You wasted my time by giving me wonderful links to "How to remove the IE executable," "How to disable the IE executable," and "How to run multiple instances of IE" for me to read when the point of the thread was to eliminate the holes introduced by mshtml.dll.
Compare and contrast your last phrase with:
OK, so tell me how any of those remove the renderer, mshtml.dll from the system, which is what my post talked about. Good luck getting a usable system without that.
Umm, it seems you asked a question quite clearly but don't seem to remember asking it! Otherwise, why would you state the "point of the thread" as a defense? Oh, could it be that your point was shot down, and you're just trying to deflect criticism elsewhere? Nah, that would require you to be unintelligent, unprincipled, and a total idiot. Wait a sec...perhaps you are trying to deflect criticism!
So, I guess that you have removed permission on it on your system?
I haven't on my personal system because I use IE to access certain sites using ActiveX (namely Exchange 2003's excellent webmail client). However, I have done it for other systems, particularly a few in University settings.
What percentage of your system works?
The systems in question functioned perfectly, although they were not running Outlook (the University uses an IMAP4 setup for user mailboxes, and we use Netscape for that). There were no malfunctions. Sorry to burst your ego bubble. Try again next time.
Want to use any of the subsystems which rely on it?
Since you're a big fan of "the point of the thread," perhaps I'll point out the point of the thread: you can remove IE threats to your system if you know how. Removing or restricting IE is the first step. You are either too stubborn or too stupid to figure this out.
Tard.
Sticks and stones...
Learn to read what Google gives you before you post it.
Since you're the one blatantly disregarding the actual content of the Google results, I think the "learn to read" applies much better to you.
Try a book, sometime.
Just finished "How To Talk To A Liberal...If You Must" by Ann Coulter. Oddly enough, the principles contained therein on speaking to someone obviously equipped with an inferior intellect apply quite well to you.
You might get confused by the big words, but that'll pass, and eventually you'll be able to follow the intelligent discussions on Slashdot.
I'll leave the use of big words to you, since you seem adept at making things up out of thin air to support your unsupportable argument.
IHBT
Not being a member of your uber-geek circle jerk squad, the meaning of this acronym escapes me. If you wish to use plain English (something you're disturbingly ill-equipped to do, it seems), perhaps your insult or comment would make more sense.
In the meantime, remember this maxim: if you can't beat 'em, pretend you beat 'em and go stoke your self esteem. Oh, wait, you've already got that one down to a science.
You've been foelisted, so go away and pester someone else. I tire of pointing out your deficiencies.
OK, so tell me how any of those remove the renderer, mshtml.dll from the system, which is what my post talked about. Good luck getting a usable system without that.
O ye of little faith -- and apparently even less intelligence. You needn't remove MSHTML.DLL from your system. Indeed, trying to do so is a royal pain because of the automatic restore of Windows File Protection. What's far easier (and well documented if you use that funny thing called Google) is to just remove all file permissions to MSHTML.DLL. There. Done. This does have the side effect of breaking HTML rendering in Outlook 2003, but if you're concerned enough about security to kill IE, you shouldn't be using Outlook either.
So, far from me wasting your time, you're wasting your own time by being an uninformed, smarmy, self-righteous fool. Try using Google sometime before you shoot off that silly hole you call a mouth.
While I'm at it, I'll address some of your statements:
You said:...if I run Firefox and don't use Outlook, Windows is a great OS to have, eh?
This can be transcribed as:
!App(embedded) -> !problems
This does not logically follow.
Please explain why does it not logically follow, taking into account the parent poster's intent. His statement, distilled to essentials, was that embedded apps like IE are security problems. The logical solution to his objection is to use non-embedded applications, with the inferred result being fewer security problems. Therefore, he was indeed stating
App(embedded) -> problems
while simultaneously inferring
!App(embedded) -> !problems
To infer something like
!App(embedded) -> problems
kind of destroys the posters point, so it's fairly safe to assume that's not what was intended. After all if both embedded apps and non-embedded apps result in equal security problems, why bother complaining about IE's deep integration? It serves no purpose to complain unless the intent is to convey the idea that non-embedded apps offer superior security, ergo
!App(embedded) -> !problems
does indeed logically follow his argument.
In other words, if using an embedded application results in problems, then the non-existence of problems implies a non-embedded application.
I never said this, diagrammed it, or even inferred it. I stated that if the parent poster thought embedded apps were exclusively the root cause of Windows security problems, then removing them and relying on a non-embedded application must remove the security problems associated with Windows. Note that I personally don't believe this (IIS exploits alone accounts for a larger percentage of successful hacks), which is why I was using the illogicality of the parent poster's argument to demonstrate that.
I found this and, seeing how it reminds me of you, I figured I'd share it with you:
One entry found for pedantic.
Main Entry: pedantic Pronunciation: pi-'dan-tik Function: adjective 1 : of, relating to, or being a pedant 2 : narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned 3 : UNIMAGINATIVE, PEDESTRIAN - pedantically/-'dan-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
OK, you've found one article taking note of the increasing number of holes found in Linux.
Point #1: Did you bother to read the comments on the article? If you did, you'd note a disturbing number of posts (out of the 475 present) centered around pretending the problem really isn't a problem. Pay no attention to that bug behind the curtain, especially when the Koolaid tastes so sweet.
