Obviously you don't understand the methodology here.
The failure of government is meant to convince us that we need to spend more money on government so they can do better testing to convince us we need to spend more money on government.
Knowing nothing firsthand about this myself but with my "common sense" I have to ask:
If a particular module were full of smoke and other noxious materials why wouldn't it be possible to seal off that model and then vent its entire atmosphere into space? At that point there would be nothing "airborne" left in that module. Then you would re-pressurize it.
That to me would seem to be more certain than any form of filtering. Of course somewhere in there you would have to make absolutely sure that the source of the noxious materials was eliminated too.
How about a malware writer moding your host file so that when the Adobe warez phones home it gets something quite different?
I know we think of computer users as dumb. But must we have our "trusted vendors" also assume that all users are too dumb to trust with a decision about when and where you want to get your software from?
It's not like Microsoft and Adobe have sterling records for keeping our system secure or anything.
True to a point. But if a product is really good, word of mouth takes over, the product becomes well known and eventually starts to "sell itself". What then is the need for a marketing effort in a company such as Coke, or Microsoft? It certainly doesn't consist of educating people about the product. More often it consists of giving the public a warm and fuzzy feeling about the company itself. Paving over mishaps as quickly as possible, pushing product out a retail channel faster than might be needed, developing intermediate unpaid marketing channels (MCSEs), sponsring charitable events, etc. I mentioned two companies. Windows has never been great. The one change Coke made to their formula was a marketing disaster, although the public soon forgot its outrage. If there was simply nothing close to the products from these two companies, they would need to do little marketing. Fact is, viable alternatives are there, waiting for a stumble significant enough to trip up the giant. Such stumbles rarely happen. Especially if the company keeps a groups of people around to cover them up and draw the public's attention to something else.
You will note that when some new big virus or malware comes out the mainstream publications rarely if ever mention that only those running Windows are vulnerable, even if this is the case. I don't think this is happenstance. You have to dig deep to find that the lates Flash or Acrobat vulnerability only affects those running Windows. Microsoft marketing has done a great job of convincing people that since they are the number one OS, they can't be blamed because almost all the attacks target their system.
Bill Gates has indicated you are a fellow group member of Microsoft Security. I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - B. Gates.
Oh, that would have fooled me. It would have been more tricky if they'd added something like:
Oh, and I'm also inviting you to the other special interests groups I follow: "Committee for Prevention of Bloat in Operating Systems", and "Six Forty K. It's Enough for Anyone". I look forward to seeing you on LinkedIN and if you are ever in the Seattle area, stop by for a brew.
No, One party focuses on war, the other party focuses on entitlement and war.
War alone (at the rate we've been fighting them since Lyndon Johnson's time) have not been enough to break the bank.
Entitlements (at the rate we've been enacting them since Lyndon Johnson's time) have been enough ALONE to break the bank (at some future point at least).
Comont, proud owner of seven cats and two dogs -- the environmental equivalent of a small fleet of cars -- says defiantly, "Our animals give us so much that I don't feel like a polluter at all.
There is very little logic that goes into either side of this "debate". It's all about finding some OTHER groups of people to demonize, those who lead lives that are not like ours, believe in things we don't, or don't believe in things we do.
After our freedoms are gone, it will be those who ushered them out the door that complain the loudest. The "struggle" to give up your freedom to others is a downhill struggle. Going back won't be so easy, or even possible.
What I wonder is: If we can finally prove that man contributes to climate change at all and thus that changes in the way we live will have an definite impact, then wouldn't it be important to be absolutely sure which long-term direction climate is taking and whether the actions that are being proposed will have the correct, that is reverse effect?
It would seem that instead we are for some reason in a hurry to do something/anything, even though we know that the problem (if it is a problem) has been creeping along for thousands of years.
The notion that we are at some sort of trigger point or point of no return seems more than just a little bit contrived to me. Especially when you realize that most of the leaders in this movement have set themselves up to gain financially by the proposed changes.
I could append this to every message here, but I picked yours because you put your finger on the problem:
There is no ultimate goal for Network Neutrality because that term isn't defined anywhere. No elected official has defined what the concept means now or what it might mean in the future. It's nice that we have this "comment period" for various interests to get their two cents in, but as far as Network Neutrality is concerned it's now a dictatorship of five people at the FCC. Change the makeup of that group and you get a new definition. Take whatever definition is put in place and hire a building full of people to oversee it and you will most definitely get a working definition that differs from the public's high level understanding of it.
