other day.. only having an up-to-date browser will do that. Encouraging people to use unpatched known-vulnerable software to do their banking just so they can avoid malware on their regularly patched machines makes no sense at all. Of course, that's the extreme case.. suggesting people use a LiveCD of Linux instead of an unpatched copy of Windows XP SP1 is a different kettle of fish.
Ya, it stops key loggers, and that's great, but it aint going to do much for your browser security unless you keep your LiveCD up to date, and hey, who says your CD burning software isn't infected - implications on trusting trust and all.
If you want to write a pretentious article about how people don't understand security of the interwebs, at least get the name right. That's right, SSL hasn't been considered "secure" for at least a decade.
Riight. 1. If I was one of Murdoch's techs I'd be keeping particularly quiet about how stupid he sounds.. and 2. I expect Murdoch wouldn't even consider the possibility that other people see things differently to him, let alone that he might be wrong about something, or not understand it fully.
No.. and neither does Murdoch.
umm.. I know lots of "computer literate" people who have never heard of robots.txt.. the vast majority of people I know actually. This whole internet thing is still just magic to most people.
Oh yeah, I love that news wire article.. it was repeated dozens of times in different magazines and news papers. Unfortunately, no-one has bothered to actually track down a reference to a scholarly publication for it. In fact, there is none, the technique was presented at a conference and no-one has reproduced it.. there's no papers quantifying exactly how much antimatter was made and at what temperatures.
Wow.. either you're incredibly naive or you're just a trolling idiot. The point is not that people who disagreed with the Dixie Chicks refused to buy their records.. that's exactly what George W. Bush said and why everyone with a clue hung their head in shame. The point is, people who *agreed* with the Dixie Chicks were unable to buy their records or their movies or hear them on the radio or see them on tv, because the people who disagreed had arranged for them to be banned. Surely you remember all this? It really wasn't that long ago.
Sure, the masses would be MitM vulnerable, but right now they're even worse off, and can be effortlessly sniffed.
Wow, I must be incredibly uninformed about what is possible with unauthenticated encryption.. please, tell us how to do unauthenticated encryption that requires a MitM attack rather than just passive sniffing to defeat.
Short memories. There was a time when the Dixie Chicks were barred from radio, television, etc. They made their own movie instead, and stores wouldn't stock it. So now that you've had a refresher course of recent history, maybe you'd like to think about what I said. If it was a government that was doing this you'd say it must be communist China. No way would the US Government ban someone from the airwaves for having a political opinion. And you'd be right, it wasn't a government action. However, the people of the US are quite willing to "shut up" those who say things they don't like. The censorial actions of these network affiliated scumbags is perfectly acceptable behavior in your fine land of the free. Apparently when they hear something they don't like your fellow countrymen no longer think people should be free to speak.
And that's how you get governments that think the same. Of the people, by the people and for the people.
Tell it to the Dixie Chicks.
Of course, now you're going to say that it wasnt the *government* which tried to censor them, it was just people who didn't like what they had to say. Sigh. A nation that turns to censorship every time someone says something they don't like is destined to become a police state.