No game feature pisses me off more than having to have a CD humming in my laptop's drive (noisy AND heats it up) while I play. I hunt down those cracks regularly after buying a new game. Unreal Tournament and Call of Duty were that way.
Daemon Tools works nicely for image mounting on windows. Toast does the job most of the time on Mac. But sometimes you need a crack.
I think he's looking at the wrong step in the chain. Yes, there will always be people eager to crack your software. Either they want a free copy, want to give others a free copy, want some attention, or are looking for a challenge. (I suspect the latter is a more important factor than a lot of people recognize)
The step that needs to be looked at is who buys it after they have gotten their hands on a cracked copy. By default it's going to be a smaller percentage, since it's easy to just say "oh well I have it now it wasn't all that special it's not worth it", but if you discard the number of people that got the copy that never had any intention of buying it, I think you'll find there's a respectable percentage of people that buy it after getting the copy.
I know I download a good deal of movies. A lot of them are trash and get deleted after a few minutes of watching and some skipping forward. Some are meh and get set aside. Others I like. The good ones, I buy on bluray. I have avatar right now in reasonable quality, and I'm certainly going to buy the bluray when it comes out. On the other hand, there's a lot of them that had a real short trip to my trashcan and I'm thankful I didn't pay anything for the crap. That's how things should work I think there's a lot more people out there like me (to do with software as well as movies and music) than the DRM advocates would admit to. But of course my buying them anyway whether or not there's DRM kinda ruins their business model, so what else can you expect from them?
does the link cause the iphone to download and launch the downloaded app, or is it a browser-executed thing like an SWF, or is it using an overflow bug in a browser system like the recent TIFF vulnerability, or how does it manage to get into an execution/interpretation chain?
It's usually preferred to fill damage in an optical surface with a material with the same index of refraction so the light doesn't kink when it goes through the filler or when it crosses boundaries.
Though I don't know how much it would matter at this small of a scale.
I recall a light coating of vegetable oil being good enough to rip a bad CD, and from there simply reburn it.
The layer formed by the liquid glass is said to be flexible and breathable.
The spray, which is harmless to the environment, can be used to protect against disease,
The versatile spray, which forms an easy-clean coating one millionth of a millimetre thick – 500 times thinner than a human hair – can be applied to virtually any surface to protect it
Questioning the irritation in other places.. lets see, it's durable, waterproof, breathes, protects, flexible... spray-on condoms anyone?
I would agree with that. If I wanted to send something largeish to someone else where I was it would be useful to set our laptops back to back for example and basically irda a file over. Sort of like a fast bluetooth ad-hoc. In that scenario, physical arrangement etc is already expected to be optimized.
I remember printing to an irda printer a long long time ago. (1999-2000 or so?) That was before 802.11 was around, and people were trying to figure out how I was printing leaning back in my chair with the laptop, no cables attached. And we got to see a little bright green light shining from behind the strange black patch on the front of the printer for the first time. (the irda window, the light came on when irda was in use) But it was slow and unreliable, and irda had two competing standards, it was only by chance that the printer and my laptop supported the same standard. In that instance the printer needed to be within about 30 degrees of facing me, and the same with my laptop's back side to it, and range was only about 3 feet max. The farther you separated, the harder the aim was, and it was largely a trial and error because there was no way to determine signal strength, so it may have had better range if the aim had been closer to ideal. From what I've read here, they're trying to eliminate the aim issue. In reality, the only way to get it to work reliably and consistently was to set the laptop down right in front of the printer, about 5" apart.
The idea of "security" here is almost irrelevant. It's like being concerned about privacy when you're using two tin cans and a string - privacy is the least of your problems.
users won't tolerate very intermittent connections, and won't tolerate having to aim their system at all. I remember using irda brirefly, and it was very touchy.
Wifi is generally omnidirectional. light doesn't work that way - you can get a very strong signal 20 feet from it, or a nonexistent signal six inches away, if you're in a bad spot. And this effect occurs in both directions, and has different deadzones. So not only are you having a problem receiving, you're also having a differnt problem sending, requiring a great deal more adjustment to get communications going. Having to solve two positional problems simultaneously effectively quadruples the difficulty of the task.
