When you think about the fact that every film has had the droids in it, and they were the first characters to get their own TV show, you actually start to wonder whether SW is about the Empire or whether that is merely a sublot to the main movie - the comic adventures of R2 and C3PO...
While the Environmentalist nuts have been hornswoggling the press and the politicos here in the west they have been quitely blinking at the massive pollution increases in the east. China and India have increased their Carbon Dioxide emissions a total exceeding total US Output by some 5 times(Each)!
Nice rant. Pity so much of it is completely and utterly incorrect. I haven't time to take everything you say apart piece by piece but here are the facts regarding China's CO2 emissions.
the Energy Information Administration and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory had determined that China's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions -- the main cause of global warming -- declined 17 percent over that four-year span, despite economic growth of 36 percent.
By contrast, U.S. emissions over the same period grew by approximately 70 million metric tons per year, approximately 5 percent
I suspect Rare's appeal comes from journalists and gamers old enough to have been playing games in the 1980's.
Ultimate Play the Game were the best software house during the 8 bit home computer days. At least as far as the UK is concerned. This perhaps would be less true in the states where the NES took the place of the Spectrum, C64 and Amstrad.
From Pssst! to Jet Pac to Knight Lore and Underwurlde every single game was an addictive well made classic.
They were legends and their refusal to do PR interviews help magnify their mysterious God like qualities. The silent software house would just quietly and without fuss churn out hit after hit like Willy Wonka's mysterious Chocolate Factory.
They have never been a "nice" software house, being the or at least one of the first 8 bit companies to switch from the 5.99 game price to 9.99 in an oversized box that doesn't fit on your shelf. I believe they still threaten legal action against anyone trying to offer emulation versions of these ancient games. Possibly because I think we'll see mobile phone versions of some of the classics before too long.
But as you say, since evolving into Rare that old magic has gone and there has to come a point where they have to create their own reputation, not rely on one created 20 years ago.
That storyline may have been removed but the plot about a cabin boy/slave who loves his master despite the fact he regularly physically hurts him was kept in. The aforementioned underage boy will flirt openly with male characters in the group.
The irony with Walmart being inconsistant with its demands for censorship is it leaves them wide open to the charge of disapproving of consenting adults paying for sex, while having no problem with child abuse...
Whereas if they hadn't censored the brothel, they could at least argue that they don't care about the content as long as minors don't buy it.
It's a bit like demanding the rocking car in GTA3 is taken out while having no problem with killing a hooker for her money. It generates a rather mixed message about your morality.
And more importantly, is there some better way out there of balancing the rights of employees with the rights of companies?
Perhaps a form of "gardening leave".
Provide key personel with a contract that requires 12 months notice. This is reasonably common for CEOs for example. On offering their resignation pay them to sit at home for 12 months.
This may not be legal in right to work states, in which case move operations.
The advantage of 3,6,or 12 months paid leave is that they can't work for anyone else during that period, and being unable to come into work means they are no longer privvy to company secrets. Any secrets they take to the new company are 12 months out of date.
It's expensive for the company, but then they can only afford to offer such contracts to people critical to the business. This prevents abuse by trying to enforce non critical staff to be tithed to the company.
If their secrets are critical to the business then this is a small price to pay. It also reduces headhunting, because the headhunter has to wait a year for the targetted member of staff.
How the hell is a free offering going to accomplish more with a zero marketing effort? People believe the marketing rhetoric. Microsoft isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
I kind of agree, I think the only thing that can break MS home stranglehold is DRM. Implemented too strictly and the more computer literate, who aren't necessarily "geeks" will start looking elsewhere because they want to "rip and burn".
The ones I quoted were within a 4 month period.
Indeed, there are plenty of patches that break things, but they don't break things on every computer in every workplace, which is why I've only had 3 in 12 months. 2 of which caused apps to behave badly, amd that could be the apps fault not MS. The problem with closed source is you have to give the benefit of doubt in such circumstances.
