Not so. Microsoft technical support reps have several times said that Microsoft provides no way to make functional backups of Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
I agree that science should not be put on hold. However, you said, "As with NASA (in the past at least)...". I have seen nothing which would lead me to believe that NASA has paid for itself.
Back to the original topic: The Chinese have extremely severe social problems, and space science is a self-destructive cover-up.
You said, "... people made the same argument about the NASA Apollo missions, and the scientific acheivements of Apollo and the success of its commercial spin-offs are still benefitting us today."
What achievements? Unless someone can name some significant achievements, I will continue believing that the cost of the U.S. space program has far, far outweighed any achievements.
See this for what it is: a crime against humanity. Instead of working on their severe problems on earth (80% of Chinese are peasants), they try to distract everyone with a space program. This is an example of the present regime trying to increase its power, even though it is inadequate. It is one more example of typical Chinese self-destructive behavior. (I first began thinking of Chinese self-destructive mismanagement because of having read a book written by a Chinese writer.)
In case you would like to apply for Mr. Deming's job, it's available.
(Scroll down to "Marketing Manager"). Or, just write careers@belkin.com.
Of course, Belkin won't accept just anyone. The "right candidate" must be
able to "strategize, initiate, and execute". He or she must be able to "drive
revenue" and "leverage knowledge" about "end-user sell-thru strategies" and
must be able to "align resources" and "translate raw content".
From the parent post: "... average IQ of marketers... tends to zero."
The average IQ of some marketers is less than zero. They are very intelligent in being destructive to their companies, meaning they have a high negative IQ. Deciding to include router hijacking is not something an ignorant person could do.
The router hijacking idea was a product of considerable creative thinking. And Belkin's router project manager Eric Deming made himself semi-famous on Slashdot. Not everyone could do that!
Think how this will look on Mr. Deming's resume, as he looks for a new job: "I significantly affected my company's profitability." This is honest because: (Truth in marketing) = - (Actual truth).
The parent post is not well written, but it does answer the question posed by
the grandparent post.
Basically, he says that virus software is closely related to fraud, or is
fraud itself. His argument is that there are 4 kinds of users:
Those who are technically knowledgeable and care about their systems.
On windows, I use the ZoneAlarm firewall to supplement my hardware firewall. I
keep my system updated. I know that a new virus won't be detected by
anti-virus software, because to detect a new virus, there must be a new virus
definition, and that won't be available in the first few days. I don't click
on spam attachments. I don't use Outlook Express.
Those who are technically knowledgeable and don't care. A friend of mine
said, "Install anything you like on that test system, I restore from a backup
every week.
Those who are not technically knowledgeable and don't care about their
systems. These people just reformat their hard drives and reload their one or
two programs whenever they have problems.
Those who are not technically knowledgeable and care about their systems.
This group includes technically knowledgeable people who have users in their
family, for example, who are not technically knowledgeable.
Anti-virus software manufacturers sell only to this last group. The people in
the last group don't realize that anti-virus software that runs when starting
the computer slows a system. Running the software just after a virus
definition update provides some protection without slowing the system. However, the best protection is updating the Windows system, running a firewall, and educating the users. That's because anti-virus software cannot detect a virus if it doesn't have a virus definition, so there is the possibility of being infected by a new virus, even if you are running anti-virus software continuously.
So, the parent poster says, hiring someone who may or may not be a
psychologist is a public relations move to try to convince the people in group
4 to buy anti-virus software. For that purpose, it doesn't matter if the
psychologist actually knows anything, because the lack of knowledge would not be detected by the user.
My experience has been that even poor quality articles show some evidence of
the depth of thought of the researcher. Going by that indication, the
Symantec researcher knows nothing useful.
It is interesting to note that the grandparent post was modded up to 5 and
then back down to 1.
FreeBSD is as adequate for what it attempts to do as Windows. The Windows GUI is more sophisticated, sure, but the vulnerabilities are not in the GUI.
You may not like my explanation, but the issue is there. Microsoft apparently has tons of sloppy code, that is what causes the bugs and maintenance problems.
The problem is that the emphasis on games as entertainment, as opposed to games as technology, brings lots of teenagers to Slashdot. It's their chance to hassle adults without paying a price.
Some of those teenagers get moderation points and they moderate comments they don't understand, and flood Slashdot with garbage.
From the Slashdot story: "Apparently Microsoft has bounties out on virus
writers."
Offering a bounty is no substitute for providing secure software. Maybe the OpenBSD team would help teach Microsoft
how. Or, is someone in the U.S. government interested in having security
vulnerabilities in the software everyone uses? There are just too many; is
Microsoft really that sloppy?