It's also going to be a great deal more environmentally sensitive. You can drop a bar or two if someone sets their laptop bag down beside your laptop and clouds direct line between you and the access point. Imagine how much worse that can get with light, and at a greater distance - you won't just lose a bar or two, you're almost certain to get completely disconnected. A couple chatting as they walk down the hall ten feet from you could ground you for several seconds, giving you absolutely no hint of what caused it.
No, this technology's not going anywhere. Sure it works, but it's nowhere near as reliable as the public will demand. Look how badly people flip out now over an occasional dropped call.
The MPAA, of course, will not come away from this with the obvious conclusion."
Oh they have reached the obvious conclusion, it' just doesn't support their business model, so they are publicly denying/fighting it to extend their lifespan as much as possible. I'm sure they realize the result is inevitable, but until it actually happens, they will continue to profit on it. They'd be extremely stupid to just give up, so none of this comes as any real surprise.
Most people want mirrored or spanned. What you're looking for lies somewhere in between. The trick being to enable spaces control on individual displays, while still allowing drag between displays.
Good luck, haven't seen it. What you want is sufficiently unusual that there may not be anything that provides it. I suggest looking for someone else that's made their own variation of spaces support themselves, that offers the option to switch spaces per-display, as the odds of finding someone that's hacked an existing spaces to be per-monitor is probably going to be low.
The other route would be to find a different variation on spanning, such that the separate monitors aren't necessarily spanned, but are simply adjacent, and if you try to drag a window, it can't exist partly on one display and partly on the other, but you can still drag a window from one display to the other. That may still allow you individual spaces control perhaps? I think that's the reason you're having problems, is that most spanning allows a window to overlap off one display onto another, so for one display to change space it requires the others to change also. If you look at it that way I think you'll realize what you're initially asking for doesn't make sense. (if the displays are truly spanned (attached) and not simply adjacent)
so pressure at earth's center is about 3.8 million atmospheres. Quite a bit shy of 40. But that's assuming the same radius and density, which are probably quite a bit off. But not by that much I don't think.
The problem isn't somuch the escape velocity required, as it is getting the fuel there. Look how much fuel it takes to get the shuttle out of the atmosphere. Compare that with the weight of the shuttle itself. Now imagine what it would take to launch that much fuel into orbit, if you were going to take it with you and use it to take off from Neptune after you landed.
Fusion drive probably wouldn't be any more useful there as it is here. Currently the most practical way to orbit is to trade mass at appreciable velocity, and the problem there is you usually want the mass you're trading to come from the same thing that's generating the velocity, and that'd be rocket fuel. Not much of that on Neptune unfortunately, or anything else with those two qualities.
Owell the first people to go there or mars or whatever are going to be permanent residents anyway. I'd still go though, given the opportunity - I doubt they'll have problems finding takers for that one when it comes up.
Diamonds are only expensive on earth because of artificial scarcity
I don't think even that is the case anymore. Maybe in the past, and maybe that's why the present is where it is, where something has a perceived value that's arguably a great deal above it's actual or practical value. The diamond market goes to great lengths to maintain this public perception. The only diamonds that are scarce are large natural ones.
Heck, helium is fast becoming a scarce material, which is just weird to think about. But they're not making it anymore so I suppose.
Only because water (h2o) is a polar molecule. When we're talking diamonds and other similar materials we're talking raw elements (carbon in the case of diamond) which don't have the opportunity to be polar, and thus will always contract as cooled.
I recall someone doing some maths and determined that if there were a mountain of gold bars on the moon it would not be economical to go get some. Same applies here I'd imagine, much moreso.