That's yet another strawman. Show me a single instance in the past 10 years where they had to review a damn thing.
Er, it was you that went on about many eyes reviewing the code, I merely pointed out many eyes can't review code before its released. If you're seriously suggesting that because many eyes WILL review the code, all coders get it completely right first time to avoid losing guru status, then I can't take you seriously. No coder is perfect, and if you write a fix in a few hours for a zero day exploit for example, you can't possibly guarantee it's going to be perfect. Adding new software to a box can cause unforeseen problems, ALL admins have to test before patching. I'll happily admit it's a a hell of a lot easier when you have the source so you can see what it's doing. Windows admins dread patching far more than *nix ones do, it's what keeps their lives "interesting" for want for a better term. But, I've never said MS patches were great, that patching isn't a pain, YOU decided I'd said that, because you want to argue rather than discuss. I used the example of patching 200 machines in a few minutes to show how good admins work, rather than the tiresome bad admin kiddies who spend all day on/. complaining they've had to spend 2 days walking around patching a mere 50 boxes one at a time, whereas if it was *nix they could have written a script, such posts of course getting "+5 Insightful" rather than "-10 doesn't know how to do their job". You have either deliberately or accidently misunderstood the point I was making and have ranted on about patches breaking things, which I agree with. However if you dare claim *nix patches never break anything because "geek pride" means they write NASA standard code first time every time, then I'm afraid I will have to laugh long and hard.
And you are completey forgetting about NT4. Huge surprise. You are showing your age.
Spectactulary missing the point in a failed attempt to be patronising. I hadn't forgotten about NT. I think I first encountered NT back in 94, running on possibly a P1 or maybe a 486DX. My only memory of the time was thinking "is it supposed to be this slow?".
My point was you were citing examples from 6 years ago. 6 years ago some bozo thought pressing cancel to login was somehow a neat idea. Times have changed, NT was more secure than that, but it still wasn't in W2K's league, which of course still isn't in UNIX's league. Citing an example of how hard it was to lock down users 6 years ago is one of your infamous strawmen.
I wasn't paid for my fucking opinion of the OS.
I never said I was. Simply that my bad temper and constant outbursts of "f**king MS, f**king c**ting pile of stupid sh*t" everytime something bizarre happened that I knew was the OS's fault not mine generated my first and only official warning for constant foul language. I didn't jump ship when something new and more shiny came along. I stuck with it when SDK 7 evolved into Visual C++ and I could finally stay in Windows while coding, but by the second half of the 90's I fancied something less fru
because of the ease of setting up multiple user accounts on Linux, most of them are multiuser.
Er, a trained chimp could set up multiple accounts in Windows, which doesn't mean to say most home boxes have them. As *nix takes hold in the home I guarantee you most boxes will have if you're lucky 2 accounts, and if you're unlucky 1 account (Lindows?) As PCs become commoditised, buy one get one free in Walmart or whatever, there will be a PC for every family member, and therefore there will be only one main account on each box. Lose that account and you may as well format. It doesn't matter if the hacker never got root, the box is effectively trashed.
and then perhaps 2 out of 5 of those messed up patches actually break something that effects a huge number of people.
The figures you're pulling out, aren't backed up with evidence, so I'm not going to take them seriously. In the last 20 or so patches only one has caused me any problems. I average around 3 patches a year that screw something up, only 1 of which will be on a vanilla box, the other 2 patches will break a third party app in someway. Those problems are either MS or the software apps fault, you can't apportion blame without serious source digging, Open Source being something I'm very much a fan of.
But you're still generating straw men totally irrelevant to my statement that you can patch 200 machines in a few minutes following successful testing. You aren't bothering to dispute or acknowledge that, and are instead going off on a tangent about crap patches. Nice attempt at distraction because even a *nix admin has to test patches before rollout.
That has a lot to do with the couple of levels magnitude higher amount of peer review and "number of eyes" on things.
