I realize Outlook and Outlook Express are two different products. However, from the "threat to common decency" standpoint, it makes sense to group the two together, and just call them both Outlook. (though I may have said "express" a few times before. oops.;)
The fact that microsoft would put security safeguards in their commercial product and withhold them from the widely used free version is despicable, and further evidence of what bastards they are.
Ack. I can't think about it anymore. *must move to different thread*
I think I've got a chrisitianity argument to catch up on somewhere...
For the record I would agree more don't use it. I agree the defaults should be more secure in Outlook. What I was responding to was the suggestion that NO ONE used Outlook/VBA scripting. I can assure you, that is not the case.
I don't give a flying fuck about the people who do use it, and if you do, it's probably cause you get paid to pick up the pieces when their shit blows up.
There is absolutely no excuse for selling consumer pc's with blatant security holes like outlook express's scripting "features". I think the microsoft product managers responsible should be prosecuted right along with the virus authors. They bear equal responsibility for email viruses.
I remember back in the day when there was the "Good Times" email virus hoax. (A warning about a nonexistent email virus with the subject "Good Times".) The big joke at the time was, you can't get a virus just from reading an email. It was funny. Computer experts at the time assured users that unless you manually downloaded and executed a malicious attachment, email was safe.
Now, everything has changed. Email viruses have become a reality, solely because most people use outlook. Is it the best mail client? Clearly, not. Why does it remain #1? Because it is the default one installed with windows, the OS that ships on almost every fucking PC. And non-tech people are too lazy to install something else. This is antitrust shit we're dealing with here, people. Microsoft created this problem by inventing a mail client that was vulnerable to email viruses (which were once, and still should be, impossible) and forcing it on an unsuspecting consumer base. The filthy worm/virus authors are definitely at fault, and should be prosecuted, but they couldn't have done it without help from their accomplices at microsoft.
Think of it this way (warning: computer/car analogy ahead): Lets say Ford started including an explosive device in Ford Explorers that was easily triggered by, say, an RF signal at a certain frequency. They start including this feature quietly, and most Ford Explorer owners don't even realize it. Ford says it's because a few corporate customers actually need this feature, for whatever reasons. Then some crazy kids build a triggering device, and start driving up and down the freeway blowing up every Ford Explorer they see. In this unlikely scenario, the kids would most definitely be guilty of murder, terrorism, etc etc, And so would ford. Nobody would stand for it. Clearly, Ford is Microsoft in this analogy, and the Ford Explorer is Outlook (or, *grin*, Internet Explorer). Why does Microsoft get away with this bullshit that wouldn't fly in any other industry? Because people don't get it. Your average computer user does not understand, and they just accept that email viruses are a inevitable risk of computing, and thank goodness for microsoft update for giving them their fix fix.
I feel sick thinking about it.
Ah, what the heck. I think I'll post this with my +1. I honestly don't know if this will hit 5 Insightful or -1 Troll but I bet it will be one of the two.:)
Macs low cost? Good God, man. You've been hitting the bottle pretty hard lately, haven't you?
My dear friend and fan, have you had a look at the apple store recently? iMacs start at $799, laptops at $1200, or laptops with big screens and combo (CD-ROM/CDR/CDRW/DVD) drives for under $2k. Yes, macs are competitively priced now. (especially those ibooks!)
In fact, some people are even buying macs for the hardware value, and ditching OS X for linux.
Now if MS downright disallowed the installation of another Internet browser, the states would have a more solid argument.
But then theres the argument that by not opening the APIs that IE uses for it's tight integration, they're giving themselves an unfair advantage in the browser war. If there even is a browser war still. I think NS6 was a surrender of sorts.
ok, scripting support in an email client makes some sense in the scenario you describe. Obviously, though, it shouldn't be enabled by default on every consumer pc. And it is.
To the average schmoe who doesn't realize these viruses are only possible because of microsoft's stupidity, it would appear that microsoft is valiantly fighting the inevitable battle against nasty virus-writing hackers.
</conspiracy theory>
Or maybe they're really just so stupid that they think scripting in emails is such a great feature it's worth putting up with all this bullshit. If you ask me, HTML email isn't even needed. Plain ol' text usually works fine for me; most of the HTML emails I get are spam and the few that aren't usually have a text/plain version as well.
Notice that the last article I linked to sounds like a pretty solid fix: Users will be suposedly prompted before any emailed scripts do anything, and given a yes/no dialog to stop them from doing anything bad. Seems like a good idea. Unfortunetly, that article is dated June 2000, so clearly it didn't work out... Anyone know what the deal with that is?
