First, to jark (the grandparent), take it in stride. As you can see by my Journal, I've been in the same boat (posting stories that get rejected, only to have the story show up within the next day or two.)
Second, solferino, you and I and a bunch of other people know that, in fact, the submitters of stories, and those who post in them, are the lifeblood of slashdot. We're the ones who create the content that Taco and crew sell access to via subscriptions.
Third, (while I'm ranting), according to the last IRC chat, several readers suggested features, to which Taco replied with "Patches are welcome." If slashdot was still being run out of Rob's basement in Michigan, I could see pimping for patches. However, these guys get paid from OSDN. It's their job to keep the site up to date, and add features.
IIRC, the 169.254.xx.yy address range is also used for Zeroconf / Rendezvous networking, being plugged by Apple, as well as an implementation on Mandrake. The August issue of Linux Magazine just did a write-up on it.
Then there are games that are unwinnable without your cheat. I've seen a few where the only way to make money was gambling, but unless you saved after each win, and restored after each loss you will lose the game.
Why did I just have a flashback to "Leisure Suit Larry and the Land of the Lounge Lizards"?
Basic stock trading lesson: When you short sell a stock, you essentially borrow the stock at its current price, with the understanding that at a particular time, you will buy it back at whatever price. If the stock goes down, you make money (because you borrowed at the higher valuation.) However, if the stock rises, then you have to buy it at the current valuation, and thus you lose money.
It's risky because if you do a regular trade, the most you can lose is what you paid for the stock. When you short, there is no theoretical limit as to how high the stock can go, therefore no limit as to how much you could lose. (Yes, I am aware of "put" options that can be used like an insurance against losing too much money.)
No, fucktard, I haven't been brainwashed by Microsoft into believing that Windows is the only way to send pictures via email. I'm saying that the 95,98,ME versions ran as root, which allowed people to have their computers get hosed up when they did something that seemed innocent (like opening a screensaver).
If I was that stupid, I'd probably post as an AC also.
Yes, strictly from a point of operation. A car is much more simple to operate than a computer, yet we have a requirement in most states that people get formally trained and licensed to drive a car.
Yes, this was intended to be funny. However, SCO wanted a $32 license fee per embeded device. This includes the TiVo and the Sharp Zaurus PDA.
Considering I haven't seen too many dual-processor TiVo units, I really don't understand how SCO thought that was legit, but then again, nothing else they want seems legit.
You aren't getting the point. You can have your cake and eat it too as far as complexity and security go. *NIX macines are increadibly complex and very secure. This means that UNIX, Linux, Mac OS X, Free BSD and the like are all virtually immune to computer viruses.
I wasn't shooting for making a point about complexity and security. My point was, security, in general, is not convenient. And, that things that are highly convenient, aren't necessarily that secure. Complexity comes into play a little, only because things that are complex are generally not convenient.
Yes, Windows 95,98,ME ran as "root" basically and let any program launched hose whatever it wanted to. The problem is, people want the ability to click a button and send pictures to friends and family, who then just click a button to view them. While this works well for non-malicious things (like pictures), a screen saver doesn't seem malicious, until you realize that it's a program that has to run, and that program may not only do what you think it does.
The bottom line is, people need to understand a bit more about what happens when they click on things, or we might as well go back to individual appliances that do only 1 particular job. Then we wouldn't have to worry about an email affecting our computers.
There's no reason why your computer shouldn't protect you from stuff in email. That's a bug in our computers, not our users. Why can a program in an email attachment even connect to the network? Why do we allow programs in emails to begin with?
Or protect you from stuff on the web (popups, pop-unders, RPC worms) People want convenience, and that runs against security.
Either fix these bugs, or remove the functionality COMPLETELY.. users have better things to do than learn to work around software bugs.. like lead the rest of their lives.
Ok, no more email attachments, of any kind. Also, since your web browser can cause popups, no more web browsing. And, since your unpatched Windows computer will let RPC calls on it, no more PC for you.
(I know, there's a gray area here, obviously the user has to have SOME idea what's going on, but I tend to blame the software first. And the software manufacturer who has 98% of the market but yet doesn't make their software any more secure than anybody else's.)
Ladies and gentlemen: computers are complex machines. Much more so than your car, for example. However, you need some form of training to operate a car. Why do people think they can just go to a store, buy a box with some electronics in it, and have everything they want and nothing that they don't want? It's a tool. Learn to use it properly. If you hit your thumb with a hammer, you don't blame Stanley. </rant>
Great, that's Outlook 2002. What about any previous versions? Were/are they secure by default? (not trolling. I've never had occasion to install other versions, so I honestly don't know.)