Point #2: You found one Linux-critical article regarding security holes. Now, do your due diligence and find how many Windows-critical articles have been published. You'll find the ratio decidedly slanted against Microsoft. And don't try to paint it as "well Windows has far more holes than Linux." Secunia.com reports 32 advisories for the 2.6 Linux kernel since Jan 04, with 15 remaining unpatched. During that same period, Windows Server 2003 (released in roughly the same period as the 2.6 kernel) has only 25 advisories, with 4 remaining unpatched. Yep, a veritable "river of crap" coming out of Microsoft, ain't it?
You're either in marketing or you've bought the M$ marketing drivel hook, line and sinker.
Ah, I see. Since I don't parrot the "Linux good, Windows baaaaaad" mantra of obvious fanboys like yourself, I must be an empty-headed marketdroid or in the spell of the Great Satan Microsoft itself. In your addled mind, that's the only possible explanation since you've convinced yourself it's impossible for Windows to be a worthwhile OS. Which is more than merely idiotic when you consider the vast number of desktops running paid for Windows when there's such a fantastic, free, nearly-perfect OS like Linux out there for anyone to glom onto. Gee, could it be Linux isn't the best thing since sliced bread for everyone? Nah, that'd destroy your precious fantasies immediately, wouldn't it? So you support your house of cards by simply convincing yourself that the world is insane and you're the lone voice of reason. You suddenly see so credible to me...not.
If you've just bought into their marketing line then I suggest you make a point of reading a variety of viewpoints and learning to think critically rather than uncritically accepting the self-serving crap put out by companies like M$.
Since immitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I'll pay you a compliment: If you've just bough into your own self-delusional visions of grandeur, I suggest you make a point of reading a variety of viewpoints and learning to think critical rather than uncritically accepting the self-server crap spouted by Linux fanboys with no obvious grasp on reality.
Oh, and just a little note, the initials for Microsoft are "MS" not "M$". It's a common thing for children to engage in a form of wordplay making fun of an antagonist. If you are unable to rise to the level of maturity where you don't have to resort to specious namecalling, please don't bother replying; I don't care to read drivel written by infants. You'll just earn a nice, neat spot on my Foe list.
This isn't a Windows flaw, it's a Visual Studio flaw.
Hey, you guys like to say exploits in Linux widgets like XPdf aren't Linux flaws, so it cuts both ways. All bad things seem to be lumped under the heading "Windows," but let a flawed RPM come to light and it's a "that's not Linux" buffet for all.
Make the same standard apply to both or not at all. Double standards are lies masquerading as virtue.
If you bothered to read the whole thing, you'd see Secunia didn't find it "extremely dangerous" until just recently itself. Originally, Secunia didn't put this one very high on the totem pole, so neither did Microsoft. There was a workaround in place within days, and only now that Secunia has elevated the problem is there a patch being issued.
I can't help but thing the error is intentional. The childish, immature brat zealot fanboys who love Linux so dearly would rather have an eye gouged out with a rusty spoon than admit Linux has flaws as bad as, and sometimes worse, than Windows. And no amount of truth, even when spoken by Linus himself, will sway them.
You know, every single time there is a security-related article on Slashdot, some troll pops up to warn us that Linux isn't perfect. And you know what? I have never, ever seen somebody claim that it is.
Nor have I. However, every time there's a flaw in Notepad, all the Slashdot faithful come out with that smarmy, holier-than-thou attitude of "weeeeeee don't have those kind of problems with oooouuuuurrr OS!" Yet when similar issues crop up in Linux, you never hear about it. Or, worse, you hear about it but everyone excuses it by saying it's not really serious, it doesn't affect my custom kernel (therefore it's not a problem), or some other it-gets-a-pass response. While this isn't verbatim saying Linux is perfect, it's pretty much the same thing.
If you point out flaws in something (or someone) else, you had best be willing to stand tall for those very same flaws in what you,/i> use as well, otherwise you're just a hypocrite. Linux fanboys need to quit drinking the Koolaid and admit it when their pet OS has problems instead of trying to act like it never happens.
It is also a problem of monolithic vs. modular programming. Having IE, your window to the internet, being so deeply imbedded into your OS is only asking for problems.
So, by your logic, if I run Firefox and don't use Outlook, Windows is a great OS to have, eh? You wouldn't know it by the scorn everyone heaps on Windows, but then again this is/., where no good deed of MS goes unignored and no flaw of Linux goes unburied.
Nobody says you must use the stuff Microsoft gives you. IE can be bypassed without much difficulty, and Outlook is far from the only mail client available for Windows.
Yeah, pointing a laser pointer at a flying aircraft is dumb and it's unnecessary but to attempt to make it sound like some physical damage could have been done by the laser is just sensationalism.
Perhaps you're unaware of the fact that lasers can blind people. Blind pilots don't fly very well, do they? Blind a pilot while he's on final approach to land and you could end up with a big, flaming crater full of toasty bodies just in time for the evening use.
This guy was an ass. Whether he was a malevolent ass or just a stupid ass is irrelevant. You should (a) know better than to laser-illuminate a commercial aircraft and (b) you should damn well know better than to laser-illuminate a fucking police chopper looking for the asshat who flashed the airliner.