They usually watch for excessive traffic on specific ports. Since the most immediately profitable use of a botnetted machine is spam, the majority of botnetted PCs are either running open mail relays or are themselves functioning as outgoing mailservers. Many ISPs (including two in my area) watch for excessive traffic going OUT on TCP port 25. Unless you are running a mailserver, your computer has no legitimate reason to send out over that port in volume. Most ISP mailservers are SSL nowadays anyway and are off port 25 so you don't even need to use that if you are connecting to your ISP's mailserver from off-network. (and many ISPs outright block port 25 outgoing from anything in their network besides their mailserver) Many ISPs react the same if your computer is listening on port 25 (acting as an open relay)
So if you are pushing megs (or gigs) a day every day on port 25, there's better than 99% chance your machine is botnetted. It doesn't take speculation to figure that out, and the odds of false-positives are very close to zero.
That said, I have no sympathy for someone that knows their computer has a problem that's causing other people grief. That's the most basic understanding of the problem that is given when your ISP gives you a phonecall or email saying you have a problem and need to fix it or we will cut you off. If you're too stupid to acknowledge this and take responsibility for fixing it, or just plain don't care, I'd much rather see you off the internet and out of my Inbox. If you don't care that someone else has violated you by hijacking your computer that's fine with me, until they start using it to violate me, and that's when I start having a say in the matter.
If you want a fun example to separate the computer from the problem, here's something easier to understand: ABC Construction company does building demolitions. They leave their explosives on site and not locked up. They keep getting their explosives stolen. OK I don't care about that, it's their loss. But then stuff around town start getting blown up and the explosives are easily traced back to you. That's when it's time for the police to come have a talk with you about securing your explosives. You do not have the right to continue leaving dangerous things so easily accessible that the public is constantly being hurt by them. Even if you want to ignore your moral responsibility for it, the public won't stand for it and you lose your say in the matter. You WILL secure your things or you WILL go away.
Another excellent example is how several states legally require you to have a lock on your anhydrous ammonia tanks to prevent theft and use in drug manufacture. Also, most universities now are requiring students to install AV software on their computers before they're allowed to use the campus net. Your precedents have already been set.
The vertical stripes, indicating worldwide activity at the same time, are probably the result of botnets being ordered to target an area that includes your IP pool. (or possibly, specifically your organization - depending on where you got the logs this may be more or less likely) The horizontal stripes are of course showing continuous activity from specific regions, which can indicate activity of a regional botnet doing general penetration scans looking for more machines to infect. For example, botnets that tend to post their driveby installer on russian web pages will be primarily comprised of participants from russia or other russian-speaking countries
You should also consider the sensitivity of the graph. Only having two axis is unhelpful. Could for example, one high bandwidth box at a single IP doing an intensive DDoS or password brute force on you be responsible for any of the horizontal lines? (in which case the graph is only showing number of connections, not number of UNIQUE IP connections) From that graph alone it's impossible to say if the attacks are distributed or simply high bandwidth solo, which can lead to different conclusions. A single compromised akami server could similar to a minor botnet on that graph.
You'd be advised to take a horizontal or vertical slice you are interested in and examine it alone, creating a new 2d graph with other information on the other axis. More patterns are bound to develop and you can further regraph with new information until clear patterns stop, and then you can consider the patterns you've identified as a group.
it's not like there is no alternative to pay pal. Just use something else.
Please list some of these wonderful alternatives.
As much as I hate to say it, paypal is becoming the de-facto method of paying for things on the internet and the de-facto method of accepting free donations. Think of all the times you see a "help support us" link on someone's page, with a paypal logo/link? I can't even recall off the top of my head the last time I saw a donation link that wasn't paypal.
I'm not saying paypal is good, they're not. But right now they're practically the only game in town. So what alternatives do you recommend? Whatever they are, they need to at least be able to draw from a credit card or bank account, and need to be quick and hassle-free for the payer to set up and start using.
What's unfortunate here is there's still a lot of people out there that don't understand why some security researchers publish security bugs they find. It's issues like this where "We reported this to you FOUR MONTHS AGO and you haven't fixed it yet. We're going public with it tomorrow." Oh noes! Everyone's computer getting owned, it's all your fault, you should keep security bugs QUIET so we have time to fix them!.