Outlook Express is still a culprit. And, IIRC, Mozilla mail doesn't enable Javascript by default, so no scripted spreading from the preview pane. As for running executables, Mozilla prompts me as to if I want to open the executable, or save it, so no auto-running executable files there. True, I can still run the exe, but it won't happen without my knowledge.
Macs aren't "vaccinated" against Windows-based e-mail viruses or worms.
Agreed. It just seems like people brag about something that is painfully obvious (Macs don't get affected by Outlook viruses; people who are vaccinated against polio don't get polio)
Saying Macs are "immune" in this case is about like saying my car is immune to Polio. It just doesn't apply in this case. Macs won't be "immune" to Mac-based viruses, when they come along.
Again, agreed.
Anyone dumb enough to launch an executable e-mail attachment without first virus-scanning it is dumb enough to do it on any platform they run. Bragging about Macs not being susceptible to this round of viruses is merely bragging about how few Macs there are, and how it isn't worth the time of the virus-writers to make Mac-based viruses. Whoopee.
And this leads to another point. Why do we call them "Windows" viruses. It isn't a function of Windows, per se, that allows this to happen. It's a function of Outlook and OE that causes the problem. If mail.App ran binary attachments without a scan, Macs would be just as vulnerable as Windows machines.
We should start calling them Outlook viruses. Put the blame where it belongs, on the bad email applications.
People vaccinated against polio are immune to polio attacks. Duh!
The other thing that seems to slip people's attention, is that most of these Windows email viruses spread because of Outlook and Outlook Express. People running other mail clients like Eudora, Mozilla, etc. are not affected by these attacks either.
This is the same technology used in most state lottery tickets. When the voters fill out the form, they have it scanned. If it doesn't read correctly (they didn't fill in the circle completely, filled in two, etc.) the machine rejects it, the poll workers tell them how to correct it, and the voter fixes the problem. This seems like one of the best electronic system ideas that have been proposed, IMHO.
With Blaster, spyware, etc. that seems to be spreading, I've wondered about using SSH only on a machine. Everything has to tunnel through the SSH connection (web, email, X11, etc.) using SSH port forwarding. That way, every machine on the local network would only accept SSH traffic. Any worm that gets installed and runs would try infecting other machines behind the firewall, only to find that those machines won't listen to the worm. Would something like this work?
P.S. Obviously, using this in a Windows environment would be difficult. Maybe this would be another good justification for migrating to a *nix platform.
Re:Let's hear from all of the excited /. readers!
on
FreeBSD 4.9 Code Freeze
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Sure, no one seems to care now. However, wait until the SCO gestapo starts really trying to nail down their "licensing fees" from users. FreeBSD will see a huge influx of new users, migrating over from Linux.
Send in the Piracy Gestapo. He pirated material in front of hundreds of people, thus causing billions of dollars of damage to the entire movie industry (using *AA math)
Slashdot Mirror
First, to jark (the grandparent), take it in stride. As you can see by my Journal, I've been in the same boat (posting stories that get rejected, only to have the story show up within the next day or two.)
Second, solferino, you and I and a bunch of other people know that, in fact, the submitters of stories, and those who post in them, are the lifeblood of slashdot. We're the ones who create the content that Taco and crew sell access to via subscriptions.
Third, (while I'm ranting), according to the last IRC chat, several readers suggested features, to which Taco replied with "Patches are welcome." If slashdot was still being run out of Rob's basement in Michigan, I could see pimping for patches. However, these guys get paid from OSDN. It's their job to keep the site up to date, and add features.
IIRC, the 169.254.xx.yy address range is also used for Zeroconf / Rendezvous networking, being plugged by Apple, as well as an implementation on Mandrake. The August issue of Linux Magazine just did a write-up on it.
Why did I just have a flashback to "Leisure Suit Larry and the Land of the Lounge Lizards"?
The source
Wow, you can post an insult without logging in first.
Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot. Idiot.
Or
No incompatability based on compiler.
</zealotry>
I hate to nitpick, but wouldn't this scenario result in a "Daily $1.00" not a "Daily $.50"?
Basic stock trading lesson: When you short sell a stock, you essentially borrow the stock at its current price, with the understanding that at a particular time, you will buy it back at whatever price. If the stock goes down, you make money (because you borrowed at the higher valuation.) However, if the stock rises, then you have to buy it at the current valuation, and thus you lose money.
It's risky because if you do a regular trade, the most you can lose is what you paid for the stock. When you short, there is no theoretical limit as to how high the stock can go, therefore no limit as to how much you could lose. (Yes, I am aware of "put" options that can be used like an insurance against losing too much money.)
He spent 6.23 seconds pleasuring himself.