Who was using Microsoft security vulnerabilities before they became public
knowledge?
OpenBSD's motto: "Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than
7 years!"
Microsoft's motto: "Extremely serious flaws that allow an attacker complete
control, every week."
Something is fishy about this. It is not that difficult to write secure
software. If the extremely well-funded OpenBSD team can do it, the poor
Microsoft people should be able to do it, too.... Oh, wait...
The article was so general! Anyone could have made those statements.
If you know the culture of American women, this is typical. Ms. Gordon uses
words like hacker that have no clear definition. This is just someone
pretending to be logical and scientific. She is not actually logical. It's
like a supermodel wearing sailor suit. The supermodel is not actually a
sailor, she is just trying to be cute.
It would be an interesting social investigation to try to discover why Ms.
Gordon works for Symantec. Does she have duties in which she is actually
useful? Any method of educating virus writers not to be anti-social would
reduce Symantec's income. Knowing Symantec, I doubt there is any intention of
being altruistic. Why does Ms. Gordon work there? Did someone think she is
attractive? Did someone at Symantec hire her in a flight of fantasy?
Ms. Gordon is not a programmer. She has never written a virus. It is safe to
say she knows very little about what actually happens inside a programmer's
mind, other than what is obvious to anyone who questions.
The only CDs I've had go bad due to fungus were Sony CDs. Luckily, I had never used them. I had a Sony laptop that was so bad it could not be repaired. It took 18 months to get my Sony rebate for the laptop; eventually someone at Sony said the rebate fullfilment company was guilty of fraud.
One day, Belkin's router project manager Eric Deming was sitting around thinking, "How can we get $5,000,000 worth of bad publicity for free, and sink the company in an afternoon?"
Then he had an idea: "That's it! We'll abuse the trust of our customers, and get a story on Slashdot!
Someone at Symantec was sitting around saying, "How can we get a lot of bad publicity on Slashdot? Oh, I know, we will install non-opt-in ad blocking. We won't even give users a choice."
My guess is that Microsoft will never pay anything to anyone. Once Microsoft
finds the name of a person who wrote the virus, that person's name will be
given to the police. Microsoft can claim they got the information somewhere
else. "Oh yes, you were the 110th person who reported the virus writer." To
use your example, Microsoft won't pay, and the family in Laos will be
powerless to compel payment.
It seems likely that whoever admits he or she had knowledge of the creation of
a virus will be arrested and jailed. That person certainly won't get any
money.
Another guess is that the bounty is an idea from a P.R. person associated with
Microsoft, someone who knows nothing about technical things. He probably said,
"We can shift the blame from Microsoft to the virus writers by offering money.
We'll get a lot of free publicity." Instead, the bounty will encourage people
to write more viruses. Virus writers will say, "Wow, fame! I wonder if I can
write a $1,000,000 virus."
The bounty will cause a lot of news stories to be written. Those stories will
correctly identify the viruses mentioned as Microsoft vulnerability viruses.
That will cause much more than $250,000 worth of damage to Microsoft to
Microsoft's reputation. (If that is possible.)
What the story doesn't mention is that it shouldn't be necessary to offer a
bounty. The real story is why doesn't the United States' FBI federal police
investigate the crime? The bounty provides publicity for the fact that virus
writers aren't caught unless it is very, very easy to catch them. Look at this
story: FBI arrests
MSBlast worm suspect | CNET. Here is a quote about a teenager they caught:
"Parson also admitted that he renamed the original 'MSBlast.exe' executable
'teekids.exe' after his online name 'teekid.'"
In the story, law enforcement is quoted as saying, "We believe he is a key
and significant player..." Here's another quote about catching the
teenager who simply renamed the files after his own name: "I wouldn't
characterize the work as being easy,... "
If anyone from Microsoft reads this, I suggest that whoever promoted the idea
of a bounty be fired.
100,000 FBI agents are spammed 10,000 times each in their personal email boxes every year with illegal schemes. When U.S. citizens call the FBI to report the attempted crimes, the FBI representative just laughs.
What is the real purpose of the FBI if it isn't to investigate crime?
Slashdot Mirror
Not so. Microsoft technical support reps have several times said that Microsoft provides no way to make functional backups of Windows 2000 and Windows XP.
I agree that science should not be put on hold. However, you said, "As with NASA (in the past at least)...". I have seen nothing which would lead me to believe that NASA has paid for itself.
These were not achievements of space technology. Can you explain the connection?
I almost completely agree with you. I was writing this earlier comment while you were writing yours: Did that: History surrounding U.S. war with Iraq, #7453105.
