Please note that MS was in fact informed of this bug over a month before the BugTraq report.
From the report: ( http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/298748 )
"(2) VENDOR STATUS:
==================
Microsoft was initially contacted 2002-10-04. After several mail
exchanges, their final response were that the technique used to run
programs with parameters from the "Local computer zone" was no security
vulnerability. A fix should instead be applied for all possibilities for
content in the "Internet zone" to access the "Local computer zone"."
Well, the real problem/danger here isn't just the fact that you can reformat a drive -- it's the fact that you can do $5!$#% near ANYTHING. I'm certain, for instance, that with some work you could use this as an exploit to download a trojan of some sort (keylogger, etc), and implant a back door into the not-so-bright average user's machine. Chances are, if any of my non-computer-geek friends ran into this exploit, they'd just close the windows, shrug, and keep on trucking, leaving themselves vulnerable to losing secure information later. After all, all it takes is a keylogger to capture credit card and identity information, particularly on a machine that's already weakly protected.
Remember, it won't be able to read menu items for a few years, so an intuitive graphical interface is very important.
Hey, don't underestimate the little fella.:) I was reading when I was 18 months old because my parents took the time to teach me, instead of waiting for the schools to do it years later like so many parents seem to now. In first grade when many of my classmates were still trying to master reading, I was teaching my (clueless) teachers how to use the Commodore 64 that my little school had just acquired, and asking my mom to teach me binary and hex.
I'm certainly nothing special, either. Most young children have the potential for that kind of early learning, and it's something that will stay with them for the rest of their lives and benefit them tremendously. Infants need input to develop, and the more input you give them, the earlier and more rapidly their intellect will begin to expand. It may not seem like they understand what's going on, but if you're constantly talking and reading (and reading, and reading!!:) ) to them, you'll see results. Hence, computers (and programming) can be a VERY valuable tool to aid early development, when balanced with the right blend of conversation and reading/being read to. TV, on the other hand, seems to have little to no practical utility.
To get back to the original topic, I really like the idea posted by another slashdotter above -- set up a dual boot system, but block internet access on the Windows OS. They can still run the games on Windows, but will most likely spend most of their time on Linux. It will also be an opening later to explain things like network security, if they ask why you only blocked Windows.
Actually, there is no contradition, I simply failed to clarify the terminology I was using.
Safety is the freedom from risk -- a state where we are protected from the world, essentially. This seems to be the great goal for which many people strive.
Security is the attempt to create safety. We feel secure when we think we are safe from risk.
To clarify:
We are never safe. However, we can work very hard to create an illustion of safety. Unfortunately, the harder we work to reinforce this illusion, the more we will lose our true freedoms.
How the hell is it Big Brother if I WANT it, and will gladly accept it if over 50% of the other people in my country WANT it?
The mere fact that over 50% of the population want such a law does not justify the creation of the law. This is a nation created by a downtrodden minority, and the fact is, what's good for 50.1% of the population might not necessarily be good to the other 49.9%. The system of law must be carefully controlled and balanced against the unscrupulous (or simply dimwitted) who will misuse it. Personally, if being against having 50.1% of the people make rules arbitrarily for 100% to follow leaves me "Against democracy" in your eyes, then feel free to view me as such.
The fact is, far too many laws are created in a rather pointless attempt to "protect the public good." In assessing the value of these laws, you have to take a good look at the purpose the law was created for, and whether or not it has any hope of actually accomplishing enough "good" to make it worthwhile.
For a good example, take the law against homicide. It seems that the overwhelming majority of people are against the unrestricted killing of fellow humans. Fear not, I am too. Should there be a law against it? Well, it's generally agreed by a very large majority that we should work to make ourselves less vulnerable to random killing. A law against homicide is generally pretty enforceable with reasonable use of technology on hand. We seem to benefit much more than we loose with this law, and it seems to be pretty effective. Makes sense to me.
To take another example (and a very controversial one), let's look at the laws against marijuana. Many folks feel it's harmful, though there's no real evidence to back that up. What's important here is the fact that on average those who think it harmful have more legal power than those who do not. Not only is there no conclusive evidence that marijuana harms the user, there's certainly little evidence that one's use of it harms anyone else. Hence, we now have a largely unenforceable and very expensive law on the books which prohibits its use or distribution. Personally, I've never felt the desire to smoke up, but I've known more than a few that have, thanks to the extensive amount of time I spend on a college campus. Let me tell you, the attempts at enforcing this law really aren't even making a significant dent. What's more, the increased difficulty in obtaining pot has driven the price up considerably, making it a very lucrative business. In a very competitive market that's already outside of the law, violence isn't necessarily uncommon, and innocents often get caught in the crossfire. To be honest, the law seems to be making matters worse, not helping. To add the final straw, we're dumping an absolute fortune into this "war on drugs," and it's like firing a 12-gauge shotgun at the sun.