Twenty five years for being either dangerously dangerous or dangerously stupid? Sounds about right to me. I wouldn't want this guy operating a gumball dispenser if this is his sterling claim to intellect.
The Celeron first appears as a cut-down P-II with no cache at all. I believe it started to life at 200MHz, but I do recall it being an overclocking dream with no L2 cache holding it back. Most everyone was able to get it up to 400MHz with no problem at all. That was the last no-cache Celeron.
Follow-on Celerons came with 128K L2 cache running at full CPU speed. The golden CPU of the day was the Celeron 300A. This baby could be overclocked to 450MHz without even trying hard and, thanks to its full-speed cache, was faster than a P-III 400MHz, the fastest Pentium available at the time. I had several, all OC'd. Ah, the Abit motherboards...
The last great hurrah of Celerons came with the 366MHz Celeron, which overclocked neatly to 550MHz. Very fast for its time and extremely cheap.
The P4-derivative Celerons are largely unknown to me. Never owned one, don't intend to. Anyone else care to chime in?
The fastest PPro was 200MHz. Some boards would let you overclock them but I was never able to get mine stable at 233MHz.
I did some quick googling when finding these numbers and you're right. The page I was referencing was an OC'd PPro.
The PII started at 233MHz, had twice the L1 cache (32KB) of the PPro, and MMX.
Again, I used Google to figure out how low these things went, googling for "Pentium-II 200" and lower until I couldn't find any more hits. I found 864 hits with "Pentium-II 166." Either a lot of people are (a) making typos or (b) underclocking their P-II's, it does exist. I was surprised, too, because I thought they started at 233MHz. I can find no official info from Intel on this, I'm going mostly from (hazy) memory.
My question is this: Are all of these "Pent"iums still of the "586" generation? If not, which of these were in the same generation? What is the "X86" generation equivilent of the most-recent Pentium IV that we are currently in? Anyone know?
The first major redesign of the x86 chip after the 486 was the Pentium, and it was such a new design it garnered the "P5" moniker still used today. The Pentium went on to be produced at various speeds and, eventually, with MMX extensions (dubbed the Pentium MMX). The original Pentium ran at 60MHz. The fastest Pentium MMX ever made was (I think) 233MHz.
The next major redesign came with the Pentium Pro, the first Intel "dual cavity" chip. The large L2 cache and CPU were in the same package (a useful novelty back them). Due to the major re-engineering over the Pentium/Pentium MMX, the Pentium Pro was dubbed the P6, representing the sixth generation of Intel x86 chips. The slowest Pentium Pro was (I think) 150MHz, with the fastest being (IIRC) 233MHz.
Now is where it starts to get funny. The Pentium-II started at 166Mhz was a slightly-enhanced Pentium Pro with half-speed, off-chip cache in a Slot1 package. It was almost identical to the Pentium Pro, so identical that you could at once time buy "Pentium Pro Overdrive" chips to put in your P6 sockets, chips that were more or less socketed versions of the P-II. The P-III (or P-!!! according to Intel marketspeak) was merely a breathed-on P-II with full-speed (but smaller) cache. The P-III started to life as Slot1 but then went back to sockets. This culminated in the "Tualatin" P-III running at 1.4GHz
The Pentium 4 (Intel can't seem to make up its mind about Roman numerals or not) was the first major redesign since the Pentium Pro, and should be called the P7. However, most people just refer to it as the P4. It was a radical departure from anything that had gone before, with huge emphasis on sky-high clock rates at the expense of Instructions Per Cycle (IPC). Intel called it NetBurst. Customers called it stupid back when the first P4's were slower than the P-III's they were supposed to replace. The P4 started at (I think) 1.2GHz. Today we have 3.6GHz P4's, but it's doubtful it will go much, if any, higher due to fabrication technology limitations.
Finally, we have the Pentium-M, an odd hybrid of the P4 and the P-III. The P-M emphasized IPC instead of clock rate (the fastest one to date runs at 2.1GHz, the slowest at 1.2GHz) and is very comparable to AMD's Athlon XP line. The P-M would make a fantastic desktop processor because it's amazingly cool (30W operating, compared to 118W for the P4), but Intel thus far has not made it palatable for desktop consumption (high prices for chips and very few available motherboards).
What's coming after the P4? Intel really isn't saying. Dual-core P4's are supposed to be on tap, but I suspect heat and power will keep it from getting very far. I'm betting the P-M will become a very important chip in the next year or so as Intel gets back to IPC and completely abandons the silly P4 "NetBurst" idea. Faster clock rates were good for a while but the idea was destined to burn out early. IPC is where it's at.
I keep looking for the "brake" key on my keyboard and I just can't find it. You must have one of those special keyboards.
I guess I'll just have to content myself to pressing the "break" key instead, huh? I'm sure it's not as good as hitting the "brake" key, but maybe the computer is aware of homophones.
Of course, if we really wanted a long-lived power source, we'd send a RTG. Too bad the anti-nuke crowd makes this fantastic technology a diminishingly-practical option.
I would perhaps agree with you -- if the thing NASA is worried about is insignificant. NASA has a funny tendency to worry about everything with equal fervor. In this case, though, the probes have already significantly outlived their original planned mission lifetime. Putting some sort of nitrogen tank on the thing to clean off the panels would be foolishly dangerous, not to mention heavy. The potential gains are not worth the potential risk.
