And what, praytell, are business skills? You got yourself an MBA? Let me guess: you're some loser that never had IT "skills," and just came chasing after the money (which shouldn't have been around) in the '90s.
And your business "skills" don't include decent communication skills or simple reading skills: what I originally said was you could go FUCK yourself because you assumed a lot about this guy who's out of a job, and you just did it again... and you assumed a lot about me... when I already told you it wasn't fucking true.
I'm not going to bother to write the point-by-point: just carefully read my message, then carefully read your response. Keep doing this until you develop critical thinking skills.
Hey, dude. Maybe I hang with the wrong crowd, but I don't know any Anonymous Coward software engineers. And don't change the argument into a straw man: I keep myself very competative, too.
I'm absolutely concerned about the exploitation of people in Thailand. You're missing a couple of very important points that a lot of people are slipping by these days:
Those aren't Thai goods. They're made mainly for U.S. corporations. Nearly no money stays in Thailand.
Thai workers can't organize.
Thailand has a rampant problem with slavery for labor in sweatshop and sex industries. (Yes, Virginia, some families living under an oppressive regime for decades actually sell little girls for money... to make sweaters and do other things.)
Those goods aren't taxed on the Thai side of the coin, so that means no money at all for infrastructure in Thailand.
Currency isn't mobile: a dollar here is worth more than in Thailand.
Now... I'm seriously not being mean here: but please (and I do mean please)... try to remember that other countries aren't America. "They could just get other jobs," doesn't always work. You're not competing against what you think you're competing against.
And, I know you might have opinions about "protectionism" (whatever that means this week), but normalizing trade tariffs was employed from the late 1930's to the present... it actually does work in the long run, and every country does it.
Saying it doesn't "work" because it's some opinion you've mistakenly arrived at by assuming things about international politics doesn't make it so, dude.
I call bullshit. Most Windows problems are patched long before they're exploited. See Code Red, Nimda, Blaster, etc.
Okay, sport. I can't not call you on this one (and since you used the word "bullshit," I get the word "stupid"): you're making a stupid assumption here, and it's important that you don't keep making it if you have systems with secure data.
You're assuming that the first time a vulnerability is exploited is that time when you hear about some in-the-wild script-kiddie mass worm or bomb that comes out on the market and actually starts taking down systems with a good deal of success.
I honestly don't know if the cases you're talking about were patched before there was an exploit, and neither do you. A clever hacker with a specific purpose isn't going to go around writing dumb, destructive code that replicates itself for no reason; and they're not going to draw any attention to an exploit that they're using for a nefarious purpose.
So, we don't know when the first exploit came out in those cases, but you don't get to rag on this guy's comment too much; because I guarantee and assure you, with abolute certainty, that there have been longstanding Windows exploits which were not publicized or patched.
I, of course, wouldn't have exploited them: that would be wrong.
In any case, I'm glad that this heated (if sometimes misguided and often flame-like) conversation is happening. Anything that keeps people thinking about security can't be all bad.
1. Everyone is subsidized. You get tax breaks, benefits, etc. SOME companies pay no tax but as others have stated, businesses are responsible for a large amount of tax revenue - businesses as a whole get no free ride.
Microsoft has paid no taxes in the past two years, Haliburton's data is unavailable. I'm not aware of any muti-billion dollar government subsidies going directly to me (and not the society at large). Could you tell me where to pick up my check?
2. You say work is being sent to underpaid workers. What did you decide is the right wage? Is it ok if a company avoids outsourcing by moving jobs from say NYC to Boonieville, OH where living expenses and labour is cheaper?
Most often, industrial outsourced labor goes to countries where workes have no right to organize, and are sometimes oppressed by their government if they do not stay employed. Have you been to China? In Indonesia, people have been killed in these situations. I'd say that places which don't have labor rights would tend to be on the cheap side, and the World Court would agree with me on this one.