Realistically, is this a law that should be on the books? No. If for no other reason, then simply because it is essentially unenforceable.
Unfortunately, this is human nature. We see these laws as solutions, when so often they fail to solve the problem and become needless inconveniences to the rest of us. It's an attitude that is the result of trying to pretend that there are easy solutions to our disagreements, and that the world is a neater place than it actually is.
The same goes for an attempt to legislate a breathalizer in a car. Anyone sufficiently determined will find a way around it, and we'll pour valuable resources into a dead-end solution. For the same expense, we could cut down on all these pointless speed traps and have our cops spend their time setting up random DUI checkpoints instead. Understand that I'm not against drunk driving -- I just disagree strongly with your methods. It would make my day if I had to go through at least one random checkpoint every two weeks or so, and it would probably be far more effective in the end.
Better one five-minute inconveneince every two weeks than a 30-second aggravation every time I get in my car. Besides, maybe it would give our Troopers something useful to do with themselves, instead of wasting my money running speed traps.
but it does bother me less than an Organ Donor Suppression Law (a.k.a. a Helmet Law).
I have to agree there. I, for one, always wear a helmet. However, why should there be a law to enforce this? The only people a rider without a helmet hurts is himself -- as anyone who has ever been smacked in the face by a bug at 70mph will tell you.
Personally, I favor natural selection in situations like this -- if someone wants to kill themself through stupidity in a way that won't injure anyone else in the process, let 'em.
Don't be a moron. You're essentially saying, whether you like it or not, you won't give up the liberty of not having a breathalizer in your car to catch the true criminals?
Personally, I'm saying exactly that. I have no mythical natural "right to safety." The plain fact is, there is no safety in the world, and we are at risk from the time we're conceived to the time we die. We might craft a careful illusion that anything else is the case, but it is only that -- an illusion.
I am responsible for my own decisions. Realistically, that is the only natural freedom that exists in this world. Beyond that, the only freedoms that exist are those we make for ourselves, and as Larry Niven and others have said, F*S=k -- the product of freedom and security is a constant. I for one am not willing to see my freedoms eroded for the sake of strengthening an illusion of security.
Slashdot Mirror
Please note that MS was in fact informed of this bug over a month before the BugTraq report. From the report: ( http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/298748 ) "(2) VENDOR STATUS: ================== Microsoft was initially contacted 2002-10-04. After several mail exchanges, their final response were that the technique used to run programs with parameters from the "Local computer zone" was no security vulnerability. A fix should instead be applied for all possibilities for content in the "Internet zone" to access the "Local computer zone"."
Well, the real problem/danger here isn't just the fact that you can reformat a drive -- it's the fact that you can do $5!$#% near ANYTHING. I'm certain, for instance, that with some work you could use this as an exploit to download a trojan of some sort (keylogger, etc), and implant a back door into the not-so-bright average user's machine. Chances are, if any of my non-computer-geek friends ran into this exploit, they'd just close the windows, shrug, and keep on trucking, leaving themselves vulnerable to losing secure information later. After all, all it takes is a keylogger to capture credit card and identity information, particularly on a machine that's already weakly protected.
Remember, it won't be able to read menu items for a few years, so an intuitive graphical interface is very important.
:) I was reading when I was 18 months old because my parents took the time to teach me, instead of waiting for the schools to do it years later like so many parents seem to now. In first grade when many of my classmates were still trying to master reading, I was teaching my (clueless) teachers how to use the Commodore 64 that my little school had just acquired, and asking my mom to teach me binary and hex.
:) ) to them, you'll see results. Hence, computers (and programming) can be a VERY valuable tool to aid early development, when balanced with the right blend of conversation and reading/being read to. TV, on the other hand, seems to have little to no practical utility.
Hey, don't underestimate the little fella.
I'm certainly nothing special, either. Most young children have the potential for that kind of early learning, and it's something that will stay with them for the rest of their lives and benefit them tremendously. Infants need input to develop, and the more input you give them, the earlier and more rapidly their intellect will begin to expand. It may not seem like they understand what's going on, but if you're constantly talking and reading (and reading, and reading!!
To get back to the original topic, I really like the idea posted by another slashdotter above -- set up a dual boot system, but block internet access on the Windows OS. They can still run the games on Windows, but will most likely spend most of their time on Linux. It will also be an opening later to explain things like network security, if they ask why you only blocked Windows.