Ya, right, whatever. They don't want the researchers to keep the bugs quiet so they "have time to fix them". Clearly four months is more than enough time to fix anything important. So, just how many more of these critical security bugs are we continuing to keep under wraps until someone exploits them before getting around to fixing? The logical conclusion is the researchers should give companies like MS a flat 30 days notice, and then go public immediately after that. At least we'd be getting the bugs patched 35 days after discovery, instead of 130 days. Either way, the amount of exposure we experience is the same, they're going to drag their feet until someone lights a fire under them. The only one this "irresponsible disclosure" hurts is the publisher. In the end, it helps the users, because the publishers now have a concrete deadline to avoid losing face, rather than "lets hope no one else discovers this before spring".
We don't need them gambling with our security, and that's exactly what they're pushing with their cries for "responsible disclosure".
in TFA: The flaw was in the Microsoft Security Response Center's (MSRC) queue to be fixed in the the next batch of patches due in February but the targeted zero-day attacks against U.S.
Kinda makes you wonder just how many of these critical security bugs IE currently has in their queue to be fixed "sometime in the near future"?
And at the same time you have to wonder just how nasty some of the others are that haven't made the cut yet, just waiting to become the next "zero day we own your computer, again"? We see how big of an issue this is, and MS was clearly in no hurry to fix it, so you'd have to assume that there are at least a few more of these that they know about and aren't fixing yet.
Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things, and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner, yes it'll save a bundle, and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process.
All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible. Rocket science really is rocket science. If you're not spending that money, you have to expect your safety to go to hell.
Slashdot Mirror
No game feature pisses me off more than having to have a CD humming in my laptop's drive (noisy AND heats it up) while I play. I hunt down those cracks regularly after buying a new game. Unreal Tournament and Call of Duty were that way.
Daemon Tools works nicely for image mounting on windows. Toast does the job most of the time on Mac. But sometimes you need a crack.
I think he's looking at the wrong step in the chain. Yes, there will always be people eager to crack your software. Either they want a free copy, want to give others a free copy, want some attention, or are looking for a challenge. (I suspect the latter is a more important factor than a lot of people recognize)
The step that needs to be looked at is who buys it after they have gotten their hands on a cracked copy. By default it's going to be a smaller percentage, since it's easy to just say "oh well I have it now it wasn't all that special it's not worth it", but if you discard the number of people that got the copy that never had any intention of buying it, I think you'll find there's a respectable percentage of people that buy it after getting the copy.
I know I download a good deal of movies. A lot of them are trash and get deleted after a few minutes of watching and some skipping forward. Some are meh and get set aside. Others I like. The good ones, I buy on bluray. I have avatar right now in reasonable quality, and I'm certainly going to buy the bluray when it comes out. On the other hand, there's a lot of them that had a real short trip to my trashcan and I'm thankful I didn't pay anything for the crap. That's how things should work I think there's a lot more people out there like me (to do with software as well as movies and music) than the DRM advocates would admit to. But of course my buying them anyway whether or not there's DRM kinda ruins their business model, so what else can you expect from them?
does the link cause the iphone to download and launch the downloaded app, or is it a browser-executed thing like an SWF, or is it using an overflow bug in a browser system like the recent TIFF vulnerability, or how does it manage to get into an execution/interpretation chain?
It's usually preferred to fill damage in an optical surface with a material with the same index of refraction so the light doesn't kink when it goes through the filler or when it crosses boundaries.
Though I don't know how much it would matter at this small of a scale.
I recall a light coating of vegetable oil being good enough to rip a bad CD, and from there simply reburn it.
The layer formed by the liquid glass is said to be flexible and breathable.
The spray, which is harmless to the environment, can be used to protect against disease,
The versatile spray, which forms an easy-clean coating one millionth of a millimetre thick – 500 times thinner than a human hair – can be applied to virtually any surface to protect it
Questioning the irritation in other places.. lets see, it's durable, waterproof, breathes, protects, flexible... spray-on condoms anyone?