Perhaps it's because an exploding bottle of nitrogen would probably total the probe. Always consider what failure of the doo-dad would do to the overall mission before including the doo-dad. Dirty solar panels are one thing, shredded panels is another.
I didn't realise parody was in the Constitution, but you are dodging the point, as the Constitution is not the only law in the land. From copyright.gov:
I don't think it is actually called out in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has established it as a protected right covered under free speech.
So you can copy and distribute stuff, and it does depend on the circumstances. Huh. That sounds almost identical to what I said, doesn't it?
Key emphasis on the "almost" there, AC. Your statement, quoted exactly, said "it's not true at all." Something "not true at all" is false. However, my statements were not false and you've even provided evidence to support that in your own follow-up posts. If you'd said something like "that's not entirely true" I would've had no beef with it, but your very first sentence made it seem like everything I stated was false. You should be more careful in your blanket statements.
You have an overly-narrow definition of parody. Parody may include copying, for instance rearranging video footage for ironic purposes.
You seem to have an odd understanding of the English language. I used the phrase "imitation" of the real thing. Merriam-Websters defines imitation as:
Main Entry: 1imitation
Pronunciation: "i-m&-'tA-sh&n Function: noun 1 : an act or instance of imitating 2 : something produced as a copy : COUNTERFEIT 3 : a literary work designed to reproduce the style of another author 4 : the repetition by one voice of a melody, phrase, or motive stated earlier in the composition by a different voice 5 : the quality of an object in possessing some of the nature or attributes of a transcendent idea 6 : the assumption of behavior observed in other individuals
and just to make sure I'm not misusing "imitation," let's see what Merriam-Websters has to say about "parody":
Main Entry: 1parody
Pronunciation: 'par-&-dE Function: noun Inflected Form(s): plural -dies Etymology: Latin parodia, from Greek parOidia, from para- + aidein to sing -- more at ODE 1 : a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule 2 : a feeble or ridiculous imitation
Hmmmm...seems MW thinks the "imitation" thing is so useful it's used twice in the definition. Far from me having an overly-narrow definition of parody, you seem to have an overly-narrow definition of "imitation."
That depends on the context. Given the right context, I believe John Cage's 4'33" could be parodied with a bit-for-bit copy, although personally I don't believe that it merits copyright protection in the first place.
Remind me again why you claimed this "[isn't] true at all"? You're actually re-affirming what I said, just in case you're unaware of it.
However, I was only using parody as an example. Fair use doesn't just cover parody.
I never said it did, but Fair Use is not law, it is a concept, a principle. As your very own Stanford link shows, Fair Use is quite the gray area, open to lots of interpretation. Further, you can be sued for infringement even if you feel what you're doing is within Fair Use. The court will decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not you're really infringing, and screaming "but it's Fair Use" is not a defense likely to win the day.
You claimed that you can't copy and distribute legally. That isn't true at all, and if you read the two links I've provided, you will see that.
Your eye doctor needs to be fired. Or perhaps a shipment of Hooked on Phonics is in order. I did not claim you can't copy and distribute legally, I claimed you can't copy and distribute copyrighted works without permission of the copyright holder. Here, let me quote the original post just in case your memory is as bad as your ju
Parody is the only Constitutionally-protected form of copying, although even that can and has been restricted in certain instances. However, parody by definition is not a copy, merely an imitation so close as to be easily recognizable as the real thing, just more humorous. Or more political, which is why parody was protected in the first place -- to allow unfettered political satire as a form of free speech.
However, parody has no relevance to a bit-for-bit copy of a piece of music or a movie. If you wanted to spoof Star Wars, just as Mel Brooks did in Spaceballs (although he quite carefully refrained from using the word "Star Wars" anywhere in the movie). But you cannot make a copy of a Star Wars movie and sell it -- at least not without giving George Lucas and the rest their legally-required dues after first obtaining permission.
So, not to be argumentative, but your comment of "it's not true at all" is hogwash.
So if a law is made that forbid you to breath, that means you should stop to do so?
Look closely, everyone. Here is an excellent example of (a) making an irrelevant analogy and (b) proving that any analogy, taken too far, is absurd. Bravo! You've proven two stupidities for the price of one post!
So, it's been illegal to tape movies broadcast on television, all along? Illegal to tape radio? Illegal to copy your own VHS tapes?
Perhaps you should calm down a moment and re-read my post. Personal copies are OK and always have been per Supreme Court decisions. Distributing those copies is not legal and never has been.
No, it wasn't illegal! It never was. But the **IAs are convincing everyone it always was, and everyone is chanting, with glassy eyes, "it is illegal to copy... it is illegal to copy... it is illegal to copy..."
Again, I'm going to ask you to calm down a moment and re-read my post. I never said it is illegal to copy. I said it is illegal to copy and distribute, which is entirely true, correct, and above all fair to the copyright holder. Unscrupulous companies do not have the right to do whatever they want with GPL'd code (a cause/. frequently champions) so neither should an unscrupulous consumer have the right do whatever they want with copyrighted works (a cause/. frequently tries very hard to ignore).
