Recieved email, instead of loving signs of friendship, message contained bobcat.
Well sorry buddy, but we told you and told you not to blindly open email attachments, and it was obvious it was going to require a more object lesson to get the point across.
Actually, Microsoft is not correct. The browser is supposed to be unable to load the object that is tripping IE's cross-domain security features. Regardless of whether the object fails to load because of security policies or because the resource flat out doesn't exist, the test is constructed so that the browser will display the fallback content for the object, which IE does not do.
I figure a guy clueless about wireless security learns he has a freeloader when something nasty gets on to or off of his network, and the investigation implicates the unsecured AP as the source of the leak.
Comcast et al. were actually my first suspicion, as well. But when you think about it, the law they'd want is the one that lets them bilk their customers. They can spread FUD without spending money lobbying.
Oh ho! What makes you so sure that the fabric hasn't already advanced far enough to eat the entire research team, and is not issuing its own press releases advertising how miraculously wonderful and, of course, completely safe it is?
Or a program that tries to anticipate what the next character you type is likely to be, and lights that one up. Sounds like something MicroSoft would want.
Personally, I don't think I would be able to write something like that. The temptation would be too great to weight the prediction in favor of spelling profanities just to see if I could get someone wealthy enough to spend $1500 on a keyboard to start dropping random F-bombs in his email.
Indeed, returning software is just not an option. I was just having this discussion with my girl friend about my BitTorrent usage, how I need to try before I buy games. That's simply not an option (trying) for many games, and even games that have demos available are quite often based on beta code.
You know, it's not an option for movies, either. And a $7 ticket for a two-hour movie costs more, hour for hour, than a $60 game you can finish in 20 hours. Would you be willing to claim that it's fair for you to "demo" a movie because the guy who runs the theater won't give you your money back if it's lousy?
Are you seriously suggesting that everyone--or even anyone--who is downloading movies from the Pirate Bay is doing so as a form of public protest of the unreasonable terms of copyright law?
The numbers are misleading. Think about it: the votes are already cast in secret. So when a ninja votes, not even the elections office finds out about it.
That 0.14% is entirely comprised of pirates too drunk to fill out their ballot properly.
What people REALLY want is something e-paper about 13x19 tabloid size at 300dpi & reflective that can roll up.
Personally, I would find such a thing fantastically useless. What I would love instead is a device with the dimensions of my steno pad I can use as a physical Wiki, with high enough resolution that letter-size PDFs are still readable when scaled down.
That's the trouble with manufacturing an expensive device that hopes to be universally appealing. Almost nobody wants it, because it's well-suited to almost nobody's needs. If you look at the cell phone industry, they have a basic platform and can quickly and cheaply churn out a large number of models based on that platform. If that strategy could be applied to eBook readers, creating a wide product line targeting narrower markets, they might be more attractive to consumers.
That's hilarious. While they're busy posting snarky articles on their blog, Mozilla and Opera have been posting betas of their next major version, and Apple has released theirs. And for multiple platforms, not just the two most recent versions of Windows. There's no mistake here. People are interpreting inaction as inaction.
Looking forward to their coming announcement of another clusterfuck of a UI redesign and no substantial changes to the engine.
What support does Microsoft actually provide to people with legitimate copies of their software that isn't available to people who have been sold counterfeit copies, though? Both get patches. Both have to pay per incident for support. What else does that leave?
This drastic change in Microsoft's WGA system is only the latest in series of attempts to smooth WGA's rough edges. In August, Kochis apologized on Microsoft's WGA blog for an outage that incorrectly flagged thousands of customers' systems as "non genuine." In October, Microsoft removed the WGA validation requirement from IE7 downloads. Two weeks ago, on November 20, Kochis promised to "build more trust in WGA" by improving its back-end systems, its response times, and its customer support.
Getting rid of the "kill switch" is a much better way to build that trust.
This is software explicitly designed to make your computer less useful. It does nothing else for you. Why would "improving its back-end systems" ever make me trust it the least bit more?
Specifically it seems to be records of lobbying activities. Does anyone know where the Administration's arguments for keeping this sort of thing from the public can be read? I would like to know why they think that the public shouldn't be allowed to know who is trying to sway the opinion of their representatives.
If Microsoft and Intel put Negreponte out of 'business' by selling subsidised low-cost PCs, how long do you think they'll continue to sell them afterwards?
Maybe a long time if Walmart decides that selling $200 laptops along side their $200 desktops sounds like a good idea. Granted that won't help children in developing nations much, but it'd sure do something interesting to the PC market.