3. Assuming the company cuts their salary expenses in half. Where did that money go? Your post seemed to be anti-outsourcing so I'll assume the worst: the evil company paid more tax and kept the money. Which now belongs to the shareholders. Who now invest more heavily in technology. Which causes other businesses to pop up in this very profitable field. Other companies hire more people (a few of which have to be local).
Straw man, but I'll ignore it for now... What makes you believe that they'll "invest more heavily in technology?", which will... okay, I can't ignore the slippery slope in the end of this sentence. Or the next. You should get a little eight-page book on rhetorical fallacies.
Someone lost job income, but it will come back when investers re-invest and use that money to pay for new workers that they didn't want to pay for in the first place, right? Trickle-down economics (here with the input capital being a job), right?
If you buy this... seriously, I've got a game for you. You send me some money (let's say ten grand, just to make it a painful lesson). I'll send you some of it back. Promise. Sound like a good deal? Email me and I'll be happy to send you my address.
Actually, I don't have any clothes made in Thailand, China, or Indonesia. And, while we're on about it, those should be taxed, too.
I don't want to get too much on a soap box, but this entire article pisses me off. It's just the warbling of a disenfranchised or compeltely turned-off generation. "We can't possibly do anything as a society to better things, it's too hard." Whiner.
I know this post is just trying to respond to an apparent hypocricy in another post, but it's about time that this angry, "we-can't-do-anything-but-complain" generation just grew the hell up. I'm not a hypocrite, and the only reason you assume that all his clothes are made in Thailand is because it's become nearly impossible to buy clothes from workers who aren't exploited.
And let's be very clear here... the fact that it's nearly impossible to survive in this freaky economy-as-it-stands without buying something made from sweat shop, oppressed, or just plain slave labor is the problem in the first place.
...and using that abysmal state of things to proffer a cheap ad hominem attack on someone down on their luck because they're out of a job is just inhuman.
So here's another smiley-faced ad hominem attack just for you, but it's not as guileful: go f*ck yourself.
The website defacement archive at Zone-h shows that Linux accounts for 61% of the defacements in the last 24 hours (note, this figure changes, so it might be different when you view it). An analysis of the last few weeks of their archive shows a similar percentage of exploited Linux systems
I may be missing something, but this quotation seems kind of misleading. According to Web Host News, over 62.5% of all web servers are running Apache. I'm presuming that most of those Apache servers are Linux servers (does anyone have the numbers?), and if that's at all close to true... it seems like highest number of Linux site defacements is proportionaly less-than-equal to the number of Linux servers.
Also, I've never seen any high-visibility sites stay on MS/IIS for very long (MS hasn't even run MS on some of its high profile sites at times, because the platform simply couldn't handle the load). If it's even true that a disproportionate number of high-volume sites run under Linux (and I certainly know some of my customers do); well, wouldn't those sites be the most likely to be targets for defacement?
And, if either one of those mitigating factors is close to true: that's a pretty good track record. If neither is true, it's still a good thought experiment which demonstrates that taking these numbers at shock value doesn't really further understanding of how the different OSs are performing security-wise.
I don't think anyone should be so bold as to say that there will never be a security problem with a system, but throwing evidence like this out seems as scientifically responsible as trolling or grandstanding. The data just doesn't seem to mean anything.
I cannot believe the whining about this. They needed FREAKING EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND VALID SIGNATURES....aand how many votes did Davis get in the last election? How many votes were cast against him?
I wish a statement like this was world-class idiocy, but it's worse than that: it's "teaming," isn't it? Let me guess: you're a Republican. How can I tell?... This is the kind of anything-for-the-team justifying crap I've been hearing for the last sixteen years.
You're probably not an idiot, you just refuse to do the math when the team sends a monkey up to bat.