Note: I'm typing this in Mozilla on a Gentoo box
No, fucktard, I haven't been brainwashed by Microsoft into believing that Windows is the only way to send pictures via email. I'm saying that the 95,98,ME versions ran as root, which allowed people to have their computers get hosed up when they did something that seemed innocent (like opening a screensaver).
If I was that stupid, I'd probably post as an AC also.
Yes, strictly from a point of operation. A car is much more simple to operate than a computer, yet we have a requirement in most states that people get formally trained and licensed to drive a car.
Yes, this was intended to be funny. However, SCO wanted a $32 license fee per embeded device. This includes the TiVo and the Sharp Zaurus PDA.
Considering I haven't seen too many dual-processor TiVo units, I really don't understand how SCO thought that was legit, but then again, nothing else they want seems legit.
So, in other words, same as what happened last week? (minus the obesity thing)
I wasn't shooting for making a point about complexity and security. My point was, security, in general, is not convenient. And, that things that are highly convenient, aren't necessarily that secure. Complexity comes into play a little, only because things that are complex are generally not convenient.
Yes, Windows 95,98,ME ran as "root" basically and let any program launched hose whatever it wanted to. The problem is, people want the ability to click a button and send pictures to friends and family, who then just click a button to view them. While this works well for non-malicious things (like pictures), a screen saver doesn't seem malicious, until you realize that it's a program that has to run, and that program may not only do what you think it does.
The bottom line is, people need to understand a bit more about what happens when they click on things, or we might as well go back to individual appliances that do only 1 particular job. Then we wouldn't have to worry about an email affecting our computers.
Or protect you from stuff on the web (popups, pop-unders, RPC worms) People want convenience, and that runs against security.
Ok, no more email attachments, of any kind. Also, since your web browser can cause popups, no more web browsing. And, since your unpatched Windows computer will let RPC calls on it, no more PC for you.
Ladies and gentlemen: computers are complex machines. Much more so than your car, for example. However, you need some form of training to operate a car. Why do people think they can just go to a store, buy a box with some electronics in it, and have everything they want and nothing that they don't want? It's a tool. Learn to use it properly. If you hit your thumb with a hammer, you don't blame Stanley. </rant>
Agreed completely. In the end, these are user problems, not technical problems. LART the lusers who run things they get in their email.
Great, that's Outlook 2002. What about any previous versions? Were/are they secure by default? (not trolling. I've never had occasion to install other versions, so I honestly don't know.)
Outlook Express is still a culprit. And, IIRC, Mozilla mail doesn't enable Javascript by default, so no scripted spreading from the preview pane. As for running executables, Mozilla prompts me as to if I want to open the executable, or save it, so no auto-running executable files there. True, I can still run the exe, but it won't happen without my knowledge.
Agreed. It just seems like people brag about something that is painfully obvious (Macs don't get affected by Outlook viruses; people who are vaccinated against polio don't get polio)
Again, agreed.
And this leads to another point. Why do we call them "Windows" viruses. It isn't a function of Windows, per se, that allows this to happen. It's a function of Outlook and OE that causes the problem. If mail.App ran binary attachments without a scan, Macs would be just as vulnerable as Windows machines.
We should start calling them Outlook viruses. Put the blame where it belongs, on the bad email applications.
People vaccinated against polio are immune to polio attacks. Duh!
The other thing that seems to slip people's attention, is that most of these Windows email viruses spread because of Outlook and Outlook Express. People running other mail clients like Eudora, Mozilla, etc. are not affected by these attacks either.
This is the same technology used in most state lottery tickets. When the voters fill out the form, they have it scanned. If it doesn't read correctly (they didn't fill in the circle completely, filled in two, etc.) the machine rejects it, the poll workers tell them how to correct it, and the voter fixes the problem. This seems like one of the best electronic system ideas that have been proposed, IMHO.
With Blaster, spyware, etc. that seems to be spreading, I've wondered about using SSH only on a machine. Everything has to tunnel through the SSH connection (web, email, X11, etc.) using SSH port forwarding. That way, every machine on the local network would only accept SSH traffic. Any worm that gets installed and runs would try infecting other machines behind the firewall, only to find that those machines won't listen to the worm. Would something like this work?
P.S. Obviously, using this in a Windows environment would be difficult. Maybe this would be another good justification for migrating to a *nix platform.
Sure, no one seems to care now. However, wait until the SCO gestapo starts really trying to nail down their "licensing fees" from users. FreeBSD will see a huge influx of new users, migrating over from Linux.
s/impracticle/impractical
</spelling nazi>
Or, considering the non-GPL license for pico and pine nano, a pico clone
Send in the Piracy Gestapo. He pirated material in front of hundreds of people, thus causing billions of dollars of damage to the entire movie industry (using *AA math)