You can't download and run apps on your iphone, you have to get them from the app store, unless you've jailbroken it.
And if you can't be smart enough to figure out what apps are safe to open, you shouldn't have jailbroken it in the first place.
I'm also streaming it live over the internet to anyone who wants to watch.
I advise you to also time shift it and remove the commercials. All but the "superbowl commercials" of course.
I can see one use for it: ad-hoc networks.
I would agree with that. If I wanted to send something largeish to someone else where I was it would be useful to set our laptops back to back for example and basically irda a file over. Sort of like a fast bluetooth ad-hoc. In that scenario, physical arrangement etc is already expected to be optimized.
I remember printing to an irda printer a long long time ago. (1999-2000 or so?) That was before 802.11 was around, and people were trying to figure out how I was printing leaning back in my chair with the laptop, no cables attached. And we got to see a little bright green light shining from behind the strange black patch on the front of the printer for the first time. (the irda window, the light came on when irda was in use) But it was slow and unreliable, and irda had two competing standards, it was only by chance that the printer and my laptop supported the same standard. In that instance the printer needed to be within about 30 degrees of facing me, and the same with my laptop's back side to it, and range was only about 3 feet max. The farther you separated, the harder the aim was, and it was largely a trial and error because there was no way to determine signal strength, so it may have had better range if the aim had been closer to ideal. From what I've read here, they're trying to eliminate the aim issue. In reality, the only way to get it to work reliably and consistently was to set the laptop down right in front of the printer, about 5" apart.
The idea of "security" here is almost irrelevant. It's like being concerned about privacy when you're using two tin cans and a string - privacy is the least of your problems.
users won't tolerate very intermittent connections, and won't tolerate having to aim their system at all. I remember using irda brirefly, and it was very touchy.
Wifi is generally omnidirectional. light doesn't work that way - you can get a very strong signal 20 feet from it, or a nonexistent signal six inches away, if you're in a bad spot. And this effect occurs in both directions, and has different deadzones. So not only are you having a problem receiving, you're also having a differnt problem sending, requiring a great deal more adjustment to get communications going. Having to solve two positional problems simultaneously effectively quadruples the difficulty of the task.
It's also going to be a great deal more environmentally sensitive. You can drop a bar or two if someone sets their laptop bag down beside your laptop and clouds direct line between you and the access point. Imagine how much worse that can get with light, and at a greater distance - you won't just lose a bar or two, you're almost certain to get completely disconnected. A couple chatting as they walk down the hall ten feet from you could ground you for several seconds, giving you absolutely no hint of what caused it.
No, this technology's not going anywhere. Sure it works, but it's nowhere near as reliable as the public will demand. Look how badly people flip out now over an occasional dropped call.
The MPAA, of course, will not come away from this with the obvious conclusion."
Oh they have reached the obvious conclusion, it' just doesn't support their business model, so they are publicly denying/fighting it to extend their lifespan as much as possible. I'm sure they realize the result is inevitable, but until it actually happens, they will continue to profit on it. They'd be extremely stupid to just give up, so none of this comes as any real surprise.
The answer is: Windows!
If the answer is Windows, I'm terrified to consider what the question is...
Most people want mirrored or spanned. What you're looking for lies somewhere in between. The trick being to enable spaces control on individual displays, while still allowing drag between displays.
Good luck, haven't seen it. What you want is sufficiently unusual that there may not be anything that provides it. I suggest looking for someone else that's made their own variation of spaces support themselves, that offers the option to switch spaces per-display, as the odds of finding someone that's hacked an existing spaces to be per-monitor is probably going to be low.
The other route would be to find a different variation on spanning, such that the separate monitors aren't necessarily spanned, but are simply adjacent, and if you try to drag a window, it can't exist partly on one display and partly on the other, but you can still drag a window from one display to the other. That may still allow you individual spaces control perhaps? I think that's the reason you're having problems, is that most spanning allows a window to overlap off one display onto another, so for one display to change space it requires the others to change also. If you look at it that way I think you'll realize what you're initially asking for doesn't make sense. (if the displays are truly spanned (attached) and not simply adjacent)
1 atm = about 100 kilopascals
according to http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/PavelKhazron.shtml, At the centre, the pressure is about 380GPa (380,000,000,000pascal)
so pressure at earth's center is about 3.8 million atmospheres. Quite a bit shy of 40. But that's assuming the same radius and density, which are probably quite a bit off. But not by that much I don't think.