Back to the original topic: The Chinese have extremely severe social problems, and space science is a self-destructive cover-up.
You said, "... people made the same argument about the NASA Apollo missions, and the scientific acheivements of Apollo and the success of its commercial spin-offs are still benefitting us today."
What achievements? Unless someone can name some significant achievements, I will continue believing that the cost of the U.S. space program has far, far outweighed any achievements.
From the parent post: "Look at your own country first."
Did that: History surrounding the U.S. war with Iraq: Four short stories. Here's a quote: "The least sophisticated way of relating to other people is killing them."
Also, I don't think it is a good practice to call someone an "idiot" because you disagree with them.
"There is a problem with 80% of the chinese being peasants?"
A peasant is a person with almost no education. Yes, there is a problem with that. I see the point you are making, but it doesn't apply here.
See this for what it is: a crime against humanity. Instead of working on their severe problems on earth (80% of Chinese are peasants), they try to distract everyone with a space program. This is an example of the present regime trying to increase its power, even though it is inadequate. It is one more example of typical Chinese self-destructive behavior. (I first began thinking of Chinese self-destructive mismanagement because of having read a book written by a Chinese writer.)
Java. That's coffee, right?
In case you would like to apply for Mr. Deming's job, it's available. (Scroll down to "Marketing Manager"). Or, just write careers@belkin.com.
Of course, Belkin won't accept just anyone. The "right candidate" must be able to "strategize, initiate, and execute". He or she must be able to "drive revenue" and "leverage knowledge" about "end-user sell-thru strategies" and must be able to "align resources" and "translate raw content".
From the parent post: "... average IQ of marketers
The average IQ of some marketers is less than zero. They are very intelligent in being destructive to their companies, meaning they have a high negative IQ. Deciding to include router hijacking is not something an ignorant person could do.
The router hijacking idea was a product of considerable creative thinking. And Belkin's router project manager Eric Deming made himself semi-famous on Slashdot. Not everyone could do that!
Think how this will look on Mr. Deming's resume, as he looks for a new job: "I significantly affected my company's profitability." This is honest because: (Truth in marketing) = - (Actual truth).
The parent post is not well written, but it does answer the question posed by the grandparent post.
Basically, he says that virus software is closely related to fraud, or is fraud itself. His argument is that there are 4 kinds of users:
- Those who are technically knowledgeable and care about their systems.
On windows, I use the ZoneAlarm firewall to supplement my hardware firewall. I
keep my system updated. I know that a new virus won't be detected by
anti-virus software, because to detect a new virus, there must be a new virus
definition, and that won't be available in the first few days. I don't click
on spam attachments. I don't use Outlook Express.
- Those who are technically knowledgeable and don't care. A friend of mine
said, "Install anything you like on that test system, I restore from a backup
every week.
- Those who are not technically knowledgeable and don't care about their
systems. These people just reformat their hard drives and reload their one or
two programs whenever they have problems.
- Those who are not technically knowledgeable and care about their systems.
This group includes technically knowledgeable people who have users in their
family, for example, who are not technically knowledgeable.
Anti-virus software manufacturers sell only to this last group. The people in the last group don't realize that anti-virus software that runs when starting the computer slows a system. Running the software just after a virus definition update provides some protection without slowing the system. However, the best protection is updating the Windows system, running a firewall, and educating the users. That's because anti-virus software cannot detect a virus if it doesn't have a virus definition, so there is the possibility of being infected by a new virus, even if you are running anti-virus software continuously.So, the parent poster says, hiring someone who may or may not be a psychologist is a public relations move to try to convince the people in group 4 to buy anti-virus software. For that purpose, it doesn't matter if the psychologist actually knows anything, because the lack of knowledge would not be detected by the user.
My experience has been that even poor quality articles show some evidence of the depth of thought of the researcher. Going by that indication, the Symantec researcher knows nothing useful.
It is interesting to note that the grandparent post was modded up to 5 and then back down to 1.
FreeBSD is as adequate for what it attempts to do as Windows. The Windows GUI is more sophisticated, sure, but the vulnerabilities are not in the GUI.
You may not like my explanation, but the issue is there. Microsoft apparently has tons of sloppy code, that is what causes the bugs and maintenance problems.
The problem is that the emphasis on games as entertainment, as opposed to games as technology, brings lots of teenagers to Slashdot. It's their chance to hassle adults without paying a price.
Some of those teenagers get moderation points and they moderate comments they don't understand, and flood Slashdot with garbage.
The most popular server software for ISPs is FreeBSD, a BSD variant. It's great software, and very capable.