America's memory hole is frightening. Our actions are becoming borderline insane, because we can't remember ANYTHING in the past unless someone in power tells us it happened. Copyright "crime", civil liberties evaporating, confusion about who attacked us on 9/11, reelecting a proven fraud... madness.
You really should get that knee looked at before it injures someone.
Slashdot Mirror
You wasted my time by giving me wonderful links to "How to remove the IE executable," "How to disable the IE executable," and "How to run multiple instances of IE" for me to read when the point of the thread was to eliminate the holes introduced by mshtml.dll.
Compare and contrast your last phrase with:
OK, so tell me how any of those remove the renderer, mshtml.dll from the system, which is what my post talked about. Good luck getting a usable system without that.
Umm, it seems you asked a question quite clearly but don't seem to remember asking it! Otherwise, why would you state the "point of the thread" as a defense? Oh, could it be that your point was shot down, and you're just trying to deflect criticism elsewhere? Nah, that would require you to be unintelligent, unprincipled, and a total idiot. Wait a sec...perhaps you are trying to deflect criticism!
So, I guess that you have removed permission on it on your system?
I haven't on my personal system because I use IE to access certain sites using ActiveX (namely Exchange 2003's excellent webmail client). However, I have done it for other systems, particularly a few in University settings.
What percentage of your system works?
The systems in question functioned perfectly, although they were not running Outlook (the University uses an IMAP4 setup for user mailboxes, and we use Netscape for that). There were no malfunctions. Sorry to burst your ego bubble. Try again next time.
Want to use any of the subsystems which rely on it?
Since you're a big fan of "the point of the thread," perhaps I'll point out the point of the thread: you can remove IE threats to your system if you know how. Removing or restricting IE is the first step. You are either too stubborn or too stupid to figure this out.
Tard.
Sticks and stones...
Learn to read what Google gives you before you post it.
Since you're the one blatantly disregarding the actual content of the Google results, I think the "learn to read" applies much better to you.
Try a book, sometime.
Just finished "How To Talk To A Liberal...If You Must" by Ann Coulter. Oddly enough, the principles contained therein on speaking to someone obviously equipped with an inferior intellect apply quite well to you.
You might get confused by the big words, but that'll pass, and eventually you'll be able to follow the intelligent discussions on Slashdot.
I'll leave the use of big words to you, since you seem adept at making things up out of thin air to support your unsupportable argument.
IHBT
Not being a member of your uber-geek circle jerk squad, the meaning of this acronym escapes me. If you wish to use plain English (something you're disturbingly ill-equipped to do, it seems), perhaps your insult or comment would make more sense.
In the meantime, remember this maxim: if you can't beat 'em, pretend you beat 'em and go stoke your self esteem. Oh, wait, you've already got that one down to a science.
You've been foelisted, so go away and pester someone else. I tire of pointing out your deficiencies.
OK, so tell me how any of those remove the renderer, mshtml.dll from the system, which is what my post talked about. Good luck getting a usable system without that.
O ye of little faith -- and apparently even less intelligence. You needn't remove MSHTML.DLL from your system. Indeed, trying to do so is a royal pain because of the automatic restore of Windows File Protection. What's far easier (and well documented if you use that funny thing called Google) is to just remove all file permissions to MSHTML.DLL. There. Done. This does have the side effect of breaking HTML rendering in Outlook 2003, but if you're concerned enough about security to kill IE, you shouldn't be using Outlook either.
So, far from me wasting your time, you're wasting your own time by being an uninformed, smarmy, self-righteous fool. Try using Google sometime before you shoot off that silly hole you call a mouth.
But the point is that you can't bypass it.
Hmmm...what's this then? Or this? Or maybe even this?
Aw gosh, I've gone and broke your argument. Hope you kept the receipt.
Please explain why does it not logically follow, taking into account the parent poster's intent. His statement, distilled to essentials, was that embedded apps like IE are security problems. The logical solution to his objection is to use non-embedded applications, with the inferred result being fewer security problems. Therefore, he was indeed stating
App(embedded) -> problems
while simultaneously inferring
!App(embedded) -> !problems
To infer something like
!App(embedded) -> problems
kind of destroys the posters point, so it's fairly safe to assume that's not what was intended. After all if both embedded apps and non-embedded apps result in equal security problems, why bother complaining about IE's deep integration? It serves no purpose to complain unless the intent is to convey the idea that non-embedded apps offer superior security, ergo
!App(embedded) -> !problems
does indeed logically follow his argument.
In other words, if using an embedded application results in problems, then the non-existence of problems implies a non-embedded application.
I never said this, diagrammed it, or even inferred it. I stated that if the parent poster thought embedded apps were exclusively the root cause of Windows security problems, then removing them and relying on a non-embedded application must remove the security problems associated with Windows. Note that I personally don't believe this (IIS exploits alone accounts for a larger percentage of successful hacks), which is why I was using the illogicality of the parent poster's argument to demonstrate that.
I found this and, seeing how it reminds me of you, I figured I'd share it with you:
/-'dan-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb
One entry found for pedantic.
Main Entry: pedantic
Pronunciation: pi-'dan-tik
Function: adjective
1 : of, relating to, or being a pedant
2 : narrowly, stodgily, and often ostentatiously learned
3 : UNIMAGINATIVE, PEDESTRIAN
- pedantically
Bullshit
OK, you've found one article taking note of the increasing number of holes found in Linux.