Slashdot Mirror
Well sorry buddy, but we told you and told you not to blindly open email attachments, and it was obvious it was going to require a more object lesson to get the point across.
You show up carrying a large, unwieldy box and just ask somebody to get the door for you.
Actually, Microsoft is not correct. The browser is supposed to be unable to load the object that is tripping IE's cross-domain security features. Regardless of whether the object fails to load because of security policies or because the resource flat out doesn't exist, the test is constructed so that the browser will display the fallback content for the object, which IE does not do.
Why, he's keeping quiet and letting the Discourteous Donkeys do his work for him, of course.
I figure a guy clueless about wireless security learns he has a freeloader when something nasty gets on to or off of his network, and the investigation implicates the unsecured AP as the source of the leak.
Comcast et al. were actually my first suspicion, as well. But when you think about it, the law they'd want is the one that lets them bilk their customers. They can spread FUD without spending money lobbying.
What good would a law like this do the telcos, though? Wouldn't the owner of the AP have to be the one who pressed charges?
My money's on some muckity-muck business owner who got bit when he didn't secure his network properly saying, "There oughta be a law!"
Because what Yoda would use is it.
Oh ho! What makes you so sure that the fabric hasn't already advanced far enough to eat the entire research team, and is not issuing its own press releases advertising how miraculously wonderful and, of course, completely safe it is?
Personally, I don't think I would be able to write something like that. The temptation would be too great to weight the prediction in favor of spelling profanities just to see if I could get someone wealthy enough to spend $1500 on a keyboard to start dropping random F-bombs in his email.
Hey, it was good enough to prevent you from replying using his account, at least.
Holy crap! What kind of BB gun do you have that you aren't sure whether a BB gun would wreak as much havoc as a missile launcher?
You know, it's not an option for movies, either. And a $7 ticket for a two-hour movie costs more, hour for hour, than a $60 game you can finish in 20 hours. Would you be willing to claim that it's fair for you to "demo" a movie because the guy who runs the theater won't give you your money back if it's lousy?
Indeed. A career filled with blunt head trauma certainly would explain why an otherwise rational person might come to prefer Emacs.
Are you seriously suggesting that everyone--or even anyone--who is downloading movies from the Pirate Bay is doing so as a form of public protest of the unreasonable terms of copyright law?
The numbers are misleading. Think about it: the votes are already cast in secret. So when a ninja votes, not even the elections office finds out about it.
That 0.14% is entirely comprised of pirates too drunk to fill out their ballot properly.
You are either incredibly macho, or trying to get someone mauled to death by bears for a very unusual reason.
Because their manager is pissed that they have to spend more money shoring up their shoddy product and is taking it out on the dev team?
Personally, I would find such a thing fantastically useless. What I would love instead is a device with the dimensions of my steno pad I can use as a physical Wiki, with high enough resolution that letter-size PDFs are still readable when scaled down.
That's the trouble with manufacturing an expensive device that hopes to be universally appealing. Almost nobody wants it, because it's well-suited to almost nobody's needs. If you look at the cell phone industry, they have a basic platform and can quickly and cheaply churn out a large number of models based on that platform. If that strategy could be applied to eBook readers, creating a wide product line targeting narrower markets, they might be more attractive to consumers.
From that post:
That's hilarious. While they're busy posting snarky articles on their blog, Mozilla and Opera have been posting betas of their next major version, and Apple has released theirs. And for multiple platforms, not just the two most recent versions of Windows. There's no mistake here. People are interpreting inaction as inaction.
Looking forward to their coming announcement of another clusterfuck of a UI redesign and no substantial changes to the engine.
What support does Microsoft actually provide to people with legitimate copies of their software that isn't available to people who have been sold counterfeit copies, though? Both get patches. Both have to pay per incident for support. What else does that leave?
A blog on ZDNet has this interesting bit:
This is software explicitly designed to make your computer less useful. It does nothing else for you. Why would "improving its back-end systems" ever make me trust it the least bit more?
Specifically it seems to be records of lobbying activities. Does anyone know where the Administration's arguments for keeping this sort of thing from the public can be read? I would like to know why they think that the public shouldn't be allowed to know who is trying to sway the opinion of their representatives.
Sounds like a reasonable thing for them to ask. If clicking OK is the only valid response, why was the dialog necessary in the first place?
What did they do? Make it easier to turn the checkbox back off?
Maybe a long time if Walmart decides that selling $200 laptops along side their $200 desktops sounds like a good idea. Granted that won't help children in developing nations much, but it'd sure do something interesting to the PC market.