I'm a fan of open source, but your statement is BS. When Linux gets an exploit that patch gets rolled out usually within 1 day, far faster than MS. But how many people review that patch before it's rolled out? When a patch is rolled out in 24 hours, the many eyes claim is complete nonsense. Many eyes will then look at the patch and spot problems, but the patch has already been released, so any problems those "many eyes" see result in a patched patch, a fault you criticise MS of.
I'd have to strongly disagree with this. All admins are definitely not created equal.
Er, You're agreeing with me again, I clearly stated my contempt for most Windows Admins who think they can admin because they can use a mouse. However
An Operating System with ease of use as its primary goal instead of excellent security and raw horsepower and torque as their focus is not going to inspire the zealous level of attention to detail necessary to keep up with security concerns.
is nonsense. You're effectively saying *nix admins are zealous geeks and Windows admins are all teeth and suits. It's childish and completely untrue. For every paper MCSE there is a *nix idiot who believes that a default Red Hat box with all services running is secure because it isn't a 'doze box. There are some Windows admins that take security very seriously, and can lock boxes very tightly down, and there are *nix admins that couldn't shut anything down if their 9 key was hidden.
I have to agree with the experts that say a qualified UNIX admin can admin easily triple the same number of machines that a qualified Microsoft admin can.
This is true, but completely irrelevant to the discussion.
I can remember about 6 years ago I was having lunch with Mark Minasi and he was complaining about 15 different security problems and how he was constantly fighting users over installing things they shouldn't be.
6 years ago was Win 98. An OS where pressing cancel at the login prompt logged you in. Irrelevant to 2000/XP. This is the 21st century you know.
"If I was managing this project I would create my own image and distribute it myself, thank you. There is very little value in having the vendor do that for you, because images of this nature tend to get tweaked over time."
How many staff are you going to hire to format the OEM version off and then ghost 130,000 machines?
Dell will do the monkey work for you. If you adjust the image, then simply send Dell the new one, and all future laptops get that one instead.
Besides, if you're managing the rollout of 130,000 machines, you get the image right first time, otherwise you're going to have 5 or 6 different versions out there to support. Supporting kids will be a nightmare, supporting 5 or 6 builds on top of that will be much much worse.
Any changes you make following the initial roll-out are done in a very controlled manner, certainly no tweaking and constant adjustment to the image every week.
As I said, I don't know if Apple does or doesn't do this, but I know Dell does, and does this every day for 1000's of clients. So even if Apple would if you bought 100K of machines, Dell has the edge, because they have lots of experience of custom build images for small and large customers.
You only need a couple of dozen guaranteed sales a year to for Dell to provide the boxes with a sysprep image of your design, rather than standard OEM Windows.
So basically each school could be issued with completely customised laptops that are fully configured straight out of the box.
I used to rave about ZA being the king of firewalls.
However I've now seen with my own eyes several machines totally screwed by ZA - and yes, by trial and error I've proven it was ZA that was causing the problems.
It can do weird things to the TCP/IP stack that can only be undone under XP with an NETSH IPRESET command, or by uninstalling and reinstalling the protocol in 2000/ME/98. The problem will reoccur as soon as you reactivate Zone Alarm.
I wouldn't recommend it, even in it's free form anymore. Which is a shame, because it used to be damn good.
On a single user home machine that is devestating. You can always re-install the OS, and in fact probably do on a regular basis, but $HOME is a terrible loss. That's my point. There is this obsession with rooting boxes, but that's irrelevant on single user machines. It's a valid argument on multi user machines, but on single user machines you don't need root to do all the damage you possibly want.
It's no wonder people are wary of their patches. Do a google search for "patch breaks microsoft" without the quotes.
What's that got to do with my statement that a decent admin can distribute patches to 200 machines in a few minutes?
A decent admin won't be running windows update on those boxes, they'll be using SUS. Of course you test the patch before moving it from quarantine to the live SUS server. Patches regularly break things. Be they in house patches, *nix patches, 3rd party drivers or whatever. All admins know this and accept this whatever the OS they're managing.