They claim that they can force the university to fire users, including professors. This is, quite simply, bull.
The sad thing is, I bet their scare tactics work well in many cases. I hope the anonymous slashdot-asker in this instance gets a laywer and tells them to take their empty threats and get lost.
I agree, installing linux on a 200MhZ Pentium system isn't very amazing (or worthy of slashdot front-page coverage:), but I did think this part was sort of cool. Of course, he only did it after receiving full docs from the company, so it's really not that much of a feat...
*sigh* Some companies just can't seem to understand that pissing off large groups of consumers is a really bad idea. It's really not that difficult a concept when you think about it... Here's a tip guys: Having customers publicly arrested is a bad idea.
I see, so you're of the "Millions of people can't be wrong" camp. Have you ever taken a basic philosphy course? Whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant, your argument is a falacy. It is, in fact, *possible* for millions of people to be wrong. I do recall a historical tail of "scientific evidence" that the world was flat. How many people do you think believed that "absolute truth"? Hmmmm? Your argument needs some strengthening.
Actually, that wasn't my argument at all. Of course millions of people can be wrong, considering the number of different religious groups which are each hundreds of millions strong that tell their followers that the millions of people in other groups are wrong. (Clearly, they can't all be right). I don't know how you got a "millions of people can't be wrong" argument from that, "millions of people can't be right" would be more accurate.
So, pretty much your saying "I better stay religious just in case cause I don't want that pesky satan to make me suffer later".
Thats cool.
But how do you know yours is right? Lets add a third person to your scenario (we've already got an athiest, and you, a christ-follower): A Muslim.
So, if your right, then are both the muslim and the athiest going to hell? And, though unlikely, what if the muslim faith turns out to be the one true faith? I'll see you in hell, jesus boy.
What it comes down to is that you don't know your religion is more right than any other. The majority of the world beleives in a god other than yours, so by your bible, most people are going to hell. And thats a pretty sad outlook, dude.
In the study on rats a research team from Complutense University and Autonoma University in Madrid found that marijuana's active ingredient - -- called THC -- killed tumor cells in advanced cases of glioma, a quick-killing cancer for which there is currently no effective treatment. But, the scientists stress, it is unlikely that lighting up a joint will do anything to prevent or cure cancer.
Granted, you said smoking pot, and they aren't claiming that will do it. But there is legitimate active research into pot's cancer-curing potential.
I suspect the grandparent post meant to say Just wait until online voting happens and you can only vote online if you register with their online services
The government already enforces the age restrictions on rated "R" movies
It does no such thing.
John McCain, Ernest Hollings, and friends are making sure that R-Rated movies and, *gasp*, M-Rated games aren't being advertisted to children under the age of 17. So if someone makes a movie that the MPAA decides is "R", they can't market it to teens. The MPAA ratings are the basis for government regulation and tax-funded studies.
I don't know of a specific law enforcing ID-checks for R-Rated movies, but the president calling for tougher R-Rating enforcement is in itself giving the ratings too much weight. The MPAA does not represent "the people". The MPAA has it's own agenda. If government censorship must exist, could we at least not have the rules written by Jack Valenti and his criminal pals?
But verisign doesn't have exclusive control over.com or any tlds anymore.
If this passes, whats to stop me from registering my xxx.com/net/org domains through Gandi, and going merrily on my.com-porno way? (gandi doesn't seem like an organzation that's going bend over for some ridiculous US law)
And what about links to sexual content? If linking to explicit content makes a site explicit, just about any discussion site would immediately have to be in the.prn TLD. But if linking to explicit content was allowed, TGPs would still be OK in the.com namespace, and it would defeat the purpose. And who's going to decide what is explicit content? The government already enforces the age restrictions on rated "R" movies, based on the MPAA's internationally-hated violence-good/sex-bad ideology, and the MPAA has already dipped their toes in the website-rating waters... I'm sure these.prn assignments won't be run like that, though, right?
Theres so many problems with this concept it's rediculous. I'm all for a.prn TLD, but blocking sites from.com is censorship no matter how you look at it. (many services WOULD just block the entire.prm TLD, making those sites exist only to audiences with the "dangerous" full internet connection.
Slashdot Mirror
They have done for years.
I can't believe that got modded up. (!)
I realize Outlook and Outlook Express are two different products. However, from the "threat to common decency" standpoint, it makes sense to group the two together, and just call them both Outlook. (though I may have said "express" a few times before. oops. ;)
The fact that microsoft would put security safeguards in their commercial product and withhold them from the widely used free version is despicable, and further evidence of what bastards they are.
