I'm probably going to be -1 trolled into oblivion, but why don't all the people complaining about the NYT simply register and forget about it??
I did that at least three years ago, and with cookies I only ever have to worry about it *once* each time I change browser. And if you are opposed on principle on giving personal info, just put false one.
The whole thing takes about as long as getting the Google link, and you only have to do it once. And I thought geeks were supposed to be efficient;-)
Because the people who refuse to register are doing it for ideological reasons, not practical reasons.
There, it's that simple.
It doesn't matter how EASY it is, they don't care, they're against the very idea of registering for the NYT.
It sounds like you aren't.
#3 A locksmith, in case you don't know, legally has tools at his disposal to open most any lock so he would not need the knowledge of the faulty lock to get access in the first place.
Ridiculous to bring up in this sense, since it would analogous to brute-forcing a password.
It is easy to show a number of devastating exploits that were developed AFTER the bug was made public.
No shit, sherlock. If the exploits are already publicly known, then so is the bug. That's like asking:
"Show me a publicly avaible example detailing someone using this trick with locks, before this trick with locks was made public."
Actually, feel free to tell me AND my locksmith (he installed the lock so he could already get in anyway), but you could please not tell the whole city? That's what publishing the flaw publicly does. Perhaps you do not mean what your own analogy implies?
I mean exactly what I said. That should be obvious from me next sentence in that post:
In the case of publicly available software, you don't have a distribution list of all the people you should inform, so you just have to let the word out the company XYZ's locks are junk.
It's not possible to tell just the "good people", so you have to tell everyone, and then the people who care about security can actually do something about it (buy new locks from a better company).
Your own analogy about locks is the one which doesn't make sense, because your locksmith should not alreaedy be able to get in unless you are allowing him to keep an extra set of keys.
On the other hand, if you do release the details immediately, you can nearly guarantee that there will be widespread attacks straight away.
What you need to consider is that you're forcing EVERYONE to rely on your judgement that these attacks aren't worth worrying about unless they're happening to you. You can't rely on anyone else reporting the attacks under your system, because when they find them, they aren't publicly describing the exploit, just telling the vendor. You could have 600 simultaneously being targeted, and each one independently notifying the vendor. Each one might think the exploit is "rare", but really there's no way for them to know because people are only telling the vendor.
If the first of those 600 had publicly posted the info, the other 599 would have had the chance to protect themselves.
Maybe a patch would get released sooner, or maybe it wouldn't but they would have at least have the option of shutting down those systems until there was a way to make them safe.
Secondly, don't be the retard that has to type up something major late at night. Get your work done soon, it's better to come in late from partying, than to type away for an hour, while your room mate is sleeping.
Third, don't live with such a pompus ass that they get a roommate, yet are unable to cope with any signs of someone else actually living there. (You better not make any noise other than when I say it's okay...I don't care if you have 5 final projects due.)
Maybe you go/went to college for underwater basketweaving, but some people actually have to do a lot ok work.
So here's an idea:
Be frickin considerate yourself and buy a $0.99 pair of earplugs.
I NEVER stopped any of my roommates from working. Never. When my roommate's group was sleeping in shifts, clacking away 24 hours a day, know what I did?
Sucked it up, dealt with it and put a pillow over my head. Have some consideration for other people or get your own damn room if you know you can't cope with it.
Beyond say 10 days there is no reason to imagine that it's still secret, and so it's safer to let people know.
This is exactly the kind of assumption that I think is silly. This bug had been in existence for YEARS. What the heck does the date you discovered it have to do with anything?
Crackers have had YEARS to find and exploit this error, but someone decides to make the silly assumption to no one else could have ever found it before them.
If the vuln is not being exploited then giving the vendor a few days or a week to make a release is probably OK.
This is another assumption that I think is crazy. How do you know this vulnerability is not being exploited?
You don't.
Just because there hasn't been some giant worm that takes advantage of it doesn't mean that no one knows about it and is using it. A smart hacker/cracker can take advantage of it without running around waving a huge red flag going "Look I found a vulnerability!"
The only way to really know if it's being exploited is to publicly disclose it, so that a large number of people can actually check to see if it is.
Disclosures often do lead to attack tools, or at least more widespread use of them.