One company uses NetBSD for dedicated mail servers.
We don't hear much about these uses, because the software just works. That's why it is seldom in the news.
From the Slashdot story: "Apparently Microsoft has bounties out on virus writers."
Offering a bounty is no substitute for providing secure software. Maybe the OpenBSD team would help teach Microsoft how. Or, is someone in the U.S. government interested in having security vulnerabilities in the software everyone uses? There are just too many; is Microsoft really that sloppy?
Who was using Microsoft security vulnerabilities before they became public knowledge?
OpenBSD's motto: "Only one remote hole in the default install, in more than 7 years!"
Microsoft's motto: "Extremely serious flaws that allow an attacker complete control, every week."
Something is fishy about this. It is not that difficult to write secure software. If the extremely well-funded OpenBSD team can do it, the poor Microsoft people should be able to do it, too.
The article was so general! Anyone could have made those statements.
If you know the culture of American women, this is typical. Ms. Gordon uses words like hacker that have no clear definition. This is just someone pretending to be logical and scientific. She is not actually logical. It's like a supermodel wearing sailor suit. The supermodel is not actually a sailor, she is just trying to be cute.
It would be an interesting social investigation to try to discover why Ms. Gordon works for Symantec. Does she have duties in which she is actually useful? Any method of educating virus writers not to be anti-social would reduce Symantec's income. Knowing Symantec, I doubt there is any intention of being altruistic. Why does Ms. Gordon work there? Did someone think she is attractive? Did someone at Symantec hire her in a flight of fantasy?
Ms. Gordon is not a programmer. She has never written a virus. It is safe to say she knows very little about what actually happens inside a programmer's mind, other than what is obvious to anyone who questions.
I also buy only TDKs.
The only CDs I've had go bad due to fungus were Sony CDs. Luckily, I had never used them. I had a Sony laptop that was so bad it could not be repaired. It took 18 months to get my Sony rebate for the laptop; eventually someone at Sony said the rebate fullfilment company was guilty of fraud.
One day, Belkin's router project manager Eric Deming was sitting around thinking, "How can we get $5,000,000 worth of bad publicity for free, and sink the company in an afternoon?"
Then he had an idea: "That's it! We'll abuse the trust of our customers, and get a story on Slashdot!
Someone at Symantec was sitting around saying, "How can we get a lot of bad publicity on Slashdot? Oh, I know, we will install non-opt-in ad blocking. We won't even give users a choice."
BigZoo's 2.9 cents a minute makes it all irrelevant.
My guess is that Microsoft will never pay anything to anyone. Once Microsoft finds the name of a person who wrote the virus, that person's name will be given to the police. Microsoft can claim they got the information somewhere else. "Oh yes, you were the 110th person who reported the virus writer." To use your example, Microsoft won't pay, and the family in Laos will be powerless to compel payment.
It seems likely that whoever admits he or she had knowledge of the creation of a virus will be arrested and jailed. That person certainly won't get any money.
Another guess is that the bounty is an idea from a P.R. person associated with Microsoft, someone who knows nothing about technical things. He probably said, "We can shift the blame from Microsoft to the virus writers by offering money. We'll get a lot of free publicity." Instead, the bounty will encourage people to write more viruses. Virus writers will say, "Wow, fame! I wonder if I can write a $1,000,000 virus."
The bounty will cause a lot of news stories to be written. Those stories will correctly identify the viruses mentioned as Microsoft vulnerability viruses. That will cause much more than $250,000 worth of damage to Microsoft to Microsoft's reputation. (If that is possible.)
What the story doesn't mention is that it shouldn't be necessary to offer a bounty. The real story is why doesn't the United States' FBI federal police investigate the crime? The bounty provides publicity for the fact that virus writers aren't caught unless it is very, very easy to catch them. Look at this story: FBI arrests MSBlast worm suspect | CNET. Here is a quote about a teenager they caught:
"Parson also admitted that he renamed the original 'MSBlast.exe' executable 'teekids.exe' after his online name 'teekid.'"
In the story, law enforcement is quoted as saying, "We believe he is a key and significant player..." Here's another quote about catching the teenager who simply renamed the files after his own name: "I wouldn't characterize the work as being easy,
If anyone from Microsoft reads this, I suggest that whoever promoted the idea of a bounty be fired.
There have been times when I have reported spam to Spamcop and received an apology from the spammer's ISP less than two hours later.
What is the real purpose of the FBI if it isn't to investigate crime?
From the referenced article: "... saving the water costs less than half the price of replacing it..."
That means that the water-saving layer is VERY expensive, if it is only two molecules thick.