We have a problem here that exists almost entirely as a hypothetical case. This is like hiring a dozen cops to focus on traffic control for a little used residential street. Since there is no traffic problem to solve it's only a matter of time before they find other "laws" to enforce.
Whatever "Network Neutrality" means now, it will mean something completely different in 5 years. Google, and other supporters are basically placing their bets on their ability to influence the government to rule in their favor. Flexibility and competition will once again go out the window in favor of designated monopolies. We might as well skip all the intermediate steps and just go straight to a federally maintained Internet.
"With software you own, you can ignore Microsoft's mistakes"
Yes, as long as you actually own it.
You don't own the products you mentioned however. Better get out that TOS document you never read and read it.
The best way to ignore Microsoft's mistakes is to not use their software. At all.
I'm quite comfortable keeping my data "in the cloud". But I also keep local copies. As such the cloud copy is my primary working copy and the local copy serves as the backup.
There's an expectation that tax money will be spent in a way that benefits everybody. That's the only reason we allow the government to take the money from us in the first place.
Well, that, and the fact that they come to your house with guns eventually if you don't. While you're waiting for that to happen they can also freeze your bank accounts.
Of course I have the "satisfaction" of voting every chance get for smaller government.
Problem is I'm outnumbered by those on the receiving end of my taxes plus geometrically growing borrowing.
The only other "satisfaction" I can derive from this is the knowledge that this system can't sustain itself indefinitely.
Note the frequent mention of specific Windows threats, something you will find few government people doing. Many trade press publication will often mention a new threat without regard to specific OS dependencies (and 99% of the time it's Windows). The company goes to great lengths to make sure its names aren't taken in vain in public.
He has been associated with user groups that are critical of Windows, but my guess is that his true feelings on the subject are uttered mostly off the record.
Slashdot Mirror
This puts us one step closer to the long sought after write only drive.
You mean they copied Apple?
Huh. First time for everything.
(1) Insert DVD in appropriate drive (no, the other one).
(2) If this is an upgrade edition, make sure you have an official upgrade license with Abraham Lincoln's original signature.
(3) Follow instructions on screen. If there is no screen, contact your hardware vendor.
(4) Don't call us, we'll call you.
(5) Send more money.
(nt)
I wonder how many /.ers will get that any more.
Actually that will be great! We can finally get rid of those parentheses we put around the area code.
I don't think it really counts until they can also build the computer that calculates the solution out of legos.
168?
This company is so laid back about "the future of their products" I think they must have industrial strength bongs stationed next to the air handlers.
Everything will be cool man.
Obviously you don't understand the methodology here.
The failure of government is meant to convince us that we need to spend more money on government so they can do better testing to convince us we need to spend more money on government.
Yes.
But don't. It ain't worth it.
Knowing nothing firsthand about this myself but with my "common sense" I have to ask:
If a particular module were full of smoke and other noxious materials why wouldn't it be possible to seal off that model and then vent its entire atmosphere into space? At that point there would be nothing "airborne" left in that module. Then you would re-pressurize it.
That to me would seem to be more certain than any form of filtering. Of course somewhere in there you would have to make absolutely sure that the source of the noxious materials was eliminated too.
How about a malware writer moding your host file so that when the Adobe warez phones home it gets something quite different?
I know we think of computer users as dumb. But must we have our "trusted vendors" also assume that all users are too dumb to trust with a decision about when and where you want to get your software from?
It's not like Microsoft and Adobe have sterling records for keeping our system secure or anything.
Windows doesn't use batteries, people do.
Just shut down those Windows laptops and leave 'em that way. Problem solved.
True to a point. But if a product is really good, word of mouth takes over, the product becomes well known and eventually starts to "sell itself". What then is the need for a marketing effort in a company such as Coke, or Microsoft? It certainly doesn't consist of educating people about the product. More often it consists of giving the public a warm and fuzzy feeling about the company itself. Paving over mishaps as quickly as possible, pushing product out a retail channel faster than might be needed, developing intermediate unpaid marketing channels (MCSEs), sponsring charitable events, etc. I mentioned two companies. Windows has never been great. The one change Coke made to their formula was a marketing disaster, although the public soon forgot its outrage. If there was simply nothing close to the products from these two companies, they would need to do little marketing. Fact is, viable alternatives are there, waiting for a stumble significant enough to trip up the giant. Such stumbles rarely happen. Especially if the company keeps a groups of people around to cover them up and draw the public's attention to something else.