But disclosures also lead to the problem being fixed. A public disclosure of the problem gives a system administrator 4 options:
Move the system to a different software platform.
Shut down the system.
Fix it himself (if possible)
Just hope he stays lucky until the patch comes out.
By keeping the problem a secret, you're eliminating 3 of those options, and allowing companies to take security much less seriously.
The problem is that, in publishing the flaw, the number of people who now have understanding on how to write an exploit against it are much higher. Maybe if you published something about a flaw in a given service and just told everyone to shut down that service due to the flaw until the fix was out. But that seems unlikely.
I've always though that it was extremely presumptuous to assume that you're:
A) The first person ever to discover the flaw.
and..
B) That no one else could find it.
I find this particlular flaw to be a great example of how pompus this is. That particular code had been out for YEARS.
Very often these flaws are found by programmers who were working on something else and just happened to stumble across it. They weren't specfically trying to break the system.
Meanwhile, some imaginary "black hat" has had years to discover and exploit this particular vulnerability.
I find this whole "only tell the vendor" attitude silly. If I find the locks on your house can be opened with ANY key, I'm going to tell you, not your locksmith (who will then fix them some day he gets when hearound to it.)
In the case of publicly available software, you don't have a distribution list of all the people you should inform, so you just have to let the word out the company XYZ's locks are junk. This way purchasers of these locks stop using them, or can replace them with locks from another company if the manfacturer doesn't fix it fast enough.
Disclosing a vulnerability ONLY to the vendor only makes sense when there is absolutely no way that software could be shut down and/or replaced.
Yep. It's clear. If there's no public discussion of a flaw, the likelyhood of an exploit is lower because the would-be hacker has to discover the flaw on their own.
Actually it's not clear.
Assuming a flaw is actually going to be fixed someday, you have to consider both the time it takes for the flaw to get fixed and the chance that someone else will find it. If disclosing the vulnerability is going to get it fixed in a week instead of six months, there is a lot less time for it to be exploited. It also requires making the idiotic assumption that no one could ever just SHUT DOWN THE SERVICE UNTIL THE FLAW IS FIXED.
This is the way SHOULD work:
I discover a flaw.
I publicly disclose it.
Systems vulnerable to exploitation are shut down.
A fix is published.
Systems are brought back up.
That is how you minimize the chance of your system being exploited, not by acting out "The Emperor Wears No Clothes."
As an added bonus of this system, consumers get to see who really is serious about security. They get to objectively evaluate vendows based on number and seriousness of flaws and the time it took to fix them.
It's the imperial system for gods sake! There are no decimals! 3.75 inches?
Sure there are decimals.
Just because 12 inches = 1 one foot does not mean, 1.0002 inches is meaningless. It's a really simple concept, converting fractions to decimal. They teach it in grade school.
Ever think maybe the problem is people too dense to wrap their head around more than one measurement system?
Most people have their side mirrors adjusted so as to point back down the side of the vehicle, which is not very useful. If you adjust them to point into the next lane over, you can completely eliminate the blind spot.
Not true.
Unless you've found some magical way to make angle of incidence not equal angle of refraction, you are still going to have a blind spot.
Host 'a' (the server, 192.168.0.1) requires the correct knocking combination to allow access.
Host 'b' (random knocker, 192.168.0.2) knocks on random ports attempting to cause a DoS. Host 'a' detects the wrong ports being knocked on and does not grant access from host b
Host 'c' (geniune client, 192.168.0.3) knocks on the correct ports, host 'a' allows access from host c (192.168.0.3/32). Host 'b' can continue knocking on random ports, but at the same time, host 'a' does not grant access from the misbehaving host b, but it doesn't have to revoke access from host c either.
So how does this cause a DoS?
The ports being knocked are closed. This means that the server can never veify the the knocks coming from 192.168.0.3 are really coming from there, or if they're coming from 192.168.0.2.
If the server is.1, I'm.2 and you're.3, I just keep knocking ports at random spoofing my ip to say that I'm.3 You can't IP block me, and my knocks look just like your knocks. This keeps screwing up your login and you can never open the connection.
To answer another poster's assertion that the Internet is like a car, you can't just drive, you have to have some knowledge, I'd say this: sure, you have to know how to USE the car. But you shouldn't have to be expected to understand its architecture and occasionally pull the carburetor as well.