Point #1: Did you bother to read the comments on the article? If you did, you'd note a disturbing number of posts (out of the 475 present) centered around pretending the problem really isn't a problem. Pay no attention to that bug behind the curtain, especially when the Koolaid tastes so sweet.
Point #2: You found one Linux-critical article regarding security holes. Now, do your due diligence and find how many Windows-critical articles have been published. You'll find the ratio decidedly slanted against Microsoft. And don't try to paint it as "well Windows has far more holes than Linux." Secunia.com reports 32 advisories for the 2.6 Linux kernel since Jan 04, with 15 remaining unpatched. During that same period, Windows Server 2003 (released in roughly the same period as the 2.6 kernel) has only 25 advisories, with 4 remaining unpatched. Yep, a veritable "river of crap" coming out of Microsoft, ain't it?
You're either in marketing or you've bought the M$ marketing drivel hook, line and sinker.
Ah, I see. Since I don't parrot the "Linux good, Windows baaaaaad" mantra of obvious fanboys like yourself, I must be an empty-headed marketdroid or in the spell of the Great Satan Microsoft itself. In your addled mind, that's the only possible explanation since you've convinced yourself it's impossible for Windows to be a worthwhile OS. Which is more than merely idiotic when you consider the vast number of desktops running paid for Windows when there's such a fantastic, free, nearly-perfect OS like Linux out there for anyone to glom onto. Gee, could it be Linux isn't the best thing since sliced bread for everyone? Nah, that'd destroy your precious fantasies immediately, wouldn't it? So you support your house of cards by simply convincing yourself that the world is insane and you're the lone voice of reason. You suddenly see so credible to me...not.
If you've just bought into their marketing line then I suggest you make a point of reading a variety of viewpoints and learning to think critically rather than uncritically accepting the self-serving crap put out by companies like M$.
Since immitation is the sincerest form of flattery, I'll pay you a compliment: If you've just bough into your own self-delusional visions of grandeur, I suggest you make a point of reading a variety of viewpoints and learning to think critical rather than uncritically accepting the self-server crap spouted by Linux fanboys with no obvious grasp on reality.
Oh, and just a little note, the initials for Microsoft are "MS" not "M$". It's a common thing for children to engage in a form of wordplay making fun of an antagonist. If you are unable to rise to the level of maturity where you don't have to resort to specious namecalling, please don't bother replying; I don't care to read drivel written by infants. You'll just earn a nice, neat spot on my Foe list.
This isn't a Windows flaw, it's a Visual Studio flaw.
Hey, you guys like to say exploits in Linux widgets like XPdf aren't Linux flaws, so it cuts both ways. All bad things seem to be lumped under the heading "Windows," but let a flawed RPM come to light and it's a "that's not Linux" buffet for all.
Make the same standard apply to both or not at all. Double standards are lies masquerading as virtue.
If you bothered to read the whole thing, you'd see Secunia didn't find it "extremely dangerous" until just recently itself. Originally, Secunia didn't put this one very high on the totem pole, so neither did Microsoft. There was a workaround in place within days, and only now that Secunia has elevated the problem is there a patch being issued.
I can't help but thing the error is intentional. The childish, immature brat zealot fanboys who love Linux so dearly would rather have an eye gouged out with a rusty spoon than admit Linux has flaws as bad as, and sometimes worse, than Windows. And no amount of truth, even when spoken by Linus himself, will sway them.
You know, every single time there is a security-related article on Slashdot, some troll pops up to warn us that Linux isn't perfect. And you know what? I have never, ever seen somebody claim that it is.
Nor have I. However, every time there's a flaw in Notepad, all the Slashdot faithful come out with that smarmy, holier-than-thou attitude of "weeeeeee don't have those kind of problems with oooouuuuurrr OS!" Yet when similar issues crop up in Linux, you never hear about it. Or, worse, you hear about it but everyone excuses it by saying it's not really serious, it doesn't affect my custom kernel (therefore it's not a problem), or some other it-gets-a-pass response. While this isn't verbatim saying Linux is perfect, it's pretty much the same thing.
If you point out flaws in something (or someone) else, you had best be willing to stand tall for those very same flaws in what you,/i> use as well, otherwise you're just a hypocrite. Linux fanboys need to quit drinking the Koolaid and admit it when their pet OS has problems instead of trying to act like it never happens.
It is also a problem of monolithic vs. modular programming. Having IE, your window to the internet, being so deeply imbedded into your OS is only asking for problems.
/., where no good deed of MS goes unignored and no flaw of Linux goes unburied.
So, by your logic, if I run Firefox and don't use Outlook, Windows is a great OS to have, eh? You wouldn't know it by the scorn everyone heaps on Windows, but then again this is
Nobody says you must use the stuff Microsoft gives you. IE can be bypassed without much difficulty, and Outlook is far from the only mail client available for Windows.
Yeah, pointing a laser pointer at a flying aircraft is dumb and it's unnecessary but to attempt to make it sound like some physical damage could have been done by the laser is just sensationalism.
Perhaps you're unaware of the fact that lasers can blind people. Blind pilots don't fly very well, do they? Blind a pilot while he's on final approach to land and you could end up with a big, flaming crater full of toasty bodies just in time for the evening use.