But seeing as I'm arguing with someone who uses terms like "astroturf" because someone has a slightly alternative viewpoint, and admits they actually "care" about OS pissing contests rather than genuine discussion about security I may as well stop posting and find an adult to talk to.
Our
speculation is that these were done via a buffer overflow in Outlook's preview pane.
So no, Gabe's own account does NOT say it was Outlook what did the infernal deed, just that it MAY have been. They are only guessing.
I'm curious if anyone knows what exploit he may be talking about. As far as I'm aware all preview exploits were patched by 2000 SP3.
If Outlook preview pane caused this, then MS need slapping, and slapping hard, but if this was an unpatched box then the ball is back in Valve's court...
But you should have brought up, if we're going to talk about security seriously and not enter into a pissing contest. The fact that the user isn't running as root means nothing if the hacker can still run useful processes as that user. Any claim that somehow *nix is secure because most users don't run as root is nonsense. I can still cause massive damage to a box, and I can still run some interesting trojans without needing root.
But you make some assumptions that can't possibly be backed up by fact here: A decent systems admin can lock down a Windows box to a very decent degree. If you'd delved into the depths of group policy and registry editing you'd agree. I can lock down a machine so you have to get written permission to get execute privs on notepad.exe, let alone do anything remotely interesting in cpanel. You won't be able to install gator, you won't be able to delete Mplayer.exe via an IE exploit which I notice someone has been trying to get people to do today on/.
Of course, this is just my experience, but it is a "real world example" which you seem fond of.
The problem is of course training. You wouldn't use RedHat for a week and call yourself a Linux admin, but that's exactly what happens with Windows.
For a classic example of this witness every time there is a Windows patch, you'll see dozens of posts from so called Windows Admins on/. claiming they spend hours going around installing patches. An admin who knows what they are doing should take around 10 minutes to serve the patch to 200 machines. During a viral outbreak, a decent admin will have the latest virus signature files on everyone's desktop inside 5 minutes via an epolicy. The bad ones will be on/. complaining about Windoze security.
You truly shine here though:...Which is ultimately my point and the point of the story as well Perhaps you should have re-read my original post? Because I clearly state it there too. So if it truly is your point to say that, then you are in fact agreeing with me. Perhaps you should also re-read the article, because it complains about Windows ability to click and run attachments, which is exactly the functionality end users want.
It's probably why I have my 3 sisters, Mother, Mother-In-Law, and Father-In-Law using it instead of Windows
My family like to play games on their PCs, so *nix isn't an option. They couldn't care less about messing around with WINE to get games working. However none of them have ever been hacked, I administer them remotely, and the MS "security" updates are blocked by Outlook so their only option is to delete the spoof email.
The point I've been constantly making is that Windows is not secure for the average home owner, but the article was dishonest about certain aspects of MS and outlook security. I'm not getting into a pissing contest about how great Mandrake is or isn't. Save it for someone who cares.
You correctly point out my deliberate hyperbole and generate some yourself - namely that somehow you're protected if you run as a limited user in Linux.
It's more difficult to expand privileges up to root in Linux, but a virus can still wipe out $HOME which is devestating to most users, it can still propagate through your entire address book.
There is a common misconception that the end goal of the hacker has to be to root the box so he can claim 0wzership of it. Which is simply not true. Sometimes you don't need root to do some "useful" things on a box.
The Windows security model for home use is broken, but it isn't for office use, I admin enough machines to know how tightly the boxes are locked down. Like I said, the problem is getting ease of use for the home user, and balancing it with decent security. Typing in passwords everytime you need to install something simply won't work in the home enviroment. People want one click installs, and it's up to IT to think of a way of making that secure.
"It's easy to run executables in the Windows world, and users who get an email with a subject line like "Check out this wicked screensaver!" and an attachment, too often click on it without thinking first, and bang! we're off to the races and a new worm has taken over their systems."