Sure, you aren't required to fix your own car, but you are required to keep it in safe operating condition.
You are legally required to have it professionally inspected, and to fix any dangerous things that may break.
What's going on here is like some idiot driving around with 4 flat tires messing up the road for everyone else. You're not required to fix your own flat, but you are required to have it fixed.
Computers require mantianence. So do appliances. If your dryer is spitting flames out the back, you shouldn't keep using it like an idiot and burn your house down. If you smell gas in your kitchen, you shouldn't use the stove.
The clueless are not at fault here; it's we geeks who are at fault for designing systems for ourselves, instead of for everyone.
Make something idiot-proof and they'll build a better idiot. You can't prevent all the mistakes a user might make. It's just not possible.
Look at cars for example. Go drain the oil out of your engine, start it up and then complain how it shouldn't have let you do that. The reality is the user has to be responsible. If we could anticipate all of the actions a user would make, what would we need them for? Even if they put in a "no oil" sensor, what's to stop you from disconnecting it? In the real world, you're expected to be competent enough to put oil in your car OR hire someone who is. It's your choice. If you choose never to change your oil, I'm just going to laugh at you when your engine blows. You deserve it. There's a book in the glovebox telling you what you should be doing and you're willfully ignoring it.
Nobody is born knowing how a car works, or how to drive it. It's expected that if you're going to buy a car and drive it on public roads, you put forth the minimal effort required to learn how to use it AND to get it fixed when something breaks. If you're not willing to to that, you're just plain irresponsible.
As technology gets more complicated, so does the spam. The only way to protect yourself is to not give out your address. Period. Heck, I don't even give my work e-mail address to my parents.
[Louis Black voice]If you're not going to give anyone your email address, why the fuck do you need one?[/Louis Black voice]
Stupidest. Solution. Ever.
How the hell did this get +5 insightful?
This is like saying:
"I never get junk mail anymore, because I never give anyone my address, not even to my parents."
You're not doing anything to SOLVE the problem, you're just avoiding the use of that communications medium altogether.
Real frickin clever. So if I hate solicitors, I should move to a shack in the Siberian wilderness?
yeah lets just go around beating up spammers. no trial, just vigilante justice. why stop there? lets go around beating up anyone we dont like. screw the court system. i dont like evil conservatives, lets just kill them. no trial, no evidence necessary.
[sarcasm]Yeah, let's just trust the government to take care of every aspect of our lives and never go against anything it says.[/sarcasm]
Saying something's "vigilante justice" doesn't automatically make it bad. In order to make that conclusion, you have to start with the assumption that the gov't will always do the right thing.
Since that's not the case, one must realize that sometimes the rules need to be broken and other solutions applied to the problem.
Look at it this way:
You live in a country named dystopia. In this country rape is legal. Every day on the way to school, your daughter gets raped by the same guy. You go to the police, but they do nothing about it because it's not illegal. You try to get a law passed but it gets knocked down. This rape is causing your family real harm ever day. How long are you going to wait before you resort to vigilante justice?.....and more importantly is it a bad thing when you do?
Now back to the spam problem:
Spam is pretty much legal (the canspam act was a joke...it made things worse). The gov't is doing basically nothing to stop it. It is causing real harm to internet users around the world. Now I'm not necessarily saying that vigilanteism is the answer, but what I am saying is that your response is an extremely oversimplistic view of the world.
They law is not always right, nor is it carved in stone. Sure, society is supposed to follow the law, but the law is also supposed to follow society. The law is not this thing a guy came down from a mountain and handed us. It is constant tug-of-war.
Incorrect. ATX Power supplies have a plethera of ground wires, which ground inside the power supply, which ground into the wall outlet. What good would grounding something to your case do? There's no electrical difference, unless your floor is the ground and your case isn't on plastic feet.
Electrically, it's VERY different. Obviously you know nothing about radio frequency electronics. Ever heard of shielding? That's why your case is grounded.
I said motherboards are designed for those holes to be grounded. I didn't say they HAD to be, just that it's expected. You'd have to be a real idiot to design a generic motherboard that couldn't cope with grounded mounting screws. A better chassis ground is going to give you better EMI suppression. It's not 100% necessary, but it's not going to hurt anything.
