Who's the bigger schmuck... the developer who creates faulty code and later patches it, or the developer who creates faulty code and never figures it out until a virus is released?
The security bulletin gives much more detailed information than just "This patch fixes a security hole which allows remote execution of code", and the knowledge base article lists exactly which files are included and what their version numbers should be. You can quite easily check one of them to see if the patch installed properly.
If this happens, we'll just see every application that could sit behind these incorporate support for using port 80 instead. We've already seen it with p2p apps, and if ISPs start massively blocking ports, games and other apps will follow. And port 80 can't be temporarily blocked during a virus outbreak.
I think an 18 year old with the hardware to test the virus might be a bit of a tip off... He probably would have needed at least multiple computers to do it.
Of course, this is not the original author, but it is stated that he was testing the worm...
I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned this, but I'm impressed with the story outlined in the W3C statement... faced with a potentially large problem, the major players in WWW technology got together and had a really mature discussion about what they were going to do about it. It makes a good change from most of the practices that used to go on in the browser market.
Also, they surely must share the same opinions as the majority here do on these sort of broad software patents... if companies like MS keep getting burned on stuff like this, you can be sure they're going to lobby for something to be done about it.
Defacement really has nothing to do with a widespread virus... In the case of a defacement, a hacker is specifically working on ONE system. Next time, the exploit used to get in could be completely different.
Since there are so many different flavours of Linux, the chances of having one virus capable of attacking millions of computers at once is lowered substantially. Whereas Windows systems are pretty much identical.
Unless there is something really really wrong in the Linux kernel, not every Linux installation is going to be vulnerable to one virus, methinks.
Now, this could of course change if Linux gets mainstream, because end users are going to want some kind of standard build... that's when Linux virii will become a problem.
At least id doesn't set deadlines for itself though... if they were under more intense pressure to get the product out, I doubt it'd be as good as it is now.
I know exactly why they were named that... because at the time of Ontario Hydro's founding, most (if not all) energy came from hydroelectric sources.
However, because of the fact that the name of the company was "Ontario Hydro", later on people started thinking that the term "hydro" referred to energy, since less and less of Ontario Hydro's generation came from hydroelectric sources.
You'll notice that the name of the company you linked is "Ontario Hydro Energy", which in fact solidifies my point... they are attempting to prevent people from equating the term "hydro" with "energy" by placing the latter term on the end of their company name.
It is also worth noting that this company basically just inherited/bought the name Ontario Hydro, as they have very little association with the original Ontario Hydro that was split up in the 90s.
This "colloquialism" you mention must be from specific parts of Ontario, because it has never been used in any of the parts I have lived in.
If you wish to continue with your opinion that I am a moron, proceed:)
The article says that the virus is hindering repairs on Ontario's "hydro" system... not that it is affecting hydroelectric.
Just another misunderstanding based on the use of the word "hydro" to mean "electricity"... it would be nice if at least news sources would stop making this simple mistake:)
But such a virus would not be "better" for the anti-virus companies if they were writing them themselves...
If I were a shady anti-virus company, I'd produce viruses that do just enough damage to be important to get rid of, but no actual irreversible action. Like causing your computer to reboot randomly, etc.
Think about it... If a virus completely trashes a computer, the solution is not to buy a virus scanner and clean it, the solution is to wipe the computer and start over, which requires no investment into software.
BTW - I don't hold the idea that the virii are authored by the companies, because I think some third party would have found out by now... Yes, it's possible they could be planting hints on shady web outlets, but not likely IMHO.
...but when are we going to start developing replacements that avoid fossil fuels altogether? Yes, it would be nice to lower fuel consumption, but sometime it's going to have to go away completely and be replaced by something else.
It is worth noting that more and more MS hotfixes do not require reboots in most cases, and MS has committed to providing reboot-free hotfixes by 2005.
May not seem like much now, but it's a good start.
If this were to happen, it won't really be a bad thing...
Yes, if suddenly half of the jobs in the world were gone, there would be a painful adjustment period. However, if this is to happen, there would be a corresponding change in the way our society is structured to accomodate the lower amount of jobs.
Consider this... let's say absolutely everything in the world relating to food is automated. Everything is grown for us, shipped to us, prepared for us, etc. automatically. How much is food going to cost? Practically nothing. So people aren't going to go hungry because they don't have work, etc.