You can't claim that users can click on executable attachments in one sentence, then admit that "
And though Microsoft's latest versions of Outlook block most executable attachments by default "
So they block executables, you can't save or run them, but running attachments that are executable is a security flaw in Windows, even though you can't in Outlook, MS's flagship mail client. Fair enough. He's made a clear argument there...
You know he's being disengenuous when he claims
"it's still possible to override those protections."
and provides a hyperlink that most readers won't bother clicking on.
If you did click on the hyperlink, it details how you can bypass Outlook 2002's security. It involves hacking the registry. I don't think the average "clueless luser" will know how to do that, and so executable attachments stay safely out of reach for most people. It's not like there is a remote exploit to turn off this feature, or a big red "disable security" button on the Outlook toolbar.
There are certain things that are crap with Windows - there needs to be a better security model for home users - office PCs with limited users and sensible group policies are locked down tighter than the average Linux box, but home machines aren't. That does need to change.
But criticising the fact that word documents or pictures can be opened via one click on the email attachment is missing the point of the home computing explosion spectactulary. - People want that feature, people think it's stupid when they have to save, chmod, rename a file just to look a their new baby granddaughter's photo.
You need ease of use, and you need security, Windows isn't there yet, but neither is Linux.
Anyway... Microsoft security = some very scary shit. I thought they'd solved the autorunning-virus-in-your-email thing, but I guess not. I patched the crap out of my Windows installation today, stopped using Outlook Express
Well for one thing I doubt they were using Outlook Express, if they were using MS email they'd have been using Outlook, a different product, and a lot more secure out of the box (at least 2000 SP3, or 2002 versions are anyway).
Putting aside the pros and cons of MS email clients, I'm curious as to why you think MS is to blame for this?
From the linked article : "We still don't know their entry method."
For all you know, someone on the inside could have installed the tools deliberately.
The other thing that seems to slip people's attention, is that most of these Windows email viruses spread because of Outlook and Outlook Express. People running other mail clients like Eudora, Mozilla, etc. are not affected by these attacks either.
Only on slashdot could you be so wrong and be modded so high...
Outlook is actually one of the few clients that cannot spread the sobig virus.
PIF/EXE/SCR cannot be run or even saved to disk using the default settings - as in straight out of the box - in Outlook 2002.
Let me repeat that. The standard default security setting for Outlook makes it absolutely impossible for it to spread the sobig virus.
The people getting infected are the ones using other mail clients.
OE, Mozilla, Opera, Eudora and so on are the culprits here, not Outlook.
Then any of your customers running Outlook 2002 will not be able to see that file.
Outlook blocks such attachments by default. I've never seen an option to turn it off, and you can't even save the attachment to disk.
Blocking.exe and.scr at the email gateway is therefore not in the slightest bit "asinine", because Outlook is never going to let you open the file if you let it through.
A company that emails.exe's around the net seems pretty strange to me. Why not have a hyperlink via email to an FTP site, it's a far more efficient way of using your mail server. No serious company emails.exe's around, users have been hammered by IT support for years to never trust email attachments, even if you recognise the sender, FROM is too easily spoofed.
There is no way, even if you were the most trusted company on the planet, that I would allow anyone in my department to open an exe file. Even if we were using a mail client that allowed it.
Rather than blocking.scr/Pif/.exe and deleting any email with such an attachment, they are letting the group virus scanner on our exchange servers deal with the entire load.
So the virus scanner is scanning and moving to the infected folder literally thousands of these an hour. After it moves the infected message, it generates a nice email letting you know an email that was sent to you is currently in quarantine. Therefore this is generating even more work for the mail servers. Turning off this feature for a couple of days is apparently too much trouble.
The servers exchange is running on are therefore hanging every few minutes with all the disk and processor activity. Everyone gets a message every few minutes about "please wait, connecting to server" until you get fed up and close outlook down for the day.
This is the first virus I've ever seen to disrupt my work like this. But this is 100% the fault of our email admins who can't be bothered to write a couple of simple mail rules.