Many cases have plastic windows in the side. That doesn't mean it's a good practice from an electrical standpoint, or that computer cases are made of metal for no reason. Personally, I wonder why the FCC hasn't cracked down on the sale of cases with plastic windows in the side.
Sometimes the grounded area will be too small (or the screw too big).
Sure, no matter what area they reserve, someone could always come up with a screw bigger than this area. All this means is to use screws that are the right size. Just as you can't use 6" long screws, you can't use 6" diameter screws.
Sometimes you'll also get an area with too much solder so that the screw will angle as it gets tightened, so that it rubs against the PCB board (which voids the warranty).
You let them refuse warranty service as a result of their own manufacturing defects? Sounds like you need to get tougher with your suppliers. Not trying to rip on you here, just to let you know that it's their fault, not yours.
Those holes are supposed to be grounded, I wouldn't be suprised if it's actually called out explicitly somewhere, like the ATX specification. That spec at least calls for a keep-out area around mounting holes for exactly the reasons you describe.
In short, I would blame your boards, not the screws. If putting a reasonably sized screw in the hole messes up the board, the manufacturer F'ed up, not you. You shouldn't need washers, someone made a mistake.
Just be glad the boards you work with don't have 77 screws holding them to the chassis:)
Other than screws, I suggest buying some paper washers that go between the screw and the motherboard. Not really necessary, but they insure that there's no electrical short and prevent damage of the motherboard. Well worth the $0.10 each or whatever.
I would suggest NOT doing that. Those holes are designed to be electrically grounded to the chassis. The electrical engineers who designed your motherboard are smart enough to know that people use metal screws in metal computer cases.
If you insulate one of those holes, a ground connection that your motherboard manfacturer was expecting to be made, is not being made. This typically would not cause a problem, as there are plenty of other ground connections to the motherboard, but there is nothing to be gained by removing some of them.
OK, so, where's a good place (online) to buy a set of extra screws?
You're serious? Do you realize how many fscking screws you would have to buy to make the shipping worth it?
Just go to a hardware store. They sell screws. Maybe they'll be slotted instead of philips, but they will have something. I've never seen a hardware store that didn't carry screws.
If you're going to get something online, get thumbscrews, so you don't need a screwdriver.
As long as you have nerve endings in your fingers, you should not need a guide for what screw goes where.
Just try one that looks right. If it's too small go bigger. If it feels like it's cross threading, use the other thread style (fine/coarse). If it feels like it's getting hard to screw too soon try a shorter one.
There, that's the whole damn guide. We're not talking a about a device that needs grade 5 bolts in one place an normal bolts in another. It's all obvious. Just follow this simple rule: If it feels wrong, it's wrong, don't force it.
I cut back to basic cable and though i "miss" some shows, I dont miss wasting countless hours on the couch....
Or how about being able to enjoy something in moderation?
We're not all going to "kill our TV's" just because some people watch them too much, just as we're not all going to give up beer because some people are alcoholics.
It's not alcohol's fault that you drink it and it's not the TV's that you watch it. Just do things in sensible amounts, why is that concept so hard for people?
I rewrote one of our smaller apps on Linux in my personal time as an example.
They wouldn't even look at it. Our lead developer thinks Microsoft is the best producer of software and that.Net is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Our boss agreed and we were forced to switch to.Net without even looking at an alternative. Rarely have I seen such blatent ignorance. So I keep an eye open for other jobs and read the articles on starting your own software company. Seems the only option when dealing with such ignorance is to stay away from it.
Have you tried talking to you the boss of your boss?
That's funny, both my previous and current girlfriend picked up linux very quickly and neither one was a really technical person.
Just put links on the desktop for the things they want to do.
For Winamp, give them XMMS. For Word, give them Abiword. For web browsing, Konqueror or Mozilla.
Don't make them use tabbed browsing or anything of that sort. Just give them as close as you can to what they're comfortable with. If you try and force them to learn about everything at once they may get frustrated.
So, while I hope that Linux will eventually become more favorable for Home Users, I don't expect it anytime soon.