This isn't so much taking jobs away as making the idea of working obsolete... Imagine a world where everybody is on vacation all the time and robots do everything for us... Are people going to be worried about being unemployed? I wouldn't be:)
One of the real annoyances of the new US government's attitude to passports is that they are forcing other countries to change their passport systems as well. Basically, it's a "change your passports or we won't let you in" kind of attitude. Ultimately it comes down to the people who have to spend (in some cases) a fair amount of money getting a new passport when their old one shouldn't expire for years, just to visit the US and spend some money on vacation.
It's really up to Intel as far as when they change the name. Presumably they could do it when the Prescott core rolls out later this year, but they could also just say it's a P4 with a Prescott core. Though that wouldn't mean much to the consumer, so they'd probably name it the P4 1MB cache or something, like with the change to the Northwood core.
Re:Does anyone really care anymore?
on
P4 3.2GHz Reviews
·
· Score: 1
Intel processors are actually quite reasonably priced, so long as you don't take the number on the box as being the actual speed it will run at:)
The P3 does more instructions per clock (IPC) than the P4, so thus for equal clock speeds the P3 would be faster. The reason for this is that the P3 has a shorter pipeline than the P4. However, it also means that the P3 can't get anywhere near the P4 in clock speeds, so of course a P4 is desirable. However, at the P4's launch, it in fact did perform equal to or slightly worse than the best P3s on the market in most tests.
I think the meaning of this comment was that even though the P4 has optimizations for some other things, they do not help chess performance.
Sometimes there are issues with certain parts of the program... like multiplayer, for instance. Plus, I get better performance on 98 than XP with the games that run on both, probably because I kept the 98 installation as clean as possible.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's the bigger schmuck... the developer who creates faulty code and later patches it, or the developer who creates faulty code and never figures it out until a virus is released?
The security bulletin gives much more detailed information than just "This patch fixes a security hole which allows remote execution of code", and the knowledge base article lists exactly which files are included and what their version numbers should be. You can quite easily check one of them to see if the patch installed properly.
That's not quite true... they didn't have the will, but are now (finally) getting their act together and fixing these problems.
Yes, the patches are annoying, but maybe they've finally learned something.
If this happens, we'll just see every application that could sit behind these incorporate support for using port 80 instead. We've already seen it with p2p apps, and if ISPs start massively blocking ports, games and other apps will follow. And port 80 can't be temporarily blocked during a virus outbreak.
I love how the article tries to make asteroids into good things, with this caption under the picture of an asteroid:
:)
"Asteroids may have brought life-forming chemicals to the early Earth"
I guess they felt the need to defend asteroids against the horrible stereotype Hollywood has built against them
I think an 18 year old with the hardware to test the virus might be a bit of a tip off... He probably would have needed at least multiple computers to do it.
Of course, this is not the original author, but it is stated that he was testing the worm...
I'm surprised that nobody's mentioned this, but I'm impressed with the story outlined in the W3C statement... faced with a potentially large problem, the major players in WWW technology got together and had a really mature discussion about what they were going to do about it. It makes a good change from most of the practices that used to go on in the browser market.
Also, they surely must share the same opinions as the majority here do on these sort of broad software patents... if companies like MS keep getting burned on stuff like this, you can be sure they're going to lobby for something to be done about it.
The thing is, it's not MS who is designing all those sites... so why should they be the one sufferring from another too-broad software patent?
Defacement really has nothing to do with a widespread virus... In the case of a defacement, a hacker is specifically working on ONE system. Next time, the exploit used to get in could be completely different.
Since there are so many different flavours of Linux, the chances of having one virus capable of attacking millions of computers at once is lowered substantially. Whereas Windows systems are pretty much identical.
Unless there is something really really wrong in the Linux kernel, not every Linux installation is going to be vulnerable to one virus, methinks.
Now, this could of course change if Linux gets mainstream, because end users are going to want some kind of standard build... that's when Linux virii will become a problem.
At least id doesn't set deadlines for itself though... if they were under more intense pressure to get the product out, I doubt it'd be as good as it is now.
I know exactly why they were named that... because at the time of Ontario Hydro's founding, most (if not all) energy came from hydroelectric sources.