The problem isn't somuch the escape velocity required, as it is getting the fuel there. Look how much fuel it takes to get the shuttle out of the atmosphere. Compare that with the weight of the shuttle itself. Now imagine what it would take to launch that much fuel into orbit, if you were going to take it with you and use it to take off from Neptune after you landed.
Fusion drive probably wouldn't be any more useful there as it is here. Currently the most practical way to orbit is to trade mass at appreciable velocity, and the problem there is you usually want the mass you're trading to come from the same thing that's generating the velocity, and that'd be rocket fuel. Not much of that on Neptune unfortunately, or anything else with those two qualities.
Owell the first people to go there or mars or whatever are going to be permanent residents anyway. I'd still go though, given the opportunity - I doubt they'll have problems finding takers for that one when it comes up.
Diamonds are only expensive on earth because of artificial scarcity
I don't think even that is the case anymore. Maybe in the past, and maybe that's why the present is where it is, where something has a perceived value that's arguably a great deal above it's actual or practical value. The diamond market goes to great lengths to maintain this public perception. The only diamonds that are scarce are large natural ones.
Heck, helium is fast becoming a scarce material, which is just weird to think about. But they're not making it anymore so I suppose.
Water does that.
Only because water (h2o) is a polar molecule. When we're talking diamonds and other similar materials we're talking raw elements (carbon in the case of diamond) which don't have the opportunity to be polar, and thus will always contract as cooled.
I recall someone doing some maths and determined that if there were a mountain of gold bars on the moon it would not be economical to go get some. Same applies here I'd imagine, much moreso.
They usually watch for excessive traffic on specific ports. Since the most immediately profitable use of a botnetted machine is spam, the majority of botnetted PCs are either running open mail relays or are themselves functioning as outgoing mailservers. Many ISPs (including two in my area) watch for excessive traffic going OUT on TCP port 25. Unless you are running a mailserver, your computer has no legitimate reason to send out over that port in volume. Most ISP mailservers are SSL nowadays anyway and are off port 25 so you don't even need to use that if you are connecting to your ISP's mailserver from off-network. (and many ISPs outright block port 25 outgoing from anything in their network besides their mailserver) Many ISPs react the same if your computer is listening on port 25 (acting as an open relay)
So if you are pushing megs (or gigs) a day every day on port 25, there's better than 99% chance your machine is botnetted. It doesn't take speculation to figure that out, and the odds of false-positives are very close to zero.
That said, I have no sympathy for someone that knows their computer has a problem that's causing other people grief. That's the most basic understanding of the problem that is given when your ISP gives you a phonecall or email saying you have a problem and need to fix it or we will cut you off. If you're too stupid to acknowledge this and take responsibility for fixing it, or just plain don't care, I'd much rather see you off the internet and out of my Inbox. If you don't care that someone else has violated you by hijacking your computer that's fine with me, until they start using it to violate me, and that's when I start having a say in the matter.
If you want a fun example to separate the computer from the problem, here's something easier to understand: ABC Construction company does building demolitions. They leave their explosives on site and not locked up. They keep getting their explosives stolen. OK I don't care about that, it's their loss. But then stuff around town start getting blown up and the explosives are easily traced back to you. That's when it's time for the police to come have a talk with you about securing your explosives. You do not have the right to continue leaving dangerous things so easily accessible that the public is constantly being hurt by them. Even if you want to ignore your moral responsibility for it, the public won't stand for it and you lose your say in the matter. You WILL secure your things or you WILL go away.
Another excellent example is how several states legally require you to have a lock on your anhydrous ammonia tanks to prevent theft and use in drug manufacture. Also, most universities now are requiring students to install AV software on their computers before they're allowed to use the campus net. Your precedents have already been set.