My gf has already told me that going from win98 to win2k would be as big of a deal for her as going to mac or linux.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm probably going to be -1 trolled into oblivion, but why don't all the people complaining about the NYT simply register and forget about it?? I did that at least three years ago, and with cookies I only ever have to worry about it *once* each time I change browser. And if you are opposed on principle on giving personal info, just put false one. The whole thing takes about as long as getting the Google link, and you only have to do it once. And I thought geeks were supposed to be efficient ;-)
:P
Because the people who refuse to register are doing it for ideological reasons, not practical reasons.
There, it's that simple.
It doesn't matter how EASY it is, they don't care, they're against the very idea of registering for the NYT.
It sounds like you aren't.
Me.....I don't read the articles anyways
#3 A locksmith, in case you don't know, legally has tools at his disposal to open most any lock so he would not need the knowledge of the faulty lock to get access in the first place.
Ridiculous to bring up in this sense, since it would analogous to brute-forcing a password.
It is easy to show a number of devastating exploits that were developed AFTER the bug was made public.
No shit, sherlock. If the exploits are already publicly known, then so is the bug. That's like asking:
"Show me a publicly avaible example detailing someone using this trick with locks, before this trick with locks was made public."
The proof is in the pudding, partner.
Your tautology proves nothing.
Actually, feel free to tell me AND my locksmith (he installed the lock so he could already get in anyway), but you could please not tell the whole city? That's what publishing the flaw publicly does. Perhaps you do not mean what your own analogy implies?
I mean exactly what I said. That should be obvious from me next sentence in that post:
In the case of publicly available software, you don't have a distribution list of all the people you should inform, so you just have to let the word out the company XYZ's locks are junk.
It's not possible to tell just the "good people", so you have to tell everyone, and then the people who care about security can actually do something about it (buy new locks from a better company).
Your own analogy about locks is the one which doesn't make sense, because your locksmith should not alreaedy be able to get in unless you are allowing him to keep an extra set of keys.
On the other hand, if you do release the details immediately, you can nearly guarantee that there will be widespread attacks straight away.
What you need to consider is that you're forcing EVERYONE to rely on your judgement that these attacks aren't worth worrying about unless they're happening to you. You can't rely on anyone else reporting the attacks under your system, because when they find them, they aren't publicly describing the exploit, just telling the vendor. You could have 600 simultaneously being targeted, and each one independently notifying the vendor. Each one might think the exploit is "rare", but really there's no way for them to know because people are only telling the vendor.
If the first of those 600 had publicly posted the info, the other 599 would have had the chance to protect themselves.
Maybe a patch would get released sooner, or maybe it wouldn't but they would have at least have the option of shutting down those systems until there was a way to make them safe.
Secondly, don't be the retard that has to type up something major late at night. Get your work done soon, it's better to come in late from partying, than to type away for an hour, while your room mate is sleeping.
Third, don't live with such a pompus ass that they get a roommate, yet are unable to cope with any signs of someone else actually living there. (You better not make any noise other than when I say it's okay...I don't care if you have 5 final projects due.)
Maybe you go/went to college for underwater basketweaving, but some people actually have to do a lot ok work.
So here's an idea:
Be frickin considerate yourself and buy a $0.99 pair of earplugs.
I NEVER stopped any of my roommates from working. Never. When my roommate's group was sleeping in shifts, clacking away 24 hours a day, know what I did?
Sucked it up, dealt with it and put a pillow over my head. Have some consideration for other people or get your own damn room if you know you can't cope with it.
I'm sure a lot of us have a lot of constitutionally protected things we would love to say about this guy.
Is there some sort of "litigous asshole" hall of shame that we can induct this guy into?
If you're worried about your reputation, threatening people with frivolous lawsuits is not exactly the smart way to get it back on track.
This is exactly the kind of assumption that I think is silly. This bug had been in existence for YEARS. What the heck does the date you discovered it have to do with anything?
Crackers have had YEARS to find and exploit this error, but someone decides to make the silly assumption to no one else could have ever found it before them.
If the vuln is not being exploited then giving the vendor a few days or a week to make a release is probably OK.
This is another assumption that I think is crazy. How do you know this vulnerability is not being exploited?
You don't.
Just because there hasn't been some giant worm that takes advantage of it doesn't mean that no one knows about it and is using it. A smart hacker/cracker can take advantage of it without running around waving a huge red flag going "Look I found a vulnerability!"
The only way to really know if it's being exploited is to publicly disclose it, so that a large number of people can actually check to see if it is.