1. George Bush is smart.
2. Crippling debt is economic stimulus.
3. And, oh yeah, eight hundred thousand signatures (!!!!IN CALIFORNIA!!!!) should be enough to recall a Democrat.
4. A Republican; well, that's different...
From Bill Mahr's take on the matter:
Here's why the economy turned: The dot-com bubble burst. (Obviously on the orders of Gray Davis.) The airline industry collapsed. (Just as Gray Davis planned.) We fought two wars. (Playing right into Gray Davis' hands.) And Dick Cheney's friends at Enron "gamed" the energy market and ripped off the state for billions.
So you can see the problem: Gray Davis.
Gray Davis may be an idiot and a lousy governer to boot-- I really have no idea. But that a recount was funded by some rich dork with a personal ajenda isn't a subject for debate. You fund an assault on a public figure whose job you want with your own money: that's buying a recount. Look up buying in the dictionary.
So... to the People of the Great State of California, I say... no more whining. You're committed, now go find yourself a new governer.
And if you rank little weasels elect the Terminator, you hereby forfit any right to make fun of the People of the Great State of Minnesota for not tying Jesse Ventura to a chair during the primary season.
Jake
If Interscope is trying to reduce file sharing, their approach may or may not work on its own merits. However, it disturbs me to see what is a pretty clear misapplication of a scientific theory.
Is it just me, or does applying an organic population model, correct or not, seem particularly inappropriate to solve the problem that the MPAA percieves itself to have?
An organic model presupposes an expansion model based on breeding. The population of users of P2P networks has an organic analog, but the client population connected to a network are not organic in nature at all: on the contrary, they can be produced and destroyed at will. If one were to shut down a "critical population" of the servers, one could induce another "critical population" of the servers overnight, whether through concerted effort or just blind fluctuation in interest.
A computer user can choose to run an application for P2P file sharing "at will." A computer user running a P2P node can suddenly be shut down or choose to stop. Consequently, a user not running a P2P client can choose to run one at any time, adding to the population.
Neither of the above cases is at all possible in an organic breeding system: deer do not simply disappear at will and re-appear. If we were to try to model population control models based on external whim, we'd fail quite miserably: but mis-applying a theory based on an organic breeding model is just as stupid.
If you're talking about the population of deer, it is important to note that monkeys can't jump from the trees and decide to be deer any time they so desire.
I'm afraid this is another example of what Feynman called "cargo cult science." The author clearly wants two things to be analagous, so he merely fiddles the variables of the model into his area of interest and creates science. If you want to model a peer-to-peer networking model, I beleive you would be better served by starting from first principles.
Slashdot Mirror
And what, praytell, are business skills? You got yourself an MBA? Let me guess: you're some loser that never had IT "skills," and just came chasing after the money (which shouldn't have been around) in the '90s.
And your business "skills" don't include decent communication skills or simple reading skills: what I originally said was you could go FUCK yourself because you assumed a lot about this guy who's out of a job, and you just did it again... and you assumed a lot about me... when I already told you it wasn't fucking true.
I'm not going to bother to write the point-by-point: just carefully read my message, then carefully read your response. Keep doing this until you develop critical thinking skills.
Hey, dude. Maybe I hang with the wrong crowd, but I don't know any Anonymous Coward software engineers. And don't change the argument into a straw man: I keep myself very competative, too.
I'm absolutely concerned about the exploitation of people in Thailand. You're missing a couple of very important points that a lot of people are slipping by these days:
Now... I'm seriously not being mean here: but please (and I do mean please)... try to remember that other countries aren't America. "They could just get other jobs," doesn't always work. You're not competing against what you think you're competing against.
And, I know you might have opinions about "protectionism" (whatever that means this week), but normalizing trade tariffs was employed from the late 1930's to the present... it actually does work in the long run, and every country does it.
Saying it doesn't "work" because it's some opinion you've mistakenly arrived at by assuming things about international politics doesn't make it so, dude.
Jake
I call bullshit. Most Windows problems are patched long before they're exploited. See Code Red, Nimda, Blaster, etc.
Okay, sport. I can't not call you on this one (and since you used the word "bullshit," I get the word "stupid"): you're making a stupid assumption here, and it's important that you don't keep making it if you have systems with secure data.