I'd like to see a youtube of a boogie board in use.
The vertical stripes, indicating worldwide activity at the same time, are probably the result of botnets being ordered to target an area that includes your IP pool. (or possibly, specifically your organization - depending on where you got the logs this may be more or less likely) The horizontal stripes are of course showing continuous activity from specific regions, which can indicate activity of a regional botnet doing general penetration scans looking for more machines to infect. For example, botnets that tend to post their driveby installer on russian web pages will be primarily comprised of participants from russia or other russian-speaking countries
You should also consider the sensitivity of the graph. Only having two axis is unhelpful. Could for example, one high bandwidth box at a single IP doing an intensive DDoS or password brute force on you be responsible for any of the horizontal lines? (in which case the graph is only showing number of connections, not number of UNIQUE IP connections) From that graph alone it's impossible to say if the attacks are distributed or simply high bandwidth solo, which can lead to different conclusions. A single compromised akami server could similar to a minor botnet on that graph.
You'd be advised to take a horizontal or vertical slice you are interested in and examine it alone, creating a new 2d graph with other information on the other axis. More patterns are bound to develop and you can further regraph with new information until clear patterns stop, and then you can consider the patterns you've identified as a group.
it's not like there is no alternative to pay pal. Just use something else.
Please list some of these wonderful alternatives.
As much as I hate to say it, paypal is becoming the de-facto method of paying for things on the internet and the de-facto method of accepting free donations. Think of all the times you see a "help support us" link on someone's page, with a paypal logo/link? I can't even recall off the top of my head the last time I saw a donation link that wasn't paypal.
I'm not saying paypal is good, they're not. But right now they're practically the only game in town. So what alternatives do you recommend? Whatever they are, they need to at least be able to draw from a credit card or bank account, and need to be quick and hassle-free for the payer to set up and start using.
What's unfortunate here is there's still a lot of people out there that don't understand why some security researchers publish security bugs they find. It's issues like this where "We reported this to you FOUR MONTHS AGO and you haven't fixed it yet. We're going public with it tomorrow." Oh noes! Everyone's computer getting owned, it's all your fault, you should keep security bugs QUIET so we have time to fix them!.
Ya, right, whatever. They don't want the researchers to keep the bugs quiet so they "have time to fix them". Clearly four months is more than enough time to fix anything important. So, just how many more of these critical security bugs are we continuing to keep under wraps until someone exploits them before getting around to fixing? The logical conclusion is the researchers should give companies like MS a flat 30 days notice, and then go public immediately after that. At least we'd be getting the bugs patched 35 days after discovery, instead of 130 days. Either way, the amount of exposure we experience is the same, they're going to drag their feet until someone lights a fire under them. The only one this "irresponsible disclosure" hurts is the publisher. In the end, it helps the users, because the publishers now have a concrete deadline to avoid losing face, rather than "lets hope no one else discovers this before spring".
We don't need them gambling with our security, and that's exactly what they're pushing with their cries for "responsible disclosure".
in TFA: The flaw was in the Microsoft Security Response Center's (MSRC) queue to be fixed in the the next batch of patches due in February but the targeted zero-day attacks against U.S.
Kinda makes you wonder just how many of these critical security bugs IE currently has in their queue to be fixed "sometime in the near future"?
And at the same time you have to wonder just how nasty some of the others are that haven't made the cut yet, just waiting to become the next "zero day we own your computer, again"? We see how big of an issue this is, and MS was clearly in no hurry to fix it, so you'd have to assume that there are at least a few more of these that they know about and aren't fixing yet.
I wonder what it looks like on the display if a pacemaker crashes?
blue screen of death?
Considering how crazy-careful nasa can be with things, and how any private company is going to cut every possible corner, yes it'll save a bundle, and kill a bunch of astronauts in the process.
All that money that nasa is spending is invested in making things as safe as possible. Rocket science really is rocket science. If you're not spending that money, you have to expect your safety to go to hell.