Disclosures often do lead to attack tools, or at least more widespread use of them.
But disclosures also lead to the problem being fixed. A public disclosure of the problem gives a system administrator 4 options:
By keeping the problem a secret, you're eliminating 3 of those options, and allowing companies to take security much less seriously.
The problem is that, in publishing the flaw, the number of people who now have understanding on how to write an exploit against it are much higher. Maybe if you published something about a flaw in a given service and just told everyone to shut down that service due to the flaw until the fix was out. But that seems unlikely.
I've always though that it was extremely presumptuous to assume that you're:
A) The first person ever to discover the flaw.
and..
B) That no one else could find it.
I find this particlular flaw to be a great example of how pompus this is. That particular code had been out for YEARS.
Very often these flaws are found by programmers who were working on something else and just happened to stumble across it. They weren't specfically trying to break the system.
Meanwhile, some imaginary "black hat" has had years to discover and exploit this particular vulnerability.
I find this whole "only tell the vendor" attitude silly. If I find the locks on your house can be opened with ANY key, I'm going to tell you, not your locksmith (who will then fix them some day he gets when hearound to it.)
In the case of publicly available software, you don't have a distribution list of all the people you should inform, so you just have to let the word out the company XYZ's locks are junk. This way purchasers of these locks stop using them, or can replace them with locks from another company if the manfacturer doesn't fix it fast enough.
Disclosing a vulnerability ONLY to the vendor only makes sense when there is absolutely no way that software could be shut down and/or replaced.
Actually it's not clear.
Assuming a flaw is actually going to be fixed someday, you have to consider both the time it takes for the flaw to get fixed and the chance that someone else will find it. If disclosing the vulnerability is going to get it fixed in a week instead of six months, there is a lot less time for it to be exploited. It also requires making the idiotic assumption that no one could ever just SHUT DOWN THE SERVICE UNTIL THE FLAW IS FIXED.
This is the way SHOULD work:
That is how you minimize the chance of your system being exploited, not by acting out "The Emperor Wears No Clothes."
As an added bonus of this system, consumers get to see who really is serious about security. They get to objectively evaluate vendows based on number and seriousness of flaws and the time it took to fix them.
It's the imperial system for gods sake! There are no decimals! 3.75 inches?
Sure there are decimals.
Just because 12 inches = 1 one foot does not mean, 1.0002 inches is meaningless. It's a really simple concept, converting fractions to decimal. They teach it in grade school.
Ever think maybe the problem is people too dense to wrap their head around more than one measurement system?
Most people have their side mirrors adjusted so as to point back down the side of the vehicle, which is not very useful. If you adjust them to point into the next lane over, you can completely eliminate the blind spot.
Not true.
Unless you've found some magical way to make angle of incidence not equal angle of refraction, you are still going to have a blind spot.
Host 'a' (the server, 192.168.0.1) requires the correct knocking combination to allow access. Host 'b' (random knocker, 192.168.0.2) knocks on random ports attempting to cause a DoS. Host 'a' detects the wrong ports being knocked on and does not grant access from host b Host 'c' (geniune client, 192.168.0.3) knocks on the correct ports, host 'a' allows access from host c (192.168.0.3/32). Host 'b' can continue knocking on random ports, but at the same time, host 'a' does not grant access from the misbehaving host b, but it doesn't have to revoke access from host c either.
.1, I'm .2 and you're .3, I just keep knocking ports at random spoofing my ip to say that I'm .3 You can't IP block me, and my knocks look just like your knocks. This keeps screwing up your login and you can never open the connection.
So how does this cause a DoS?
The ports being knocked are closed. This means that the server can never veify the the knocks coming from 192.168.0.3 are really coming from there, or if they're coming from 192.168.0.2.
If the server is
To answer another poster's assertion that the Internet is like a car, you can't just drive, you have to have some knowledge, I'd say this: sure, you have to know how to USE the car. But you shouldn't have to be expected to understand its architecture and occasionally pull the carburetor as well.
Sure, you aren't required to fix your own car, but you are required to keep it in safe operating condition.
You are legally required to have it professionally inspected, and to fix any dangerous things that may break.
What's going on here is like some idiot driving around with 4 flat tires messing up the road for everyone else. You're not required to fix your own flat, but you are required to have it fixed.