At the basic internet security zone Outlook can't even open.scr and.exe attachments, so why they don't delete this crap before it hits the servers I don't know.
Wow, 200 (quid? Bucks?) a year for a new bulb sounds pretty steep. How much do you use your projector to be going through bulbs at that rate? Mine has 3000 hours lamp life and I fully expect that to last five years at current rates of usage (couple of films a week tops).
200 quid for a lamp life of 2000 hours. That's retail, I get them a lot cheaper because I work in with AV equipment all day.
My bulbs only last a year because I use the projector a lot, for films and for games playing. You can't beat playing Civ III on a screen that literally fills the wall!
As others have said, always make sure you let the projector run through the cooling routine before you turn off the mains power, that will help prevent the bulb blowing.
The point is anyone who can afford a projector system,isn't going to be using a PS2 for a DVD player, unless their system has limited scart connections. Complaining about the noise of the PS2's fan, which the parent post did, was pretty weird as well, considering the noise the cooling system on a projector makes...
I was talking about the UK where PS2 were around 200-300 pounds and easily available and DVD players were the same price.
The dreamcast was never a serious option in the UK.
The point is even now the PS2 is still good value for those who use their "main" TV for TV watching and their second TV for games or in a kid's bedroom. - When they aren't playing games, you can keep them quiet in their bedroom with a disney DVD.
"Hardcore" gamers only make up a small percentage of console sales. For Joe Public getting a free DVD or MP3 or CD player with their console can be extremely important.
If you have a home projection system, then a dedicated DVD player is a minor cost in the whole budget. I have a projector - cost 1500 plus 200 a year for a new bulb, 100-150 for a super silent high quality dedicated DVD player is nothing when you're playing with that budget.
People bought PS2s before DVD players dropped in price - you could spend 200 on a DVD player, or 250 on a DVD player and PS2 combo - no contest really. The DVD option is still attractive even now to those on limited budgets or limited space.
Joe Average
is going to be attracted to the console that plays DVDs as well. If you're buying for the kids and you don't know which company does the best games then a free DVD player can swing the deal. Either because they still don't own a DVD player, or the console is going in a bedroom or den where the main entertainment system isn't accessible.
Creating a properietry format disk like Nintendo,
rather than just using cheap DVDs is stupid. The cost of throwing a DVD player into the mix has to be tiny compared with the additional sales you will get.
It's the point for some beers, such as Guiness, and bitters which are often still hand drawn.
I suspect this is for bland lager beers - Stella,Fosters, Carlsberg, Coors, American Budweiser, Carling etc etc.
These are extremely bland mass produced beers and the speed it is delivered to the glass makes no difference to the taste and is so carefully carbonated it doesn't froth up.
This is a minor speed improvement, I've seen these kind of beers served with dual head nozzles that deliver twice the volume and take around 10 seconds to pour.
Even a normal lager pump only takes around 15-20 seconds currently and doesn't fizz up the beer.
I suspect there could be marketing problems with this though. Even though people are aware of the fact they are drinking cheap mass produced lagers, they still like to see it being poured. Having it appear in a glass as if by magic, makes it seem all the more instant, and disposable. It may makes some people question what on earth they are drinking that can be poured that quickly and easily.
Another point is that anonymity is one of/. greatest strengths.
Except you aren't anonymous. Your IP address is stored for at least 24 hours via slashcode. Some IP addresses are stored for longer.
If slashdot truly respected privacy, trolls would crapflood because slashcode wouldn't record the IP address of posters. Bad moderators could mod posts down while posting on the same thread "anonymously". As it stands, slashcode prevents you from doing that.
Actively participating in slashdot means you relinquish privacy. Even if you don't get an account, slashcode remembers who you are for at least 24 hours.
If privacy while reading the NY times is important to you, read it in a library, pay cash for a newstand copy, or google for the thousands of user names and passwords out there.
To be honest, I've probably been trolled, as anyone bringing up the universal declaration of human rights in relation to free registration of an online newspaper is getting things way out of perspective.