Ack. I can't think about it anymore. *must move to different thread*
I think I've got a chrisitianity argument to catch up on somewhere...
I'm quite aware of the "I know this will get modded down" technique...
I'm experimenting, OK?!
:)
For the record I would agree more don't use it. I agree the defaults should be more secure in Outlook. What I was responding to was the suggestion that NO ONE used Outlook/VBA scripting. I can assure you, that is not the case.
:)
I don't give a flying fuck about the people who do use it, and if you do, it's probably cause you get paid to pick up the pieces when their shit blows up.
There is absolutely no excuse for selling consumer pc's with blatant security holes like outlook express's scripting "features". I think the microsoft product managers responsible should be prosecuted right along with the virus authors. They bear equal responsibility for email viruses.
I remember back in the day when there was the "Good Times" email virus hoax. (A warning about a nonexistent email virus with the subject "Good Times".) The big joke at the time was, you can't get a virus just from reading an email. It was funny. Computer experts at the time assured users that unless you manually downloaded and executed a malicious attachment, email was safe.
Now, everything has changed. Email viruses have become a reality, solely because most people use outlook. Is it the best mail client? Clearly, not. Why does it remain #1? Because it is the default one installed with windows, the OS that ships on almost every fucking PC. And non-tech people are too lazy to install something else. This is antitrust shit we're dealing with here, people. Microsoft created this problem by inventing a mail client that was vulnerable to email viruses (which were once, and still should be, impossible) and forcing it on an unsuspecting consumer base. The filthy worm/virus authors are definitely at fault, and should be prosecuted, but they couldn't have done it without help from their accomplices at microsoft.
Think of it this way (warning: computer/car analogy ahead):
Lets say Ford started including an explosive device in Ford Explorers that was easily triggered by, say, an RF signal at a certain frequency. They start including this feature quietly, and most Ford Explorer owners don't even realize it. Ford says it's because a few corporate customers actually need this feature, for whatever reasons. Then some crazy kids build a triggering device, and start driving up and down the freeway blowing up every Ford Explorer they see. In this unlikely scenario, the kids would most definitely be guilty of murder, terrorism, etc etc, And so would ford. Nobody would stand for it. Clearly, Ford is Microsoft in this analogy, and the Ford Explorer is Outlook (or, *grin*, Internet Explorer). Why does Microsoft get away with this bullshit that wouldn't fly in any other industry? Because people don't get it. Your average computer user does not understand, and they just accept that email viruses are a inevitable risk of computing, and thank goodness for microsoft update for giving them their fix fix.
I feel sick thinking about it.
Ah, what the heck. I think I'll post this with my +1. I honestly don't know if this will hit 5 Insightful or -1 Troll but I bet it will be one of the two.
Macs low cost? Good God, man. You've been hitting the bottle pretty hard lately, haven't you?
My dear friend and fan, have you had a look at the apple store recently? iMacs start at $799, laptops at $1200, or laptops with big screens and combo (CD-ROM/CDR/CDRW/DVD) drives for under $2k. Yes, macs are competitively priced now. (especially those ibooks!)
In fact, some people are even buying macs for the hardware value, and ditching OS X for linux.
Now if MS downright disallowed the installation of another Internet browser, the states would have a more solid argument.
But then theres the argument that by not opening the APIs that IE uses for it's tight integration, they're giving themselves an unfair advantage in the browser war. If there even is a browser war still. I think NS6 was a surrender of sorts.
No. You don't need Quicktime to do multimedia on the mac, except perhaps for sound. Anyway Macromedia would want their software to run on Windows too.
No, its the other way around. You don't generally need quicktime to play sound, but you do generally need it for other multimedia on the mac.
ok, scripting support in an email client makes some sense in the scenario you describe. Obviously, though, it shouldn't be enabled by default on every consumer pc. And it is.
Hrm, I can't think of any practical uses of scripting in emails anyway. Can anyone help me out?
Microsoft hasn't gotten rid of scripting in Outlook because it's required for nasty email viruses like Klez to spread, which in turn allows microsoft to step in and "save the day", which leads to news headlines like "Microsoft releases latest Outlook security patch", "Microsoft patch to block "Love"-like viruses", and, my favorite, "Microsoft to secure e-mail".
To the average schmoe who doesn't realize these viruses are only possible because of microsoft's stupidity, it would appear that microsoft is valiantly fighting the inevitable battle against nasty virus-writing hackers.
</conspiracy theory>
Or maybe they're really just so stupid that they think scripting in emails is such a great feature it's worth putting up with all this bullshit. If you ask me, HTML email isn't even needed. Plain ol' text usually works fine for me; most of the HTML emails I get are spam and the few that aren't usually have a text/plain version as well.