You're assuming that the first time a vulnerability is exploited is that time when you hear about some in-the-wild script-kiddie mass worm or bomb that comes out on the market and actually starts taking down systems with a good deal of success.
I honestly don't know if the cases you're talking about were patched before there was an exploit, and neither do you. A clever hacker with a specific purpose isn't going to go around writing dumb, destructive code that replicates itself for no reason; and they're not going to draw any attention to an exploit that they're using for a nefarious purpose.
So, we don't know when the first exploit came out in those cases, but you don't get to rag on this guy's comment too much; because I guarantee and assure you, with abolute certainty, that there have been longstanding Windows exploits which were not publicized or patched.
I, of course, wouldn't have exploited them: that would be wrong.
In any case, I'm glad that this heated (if sometimes misguided and often flame-like) conversation is happening. Anything that keeps people thinking about security can't be all bad.
Jake
1. Everyone is subsidized. You get tax breaks, benefits, etc. SOME companies pay no tax but as others have stated, businesses are responsible for a large amount of tax revenue - businesses as a whole get no free ride.
Microsoft has paid no taxes in the past two years, Haliburton's data is unavailable. I'm not aware of any muti-billion dollar government subsidies going directly to me (and not the society at large). Could you tell me where to pick up my check?
2. You say work is being sent to underpaid workers. What did you decide is the right wage? Is it ok if a company avoids outsourcing by moving jobs from say NYC to Boonieville, OH where living expenses and labour is cheaper?
Most often, industrial outsourced labor goes to countries where workes have no right to organize, and are sometimes oppressed by their government if they do not stay employed. Have you been to China? In Indonesia, people have been killed in these situations. I'd say that places which don't have labor rights would tend to be on the cheap side, and the World Court would agree with me on this one.
3. Assuming the company cuts their salary expenses in half. Where did that money go? Your post seemed to be anti-outsourcing so I'll assume the worst: the evil company paid more tax and kept the money. Which now belongs to the shareholders. Who now invest more heavily in technology. Which causes other businesses to pop up in this very profitable field. Other companies hire more people (a few of which have to be local).
Straw man, but I'll ignore it for now... What makes you believe that they'll "invest more heavily in technology?", which will... okay, I can't ignore the slippery slope in the end of this sentence. Or the next. You should get a little eight-page book on rhetorical fallacies.
Someone lost job income, but it will come back when investers re-invest and use that money to pay for new workers that they didn't want to pay for in the first place, right? Trickle-down economics (here with the input capital being a job), right?
If you buy this... seriously, I've got a game for you. You send me some money (let's say ten grand, just to make it a painful lesson). I'll send you some of it back. Promise. Sound like a good deal? Email me and I'll be happy to send you my address.
Actually, I don't have any clothes made in Thailand, China, or Indonesia. And, while we're on about it, those should be taxed, too.
I don't want to get too much on a soap box, but this entire article pisses me off. It's just the warbling of a disenfranchised or compeltely turned-off generation. "We can't possibly do anything as a society to better things, it's too hard." Whiner.
I know this post is just trying to respond to an apparent hypocricy in another post, but it's about time that this angry, "we-can't-do-anything-but-complain" generation just grew the hell up. I'm not a hypocrite, and the only reason you assume that all his clothes are made in Thailand is because it's become nearly impossible to buy clothes from workers who aren't exploited.
And let's be very clear here... the fact that it's nearly impossible to survive in this freaky economy-as-it-stands without buying something made from sweat shop, oppressed, or just plain slave labor is the problem in the first place.
So here's another smiley-faced ad hominem attack just for you, but it's not as guileful: go f*ck yourself.
Jake
I may be missing something, but this quotation seems kind of misleading. According to Web Host News, over 62.5% of all web servers are running Apache. I'm presuming that most of those Apache servers are Linux servers (does anyone have the numbers?), and if that's at all close to true... it seems like highest number of Linux site defacements is proportionaly less-than-equal to the number of Linux servers.