This guy was an ass. Whether he was a malevolent ass or just a stupid ass is irrelevant. You should (a) know better than to laser-illuminate a commercial aircraft and (b) you should damn well know better than to laser-illuminate a fucking police chopper looking for the asshat who flashed the airliner.
Twenty five years for being either dangerously dangerous or dangerously stupid? Sounds about right to me. I wouldn't want this guy operating a gumball dispenser if this is his sterling claim to intellect.
Oops, I forgot the Celery!
The Celeron first appears as a cut-down P-II with no cache at all. I believe it started to life at 200MHz, but I do recall it being an overclocking dream with no L2 cache holding it back. Most everyone was able to get it up to 400MHz with no problem at all. That was the last no-cache Celeron.
Follow-on Celerons came with 128K L2 cache running at full CPU speed. The golden CPU of the day was the Celeron 300A. This baby could be overclocked to 450MHz without even trying hard and, thanks to its full-speed cache, was faster than a P-III 400MHz, the fastest Pentium available at the time. I had several, all OC'd. Ah, the Abit motherboards...
The last great hurrah of Celerons came with the 366MHz Celeron, which overclocked neatly to 550MHz. Very fast for its time and extremely cheap.
The P4-derivative Celerons are largely unknown to me. Never owned one, don't intend to. Anyone else care to chime in?
The fastest PPro was 200MHz. Some boards would let you overclock them but I was never able to get mine stable at 233MHz.
I did some quick googling when finding these numbers and you're right. The page I was referencing was an OC'd PPro.
The PII started at 233MHz, had twice the L1 cache (32KB) of the PPro, and MMX.
Again, I used Google to figure out how low these things went, googling for "Pentium-II 200" and lower until I couldn't find any more hits. I found 864 hits with "Pentium-II 166." Either a lot of people are (a) making typos or (b) underclocking their P-II's, it does exist. I was surprised, too, because I thought they started at 233MHz. I can find no official info from Intel on this, I'm going mostly from (hazy) memory.
My question is this: Are all of these "Pent"iums still of the "586" generation? If not, which of these were in the same generation? What is the "X86" generation equivilent of the most-recent Pentium IV that we are currently in? Anyone know?
The first major redesign of the x86 chip after the 486 was the Pentium, and it was such a new design it garnered the "P5" moniker still used today. The Pentium went on to be produced at various speeds and, eventually, with MMX extensions (dubbed the Pentium MMX). The original Pentium ran at 60MHz. The fastest Pentium MMX ever made was (I think) 233MHz.
The next major redesign came with the Pentium Pro, the first Intel "dual cavity" chip. The large L2 cache and CPU were in the same package (a useful novelty back them). Due to the major re-engineering over the Pentium/Pentium MMX, the Pentium Pro was dubbed the P6, representing the sixth generation of Intel x86 chips. The slowest Pentium Pro was (I think) 150MHz, with the fastest being (IIRC) 233MHz.
Now is where it starts to get funny. The Pentium-II started at 166Mhz was a slightly-enhanced Pentium Pro with half-speed, off-chip cache in a Slot1 package. It was almost identical to the Pentium Pro, so identical that you could at once time buy "Pentium Pro Overdrive" chips to put in your P6 sockets, chips that were more or less socketed versions of the P-II. The P-III (or P-!!! according to Intel marketspeak) was merely a breathed-on P-II with full-speed (but smaller) cache. The P-III started to life as Slot1 but then went back to sockets. This culminated in the "Tualatin" P-III running at 1.4GHz
The Pentium 4 (Intel can't seem to make up its mind about Roman numerals or not) was the first major redesign since the Pentium Pro, and should be called the P7. However, most people just refer to it as the P4. It was a radical departure from anything that had gone before, with huge emphasis on sky-high clock rates at the expense of Instructions Per Cycle (IPC). Intel called it NetBurst. Customers called it stupid back when the first P4's were slower than the P-III's they were supposed to replace. The P4 started at (I think) 1.2GHz. Today we have 3.6GHz P4's, but it's doubtful it will go much, if any, higher due to fabrication technology limitations.
Finally, we have the Pentium-M, an odd hybrid of the P4 and the P-III. The P-M emphasized IPC instead of clock rate (the fastest one to date runs at 2.1GHz, the slowest at 1.2GHz) and is very comparable to AMD's Athlon XP line. The P-M would make a fantastic desktop processor because it's amazingly cool (30W operating, compared to 118W for the P4), but Intel thus far has not made it palatable for desktop consumption (high prices for chips and very few available motherboards).
What's coming after the P4? Intel really isn't saying. Dual-core P4's are supposed to be on tap, but I suspect heat and power will keep it from getting very far. I'm betting the P-M will become a very important chip in the next year or so as Intel gets back to IPC and completely abandons the silly P4 "NetBurst" idea. Faster clock rates were good for a while but the idea was destined to burn out early. IPC is where it's at.
It appears the server was alive for mere moments before being slashdotted to death. With only 9 comments the site is completely dead.
I keep looking for the "brake" key on my keyboard and I just can't find it. You must have one of those special keyboards.
I guess I'll just have to content myself to pressing the "break" key instead, huh? I'm sure it's not as good as hitting the "brake" key, but maybe the computer is aware of homophones.