Computers require mantianence. So do appliances. If your dryer is spitting flames out the back, you shouldn't keep using it like an idiot and burn your house down. If you smell gas in your kitchen, you shouldn't use the stove.
The clueless are not at fault here; it's we geeks who are at fault for designing systems for ourselves, instead of for everyone.
Make something idiot-proof and they'll build a better idiot. You can't prevent all the mistakes a user might make. It's just not possible.
Look at cars for example. Go drain the oil out of your engine, start it up and then complain how it shouldn't have let you do that. The reality is the user has to be responsible. If we could anticipate all of the actions a user would make, what would we need them for? Even if they put in a "no oil" sensor, what's to stop you from disconnecting it?
In the real world, you're expected to be competent enough to put oil in your car OR hire someone who is. It's your choice. If you choose never to change your oil, I'm just going to laugh at you when your engine blows. You deserve it. There's a book in the glovebox telling you what you should be doing and you're willfully ignoring it.
Nobody is born knowing how a car works, or how to drive it. It's expected that if you're going to buy a car and drive it on public roads, you put forth the minimal effort required to learn how to use it AND to get it fixed when something breaks. If you're not willing to to that, you're just plain irresponsible.
As technology gets more complicated, so does the spam. The only way to protect yourself is to not give out your address. Period. Heck, I don't even give my work e-mail address to my parents.
[Louis Black voice]If you're not going to give anyone your email address, why the fuck do you need one?[/Louis Black voice]
Stupidest. Solution. Ever.
How the hell did this get +5 insightful?
This is like saying:
"I never get junk mail anymore, because I never give anyone my address, not even to my parents."
You're not doing anything to SOLVE the problem, you're just avoiding the use of that communications medium altogether.
Real frickin clever. So if I hate solicitors, I should move to a shack in the Siberian wilderness?
yeah lets just go around beating up spammers. no trial, just vigilante justice. why stop there? lets go around beating up anyone we dont like. screw the court system. i dont like evil conservatives, lets just kill them. no trial, no evidence necessary.
[sarcasm]Yeah, let's just trust the government to take care of every aspect of our lives and never go against anything it says.[/sarcasm]
Saying something's "vigilante justice" doesn't automatically make it bad. In order to make that conclusion, you have to start with the assumption that the gov't will always do the right thing.
Since that's not the case, one must realize that sometimes the rules need to be broken and other solutions applied to the problem.
Look at it this way:
You live in a country named dystopia. In this country rape is legal. Every day on the way to school, your daughter gets raped by the same guy. You go to the police, but they do nothing about it because it's not illegal. You try to get a law passed but it gets knocked down. This rape is causing your family real harm ever day. How long are you going to wait before you resort to vigilante justice?.....and more importantly is it a bad thing when you do?
Now back to the spam problem:
Spam is pretty much legal (the canspam act was a joke...it made things worse). The gov't is doing basically nothing to stop it. It is causing real harm to internet users around the world. Now I'm not necessarily saying that vigilanteism is the answer, but what I am saying is that your response is an extremely oversimplistic view of the world.
They law is not always right, nor is it carved in stone. Sure, society is supposed to follow the law, but the law is also supposed to follow society. The law is not this thing a guy came down from a mountain and handed us. It is constant tug-of-war.
Incorrect. ATX Power supplies have a plethera of ground wires, which ground inside the power supply, which ground into the wall outlet. What good would grounding something to your case do? There's no electrical difference, unless your floor is the ground and your case isn't on plastic feet.
Electrically, it's VERY different. Obviously you know nothing about radio frequency electronics. Ever heard of shielding? That's why your case is grounded.
I said motherboards are designed for those holes to be grounded. I didn't say they HAD to be, just that it's expected. You'd have to be a real idiot to design a generic motherboard that couldn't cope with grounded mounting screws. A better chassis ground is going to give you better EMI suppression. It's not 100% necessary, but it's not going to hurt anything.
Many cases have plastic windows in the side. That doesn't mean it's a good practice from an electrical standpoint, or that computer cases are made of metal for no reason. Personally, I wonder why the FCC hasn't cracked down on the sale of cases with plastic windows in the side.
Sometimes the grounded area will be too small (or the screw too big).