Notice that the last article I linked to sounds like a pretty solid fix: Users will be suposedly prompted before any emailed scripts do anything, and given a yes/no dialog to stop them from doing anything bad. Seems like a good idea. Unfortunetly, that article is dated June 2000, so clearly it didn't work out... Anyone know what the deal with that is?
They claim that they can force the university to fire users, including professors. This is, quite simply, bull.
The sad thing is, I bet their scare tactics work well in many cases.
I hope the anonymous slashdot-asker in this instance gets a laywer and tells them to take their empty threats and get lost.
I agree, installing linux on a 200MhZ Pentium system isn't very amazing (or worthy of slashdot front-page coverage :), but I did think this part was sort of cool. Of course, he only did it after receiving full docs from the company, so it's really not that much of a feat...
Practice what you preach, etc
*sigh*
Some companies just can't seem to understand that pissing off large groups of consumers is a really bad idea.
It's really not that difficult a concept when you think about it...
Here's a tip guys: Having customers publicly arrested is a bad idea.
Sad indeed. Better jump on board quick!
See, the bible doesn't teach love, it teaches guilt, fear, and sorrow. =)
I see, so you're of the "Millions of people can't be wrong" camp. Have you ever taken a basic philosphy course? Whether I agree with you or not is irrelevant, your argument is a falacy. It is, in fact, *possible* for millions of people to be wrong. I do recall a historical tail of "scientific evidence" that the world was flat. How many people do you think believed that "absolute truth"? Hmmmm? Your argument needs some strengthening.
Actually, that wasn't my argument at all. Of course millions of people can be wrong, considering the number of different religious groups which are each hundreds of millions strong that tell their followers that the millions of people in other groups are wrong. (Clearly, they can't all be right). I don't know how you got a "millions of people can't be wrong" argument from that, "millions of people can't be right" would be more accurate.
So, pretty much your saying "I better stay religious just in case cause I don't want that pesky satan to make me suffer later".
Thats cool.
But how do you know yours is right? Lets add a third person to your scenario (we've already got an athiest, and you, a christ-follower): A Muslim.
So, if your right, then are both the muslim and the athiest going to hell? And, though unlikely, what if the muslim faith turns out to be the one true faith? I'll see you in hell, jesus boy.
What it comes down to is that you don't know your religion is more right than any other. The majority of the world beleives in a god other than yours, so by your bible, most people are going to hell. And thats a pretty sad outlook, dude.
But there is legitimate active research into pot's cancer-curing potential.
Hey, what got me put on your foes list?
Is that a reference to this famous two part seinfeld episode? If not it reminded me of it anyways...
And is there a good seinfeld episode guide hosted somewhere besides the google cache?
They all seem to be on dead servers, or returning 404's...
Gee, I thought we wouldn't hear all this "Content is the value of Slashdot" claptrap this week.
;-)
Heh... I was just thinking about how much rho must be dying to comment on this article...
Yes, they do. And so does this "The GNU/Stallmans" character they've got listed in the cast...
I suspect the grandparent post meant to say Just wait until online voting happens and you can only vote online if you register with their online services
Makes more sense, yes?
I don't know of a specific law enforcing ID-checks for R-Rated movies, but the president calling for tougher R-Rating enforcement is in itself giving the ratings too much weight. The MPAA does not represent "the people". The MPAA has it's own agenda. If government censorship must exist, could we at least not have the rules written by Jack Valenti and his criminal pals?
But verisign doesn't have exclusive control over .com or any tlds anymore.
.com/net/org domains through Gandi, and going merrily on my .com-porno way? (gandi doesn't seem like an organzation that's going bend over for some ridiculous US law)
.prn TLD. But if linking to explicit content was allowed, TGPs would still be OK in the .com namespace, and it would defeat the purpose. And who's going to decide what is explicit content? The government already enforces the age restrictions on rated "R" movies, based on the MPAA's internationally-hated violence-good/sex-bad ideology, and the MPAA has already dipped their toes in the website-rating waters... I'm sure these .prn assignments won't be run like that, though, right?
.prn TLD, but blocking sites from .com is censorship no matter how you look at it. (many services WOULD just block the entire .prm TLD, making those sites exist only to audiences with the "dangerous" full internet connection.
If this passes, whats to stop me from registering my xxx
And what about links to sexual content?
If linking to explicit content makes a site explicit, just about any discussion site would immediately have to be in the
Theres so many problems with this concept it's rediculous. I'm all for a