Of course, if we really wanted a long-lived power source, we'd send a RTG. Too bad the anti-nuke crowd makes this fantastic technology a diminishingly-practical option.
I would perhaps agree with you -- if the thing NASA is worried about is insignificant. NASA has a funny tendency to worry about everything with equal fervor. In this case, though, the probes have already significantly outlived their original planned mission lifetime. Putting some sort of nitrogen tank on the thing to clean off the panels would be foolishly dangerous, not to mention heavy. The potential gains are not worth the potential risk.
Perhaps it's because an exploding bottle of nitrogen would probably total the probe. Always consider what failure of the doo-dad would do to the overall mission before including the doo-dad. Dirty solar panels are one thing, shredded panels is another.
I, for one, welcome our new cleanliness-obsessed Martian overlords. It will put a lot of streetcorner windows washing bums out of jobs, though.
I don't think it is actually called out in the Constitution, but the Supreme Court has established it as a protected right covered under free speech.
So you can copy and distribute stuff, and it does depend on the circumstances. Huh. That sounds almost identical to what I said, doesn't it?
Key emphasis on the "almost" there, AC. Your statement, quoted exactly, said "it's not true at all." Something "not true at all" is false. However, my statements were not false and you've even provided evidence to support that in your own follow-up posts. If you'd said something like "that's not entirely true" I would've had no beef with it, but your very first sentence made it seem like everything I stated was false. You should be more careful in your blanket statements.
You have an overly-narrow definition of parody. Parody may include copying, for instance rearranging video footage for ironic purposes.
You seem to have an odd understanding of the English language. I used the phrase "imitation" of the real thing. Merriam-Websters defines imitation as:
and just to make sure I'm not misusing "imitation," let's see what Merriam-Websters has to say about "parody":
Hmmmm...seems MW thinks the "imitation" thing is so useful it's used twice in the definition. Far from me having an overly-narrow definition of parody, you seem to have an overly-narrow definition of "imitation."
That depends on the context. Given the right context, I believe John Cage's 4'33" could be parodied with a bit-for-bit copy, although personally I don't believe that it merits copyright protection in the first place.
Remind me again why you claimed this "[isn't] true at all"? You're actually re-affirming what I said, just in case you're unaware of it.
However, I was only using parody as an example. Fair use doesn't just cover parody.
I never said it did, but Fair Use is not law, it is a concept, a principle. As your very own Stanford link shows, Fair Use is quite the gray area, open to lots of interpretation. Further, you can be sued for infringement even if you feel what you're doing is within Fair Use. The court will decide on a case-by-case basis whether or not you're really infringing, and screaming "but it's Fair Use" is not a defense likely to win the day.
You claimed that you can't copy and distribute legally. That isn't true at all, and if you read the two links I've provided, you will see that.
Your eye doctor needs to be fired. Or perhaps a shipment of Hooked on Phonics is in order. I did not claim you can't copy and distribute legally, I claimed you can't copy and distribute copyrighted works without permission of the copyright holder. Here, let me quote the original post just in case your memory is as bad as your ju
Parody is the only Constitutionally-protected form of copying, although even that can and has been restricted in certain instances. However, parody by definition is not a copy, merely an imitation so close as to be easily recognizable as the real thing, just more humorous. Or more political, which is why parody was protected in the first place -- to allow unfettered political satire as a form of free speech.
However, parody has no relevance to a bit-for-bit copy of a piece of music or a movie. If you wanted to spoof Star Wars, just as Mel Brooks did in Spaceballs (although he quite carefully refrained from using the word "Star Wars" anywhere in the movie). But you cannot make a copy of a Star Wars movie and sell it -- at least not without giving George Lucas and the rest their legally-required dues after first obtaining permission.
So, not to be argumentative, but your comment of "it's not true at all" is hogwash.
So if a law is made that forbid you to breath, that means you should stop to do so?
Look closely, everyone. Here is an excellent example of (a) making an irrelevant analogy and (b) proving that any analogy, taken too far, is absurd. Bravo! You've proven two stupidities for the price of one post!
So, it's been illegal to tape movies broadcast on television, all along? Illegal to tape radio? Illegal to copy your own VHS tapes?
/. frequently champions) so neither should an unscrupulous consumer have the right do whatever they want with copyrighted works (a cause /. frequently tries very hard to ignore).
Perhaps you should calm down a moment and re-read my post. Personal copies are OK and always have been per Supreme Court decisions. Distributing those copies is not legal and never has been.
No, it wasn't illegal! It never was. But the **IAs are convincing everyone it always was, and everyone is chanting, with glassy eyes, "it is illegal to copy... it is illegal to copy... it is illegal to copy..."
Again, I'm going to ask you to calm down a moment and re-read my post. I never said it is illegal to copy. I said it is illegal to copy and distribute, which is entirely true, correct, and above all fair to the copyright holder. Unscrupulous companies do not have the right to do whatever they want with GPL'd code (a cause
America's memory hole is frightening. Our actions are becoming borderline insane, because we can't remember ANYTHING in the past unless someone in power tells us it happened. Copyright "crime", civil liberties evaporating, confusion about who attacked us on 9/11, reelecting a proven fraud... madness.
You really should get that knee looked at before it injures someone.