Also, I've never seen any high-visibility sites stay on MS/IIS for very long (MS hasn't even run MS on some of its high profile sites at times, because the platform simply couldn't handle the load). If it's even true that a disproportionate number of high-volume sites run under Linux (and I certainly know some of my customers do); well, wouldn't those sites be the most likely to be targets for defacement?
And, if either one of those mitigating factors is close to true: that's a pretty good track record. If neither is true, it's still a good thought experiment which demonstrates that taking these numbers at shock value doesn't really further understanding of how the different OSs are performing security-wise.
I don't think anyone should be so bold as to say that there will never be a security problem with a system, but throwing evidence like this out seems as scientifically responsible as trolling or grandstanding. The data just doesn't seem to mean anything.
Jake
I cannot believe the whining about this. They needed FREAKING EIGHT HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND VALID SIGNATURES. ...aand how many votes did Davis get in the last election? How many votes were cast against him?
I wish a statement like this was world-class idiocy, but it's worse than that: it's "teaming," isn't it? Let me guess: you're a Republican. How can I tell?... This is the kind of anything-for-the-team justifying crap I've been hearing for the last sixteen years.
You're probably not an idiot, you just refuse to do the math when the team sends a monkey up to bat.
1. George Bush is smart.
2. Crippling debt is economic stimulus.
3. And, oh yeah, eight hundred thousand signatures (!!!!IN CALIFORNIA!!!!) should be enough to recall a Democrat.
4. A Republican; well, that's different...
From Bill Mahr's take on the matter:
Here's why the economy turned: The dot-com bubble burst. (Obviously on the orders of Gray Davis.) The airline industry collapsed. (Just as Gray Davis planned.) We fought two wars. (Playing right into Gray Davis' hands.) And Dick Cheney's friends at Enron "gamed" the energy market and ripped off the state for billions.
So you can see the problem: Gray Davis.
Gray Davis may be an idiot and a lousy governer to boot-- I really have no idea. But that a recount was funded by some rich dork with a personal ajenda isn't a subject for debate. You fund an assault on a public figure whose job you want with your own money: that's buying a recount. Look up buying in the dictionary.
So... to the People of the Great State of California, I say... no more whining. You're committed, now go find yourself a new governer.
And if you rank little weasels elect the Terminator, you hereby forfit any right to make fun of the People of the Great State of Minnesota for not tying Jesse Ventura to a chair during the primary season.
Jake
If Interscope is trying to reduce file sharing, their approach may or may not work on its own merits. However, it disturbs me to see what is a pretty clear misapplication of a scientific theory.
Is it just me, or does applying an organic population model, correct or not, seem particularly inappropriate to solve the problem that the MPAA percieves itself to have?
An organic model presupposes an expansion model based on breeding. The population of users of P2P networks has an organic analog, but the client population connected to a network are not organic in nature at all: on the contrary, they can be produced and destroyed at will. If one were to shut down a "critical population" of the servers, one could induce another "critical population" of the servers overnight, whether through concerted effort or just blind fluctuation in interest.
A computer user can choose to run an application for P2P file sharing "at will." A computer user running a P2P node can suddenly be shut down or choose to stop. Consequently, a user not running a P2P client can choose to run one at any time, adding to the population.
Neither of the above cases is at all possible in an organic breeding system: deer do not simply disappear at will and re-appear. If we were to try to model population control models based on external whim, we'd fail quite miserably: but mis-applying a theory based on an organic breeding model is just as stupid.
If you're talking about the population of deer, it is important to note that monkeys can't jump from the trees and decide to be deer any time they so desire.
I'm afraid this is another example of what Feynman called "cargo cult science." The author clearly wants two things to be analagous, so he merely fiddles the variables of the model into his area of interest and creates science. If you want to model a peer-to-peer networking model, I beleive you would be better served by starting from first principles.