:)
Sure, no matter what area they reserve, someone could always come up with a screw bigger than this area. All this means is to use screws that are the right size. Just as you can't use 6" long screws, you can't use 6" diameter screws.
Sometimes you'll also get an area with too much solder so that the screw will angle as it gets tightened, so that it rubs against the PCB board (which voids the warranty).
You let them refuse warranty service as a result of their own manufacturing defects? Sounds like you need to get tougher with your suppliers. Not trying to rip on you here, just to let you know that it's their fault, not yours.
Those holes are supposed to be grounded, I wouldn't be suprised if it's actually called out explicitly somewhere, like the ATX specification. That spec at least calls for a keep-out area around mounting holes for exactly the reasons you describe.
In short, I would blame your boards, not the screws. If putting a reasonably sized screw in the hole messes up the board, the manufacturer F'ed up, not you. You shouldn't need washers, someone made a mistake.
Just be glad the boards you work with don't have 77 screws holding them to the chassis
Or use pop rivets.
Wow that's BOFH-like. Imagine the next poor sap who has to work on that coumputer...
(Drilling out the rivets would get metal shavings all over the motherboard.)
Other than screws, I suggest buying some paper washers that go between the screw and the motherboard. Not really necessary, but they insure that there's no electrical short and prevent damage of the motherboard. Well worth the $0.10 each or whatever.
I would suggest NOT doing that. Those holes are designed to be electrically grounded to the chassis. The electrical engineers who designed your motherboard are smart enough to know that people use metal screws in metal computer cases.
If you insulate one of those holes, a ground connection that your motherboard manfacturer was expecting to be made, is not being made. This typically would not cause a problem, as there are plenty of other ground connections to the motherboard, but there is nothing to be gained by removing some of them.
OK, so, where's a good place (online) to buy a set of extra screws?
You're serious? Do you realize how many fscking screws you would have to buy to make the shipping worth it?
Just go to a hardware store. They sell screws. Maybe they'll be slotted instead of philips, but they will have something. I've never seen a hardware store that didn't carry screws.
If you're going to get something online, get thumbscrews, so you don't need a screwdriver.
As long as you have nerve endings in your fingers, you should not need a guide for what screw goes where.
;)
Just try one that looks right. If it's too small go bigger. If it feels like it's cross threading, use the other thread style (fine/coarse). If it feels like it's getting hard to screw too soon try a shorter one.
There, that's the whole damn guide. We're not talking a about a device that needs grade 5 bolts in one place an normal bolts in another. It's all obvious. Just follow this simple rule:
If it feels wrong, it's wrong, don't force it.
It should be applied to ANY screwing you do
I cut back to basic cable and though i "miss" some shows, I dont miss wasting countless hours on the couch ....
Or how about being able to enjoy something in moderation?
We're not all going to "kill our TV's" just because some people watch them too much, just as we're not all going to give up beer because some people are alcoholics.
It's not alcohol's fault that you drink it and it's not the TV's that you watch it. Just do things in sensible amounts, why is that concept so hard for people?
I rewrote one of our smaller apps on Linux in my personal time as an example. They wouldn't even look at it. Our lead developer thinks Microsoft is the best producer of software and that .Net is the greatest thing since sliced bread. Our boss agreed and we were forced to switch to .Net without even looking at an alternative. Rarely have I seen such blatent ignorance. So I keep an eye open for other jobs and read the articles on starting your own software company. Seems the only option when dealing with such ignorance is to stay away from it.
Have you tried talking to you the boss of your boss?
Seriously.
That's funny, both my previous and current girlfriend picked up linux very quickly and neither one was a really technical person.
Just put links on the desktop for the things they want to do.
For Winamp, give them XMMS. For Word, give them Abiword. For web browsing, Konqueror or Mozilla.
Don't make them use tabbed browsing or anything of that sort. Just give them as close as you can to what they're comfortable with. If you try and force them to learn about everything at once they may get frustrated.
So, while I hope that Linux will eventually become more favorable for Home Users, I don't expect it anytime soon.
My gf has already told me that going from win98 to win2k would be as big of a deal for her as going to mac or linux.
If the ipods were really going to have battery problems, surely somebody would have noticed during all these transfers.
Ipods don't use the battery when they are connected to a computer.
If you ipod had a dead battery, this is the ONLY thing it would still be good for.