You will note that when some new big virus or malware comes out the mainstream publications rarely if ever mention that only those running Windows are vulnerable, even if this is the case. I don't think this is happenstance. You have to dig deep to find that the lates Flash or Acrobat vulnerability only affects those running Windows. Microsoft marketing has done a great job of convincing people that since they are the number one OS, they can't be blamed because almost all the attacks target their system.
If enough of us get our affairs in order maybe we can reverse the process! Let's all go party^H^H^H^H^H conference in Copenhagen and work it all out.
Oh, that would have fooled me. It would have been more tricky if they'd added something like:
No, One party focuses on war, the other party focuses on entitlement and war.
War alone (at the rate we've been fighting them since Lyndon Johnson's time) have not been enough to break the bank.
Entitlements (at the rate we've been enacting them since Lyndon Johnson's time) have been enough ALONE to break the bank (at some future point at least).
Well, until they figure out that the remedies have costs in terms of human comfort too:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091220/sc_afp/lifestyleclimatewarminganimalsfood
There is very little logic that goes into either side of this "debate". It's all about finding some OTHER groups of people to demonize, those who lead lives that are not like ours, believe in things we don't, or don't believe in things we do.
After our freedoms are gone, it will be those who ushered them out the door that complain the loudest. The "struggle" to give up your freedom to others is a downhill struggle. Going back won't be so easy, or even possible.
What I wonder is: If we can finally prove that man contributes to climate change at all and thus that changes in the way we live will have an definite impact, then wouldn't it be important to be absolutely sure which long-term direction climate is taking and whether the actions that are being proposed will have the correct, that is reverse effect?
It would seem that instead we are for some reason in a hurry to do something/anything, even though we know that the problem (if it is a problem) has been creeping along for thousands of years.
The notion that we are at some sort of trigger point or point of no return seems more than just a little bit contrived to me. Especially when you realize that most of the leaders in this movement have set themselves up to gain financially by the proposed changes.
I could append this to every message here, but I picked yours because you put your finger on the problem:
There is no ultimate goal for Network Neutrality because that term isn't defined anywhere. No elected official has defined what the concept means now or what it might mean in the future. It's nice that we have this "comment period" for various interests to get their two cents in, but as far as Network Neutrality is concerned it's now a dictatorship of five people at the FCC. Change the makeup of that group and you get a new definition. Take whatever definition is put in place and hire a building full of people to oversee it and you will most definitely get a working definition that differs from the public's high level understanding of it.
We have a problem here that exists almost entirely as a hypothetical case. This is like hiring a dozen cops to focus on traffic control for a little used residential street. Since there is no traffic problem to solve it's only a matter of time before they find other "laws" to enforce.
Whatever "Network Neutrality" means now, it will mean something completely different in 5 years. Google, and other supporters are basically placing their bets on their ability to influence the government to rule in their favor. Flexibility and competition will once again go out the window in favor of designated monopolies. We might as well skip all the intermediate steps and just go straight to a federally maintained Internet.
True. But 18 months later is a different mater. Most of what has come out of this is that the operation has been fully taken over by MS staff.
"With software you own, you can ignore Microsoft's mistakes"
Yes, as long as you actually own it.
You don't own the products you mentioned however. Better get out that TOS document you never read and read it.
The best way to ignore Microsoft's mistakes is to not use their software. At all.
I'm quite comfortable keeping my data "in the cloud". But I also keep local copies. As such the cloud copy is my primary working copy and the local copy serves as the backup.
Well, that, and the fact that they come to your house with guns eventually if you don't. While you're waiting for that to happen they can also freeze your bank accounts.
Of course I have the "satisfaction" of voting every chance get for smaller government.
Problem is I'm outnumbered by those on the receiving end of my taxes plus geometrically growing borrowing.
The only other "satisfaction" I can derive from this is the knowledge that this system can't sustain itself indefinitely.
You can have them as far as I'm concerned. As long as you promis to take them to another planet.
Read his congressional testimony here:
http://kyl.senate.gov/legis_center/subdocs/022404_yoran.pdf
Note the frequent mention of specific Windows threats, something you will find few government people doing. Many trade press publication will often mention a new threat without regard to specific OS dependencies (and 99% of the time it's Windows). The company goes to great lengths to make sure its names aren't taken in vain in public.
He has been associated with user groups that are critical of Windows, but my guess is that his true feelings on the subject are uttered mostly off the record.
http://www.viruslist.com/en/news?id=764
http://radsoft.net/rants/20090318,00.shtml
In any event, the hiring of a former Microsoftie is the main issue here. Is he required to divest his stock options? I don't see that spelled out.