:)
However, because of the fact that the name of the company was "Ontario Hydro", later on people started thinking that the term "hydro" referred to energy, since less and less of Ontario Hydro's generation came from hydroelectric sources.
You'll notice that the name of the company you linked is "Ontario Hydro Energy", which in fact solidifies my point... they are attempting to prevent people from equating the term "hydro" with "energy" by placing the latter term on the end of their company name.
It is also worth noting that this company basically just inherited/bought the name Ontario Hydro, as they have very little association with the original Ontario Hydro that was split up in the 90s.
This "colloquialism" you mention must be from specific parts of Ontario, because it has never been used in any of the parts I have lived in.
If you wish to continue with your opinion that I am a moron, proceed
The article says that the virus is hindering repairs on Ontario's "hydro" system... not that it is affecting hydroelectric.
:)
Just another misunderstanding based on the use of the word "hydro" to mean "electricity"... it would be nice if at least news sources would stop making this simple mistake
But such a virus would not be "better" for the anti-virus companies if they were writing them themselves...
If I were a shady anti-virus company, I'd produce viruses that do just enough damage to be important to get rid of, but no actual irreversible action. Like causing your computer to reboot randomly, etc.
Think about it... If a virus completely trashes a computer, the solution is not to buy a virus scanner and clean it, the solution is to wipe the computer and start over, which requires no investment into software.
BTW - I don't hold the idea that the virii are authored by the companies, because I think some third party would have found out by now... Yes, it's possible they could be planting hints on shady web outlets, but not likely IMHO.
...but when are we going to start developing replacements that avoid fossil fuels altogether? Yes, it would be nice to lower fuel consumption, but sometime it's going to have to go away completely and be replaced by something else.
Not to mention the fact that those boxes infected most of their customers as well :)
It is worth noting that more and more MS hotfixes do not require reboots in most cases, and MS has committed to providing reboot-free hotfixes by 2005.
May not seem like much now, but it's a good start.
If this were to happen, it won't really be a bad thing...
:)
Yes, if suddenly half of the jobs in the world were gone, there would be a painful adjustment period. However, if this is to happen, there would be a corresponding change in the way our society is structured to accomodate the lower amount of jobs.
Consider this... let's say absolutely everything in the world relating to food is automated. Everything is grown for us, shipped to us, prepared for us, etc. automatically. How much is food going to cost? Practically nothing. So people aren't going to go hungry because they don't have work, etc.
This isn't so much taking jobs away as making the idea of working obsolete... Imagine a world where everybody is on vacation all the time and robots do everything for us... Are people going to be worried about being unemployed? I wouldn't be
One of the real annoyances of the new US government's attitude to passports is that they are forcing other countries to change their passport systems as well. Basically, it's a "change your passports or we won't let you in" kind of attitude. Ultimately it comes down to the people who have to spend (in some cases) a fair amount of money getting a new passport when their old one shouldn't expire for years, just to visit the US and spend some money on vacation.
Asia != China
Perhaps they had (free) access terminals? Lots of people I went to school with had email before home computer access, just using the labs at school.
It's really up to Intel as far as when they change the name. Presumably they could do it when the Prescott core rolls out later this year, but they could also just say it's a P4 with a Prescott core. Though that wouldn't mean much to the consumer, so they'd probably name it the P4 1MB cache or something, like with the change to the Northwood core.
Intel processors are actually quite reasonably priced, so long as you don't take the number on the box as being the actual speed it will run at :)
Of course it's predictable, it's been on their roadmap for some time :)
Heck, you'll be able to "predict" the next few releases as well!
The P3 does more instructions per clock (IPC) than the P4, so thus for equal clock speeds the P3 would be faster. The reason for this is that the P3 has a shorter pipeline than the P4. However, it also means that the P3 can't get anywhere near the P4 in clock speeds, so of course a P4 is desirable. However, at the P4's launch, it in fact did perform equal to or slightly worse than the best P3s on the market in most tests.
I think the meaning of this comment was that even though the P4 has optimizations for some other things, they do not help chess performance.
Sometimes there are issues with certain parts of the program... like multiplayer, for instance. Plus, I get better performance on 98 than XP with the games that run on both, probably because I kept the 98 installation as clean as possible.