Actually, there is no contradition, I simply failed to clarify the terminology I was using.
Safety is the freedom from risk -- a state where we are protected from the world, essentially. This seems to be the great goal for which many people strive.
Security is the attempt to create safety. We feel secure when we think we are safe from risk.
To clarify:
We are never safe. However, we can work very hard to create an illustion of safety. Unfortunately, the harder we work to reinforce this illusion, the more we will lose our true freedoms.
Chuck
The mere fact that over 50% of the population want such a law does not justify the creation of the law. This is a nation created by a downtrodden minority, and the fact is, what's good for 50.1% of the population might not necessarily be good to the other 49.9%. The system of law must be carefully controlled and balanced against the unscrupulous (or simply dimwitted) who will misuse it. Personally, if being against having 50.1% of the people make rules arbitrarily for 100% to follow leaves me "Against democracy" in your eyes, then feel free to view me as such.
The fact is, far too many laws are created in a rather pointless attempt to "protect the public good." In assessing the value of these laws, you have to take a good look at the purpose the law was created for, and whether or not it has any hope of actually accomplishing enough "good" to make it worthwhile.
For a good example, take the law against homicide. It seems that the overwhelming majority of people are against the unrestricted killing of fellow humans. Fear not, I am too. Should there be a law against it? Well, it's generally agreed by a very large majority that we should work to make ourselves less vulnerable to random killing. A law against homicide is generally pretty enforceable with reasonable use of technology on hand. We seem to benefit much more than we loose with this law, and it seems to be pretty effective. Makes sense to me.
To take another example (and a very controversial one), let's look at the laws against marijuana. Many folks feel it's harmful, though there's no real evidence to back that up. What's important here is the fact that on average those who think it harmful have more legal power than those who do not. Not only is there no conclusive evidence that marijuana harms the user, there's certainly little evidence that one's use of it harms anyone else. Hence, we now have a largely unenforceable and very expensive law on the books which prohibits its use or distribution. Personally, I've never felt the desire to smoke up, but I've known more than a few that have, thanks to the extensive amount of time I spend on a college campus. Let me tell you, the attempts at enforcing this law really aren't even making a significant dent. What's more, the increased difficulty in obtaining pot has driven the price up considerably, making it a very lucrative business. In a very competitive market that's already outside of the law, violence isn't necessarily uncommon, and innocents often get caught in the crossfire. To be honest, the law seems to be making matters worse, not helping. To add the final straw, we're dumping an absolute fortune into this "war on drugs," and it's like firing a 12-gauge shotgun at the sun.
Realistically, is this a law that should be on the books? No. If for no other reason, then simply because it is essentially unenforceable.
Unfortunately, this is human nature. We see these laws as solutions, when so often they fail to solve the problem and become needless inconveniences to the rest of us. It's an attitude that is the result of trying to pretend that there are easy solutions to our disagreements, and that the world is a neater place than it actually is.
The same goes for an attempt to legislate a breathalizer in a car. Anyone sufficiently determined will find a way around it, and we'll pour valuable resources into a dead-end solution. For the same expense, we could cut down on all these pointless speed traps and have our cops spend their time setting up random DUI checkpoints instead. Understand that I'm not against drunk driving -- I just disagree strongly with your methods. It would make my day if I had to go through at least one random checkpoint every two weeks or so, and it would probably be far more effective in the end.
Better one five-minute inconveneince every two weeks than a 30-second aggravation every time I get in my car. Besides, maybe it would give our Troopers something useful to do with themselves, instead of wasting my money running speed traps.
Chuck
I have to agree there. I, for one, always wear a helmet. However, why should there be a law to enforce this? The only people a rider without a helmet hurts is himself -- as anyone who has ever been smacked in the face by a bug at 70mph will tell you.
Personally, I favor natural selection in situations like this -- if someone wants to kill themself through stupidity in a way that won't injure anyone else in the process, let 'em.
Chuck
Don't be a moron. You're essentially saying, whether you like it or not, you won't give up the liberty of not having a breathalizer in your car to catch the true criminals?
Personally, I'm saying exactly that. I have no mythical natural "right to safety." The plain fact is, there is no safety in the world, and we are at risk from the time we're conceived to the time we die. We might craft a careful illusion that anything else is the case, but it is only that -- an illusion.
I am responsible for my own decisions. Realistically, that is the only natural freedom that exists in this world. Beyond that, the only freedoms that exist are those we make for ourselves, and as Larry Niven and others have said, F*S=k -- the product of freedom and security is a constant. I for one am not willing to see my freedoms eroded for the sake of strengthening an illusion of security.
Chuck