Slashdot Mirror
When you think about the fact that every film has had the droids in it, and they were the first characters to get their own TV show, you actually start to wonder whether SW is about the Empire or whether that is merely a sublot to the main movie - the comic adventures of R2 and C3PO...
the Energy Information Administration and the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory had determined that China's carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions -- the main cause of global warming -- declined 17 percent over that four-year span, despite economic growth of 36 percent.
By contrast, U.S. emissions over the same period grew by approximately 70 million metric tons per year, approximately 5 percent
Here's my Link , where's yours?
I mean you do have a link that shows China has increased co2 emissions by 5 times US output don't you? You weren't just making that up?
I suspect Rare's appeal comes from journalists and gamers old enough to have been playing games in the 1980's.
Ultimate Play the Game were the best software house during the 8 bit home computer days. At least as far as the UK is concerned. This perhaps would be less true in the states where the NES took the place of the Spectrum, C64 and Amstrad.
From Pssst! to Jet Pac to Knight Lore and Underwurlde every single game was an addictive well made classic.
They were legends and their refusal to do PR interviews help magnify their mysterious God like qualities. The silent software house would just quietly and without fuss churn out hit after hit like Willy Wonka's mysterious Chocolate Factory.
They have never been a "nice" software house, being the or at least one of the first 8 bit companies to switch from the 5.99 game price to 9.99 in an oversized box that doesn't fit on your shelf.
I believe they still threaten legal action against anyone trying to offer emulation versions of these ancient games. Possibly because I think we'll see mobile phone versions of some of the classics before too long.
But as you say, since evolving into Rare that old magic has gone and there has to come a point where they have to create their own reputation, not rely on one created 20 years ago.
That storyline may have been removed but the plot about a cabin boy/slave who loves his master despite the fact he regularly physically hurts him was kept in. The aforementioned underage boy will flirt openly with male characters in the group.
The irony with Walmart being inconsistant with its demands for censorship is it leaves them wide open to the charge of disapproving of consenting adults paying for sex, while having no problem with child abuse...
Whereas if they hadn't censored the brothel, they could at least argue that they don't care about the content as long as minors don't buy it.
It's a bit like demanding the rocking car in GTA3 is taken out while having no problem with killing a hooker for her money. It generates a rather mixed message about your morality.
Provide key personel with a contract that requires 12 months notice. This is reasonably common for CEOs for example. On offering their resignation pay them to sit at home for 12 months.
This may not be legal in right to work states, in which case move operations.
The advantage of 3,6,or 12 months paid leave is that they can't work for anyone else during that period, and being unable to come into work means they are no longer privvy to company secrets. Any secrets they take to the new company are 12 months out of date.
It's expensive for the company, but then they can only afford to offer such contracts to people critical to the business. This prevents abuse by trying to enforce non critical staff to be tithed to the company.
If their secrets are critical to the business then this is a small price to pay. It also reduces headhunting, because the headhunter has to wait a year for the targetted member of staff.
I kind of agree, I think the only thing that can break MS home stranglehold is DRM. Implemented too strictly and the more computer literate, who aren't necessarily "geeks" will start looking elsewhere because they want to "rip and burn".
Indeed, there are plenty of patches that break things, but they don't break things on every computer in every workplace, which is why I've only had 3 in 12 months. 2 of which caused apps to behave badly, amd that could be the apps fault not MS. The problem with closed source is you have to give the benefit of doubt in such circumstances.
Er, it was you that went on about many eyes reviewing the code, I merely pointed out many eyes can't review code before its released. If you're seriously suggesting that because many eyes WILL review the code, all coders get it completely right first time to avoid losing guru status, then I can't take you seriously. No coder is perfect, and if you write a fix in a few hours for a zero day exploit for example, you can't possibly guarantee it's going to be perfect. Adding new software to a box can cause unforeseen problems, ALL admins have to test before patching. I'll happily admit it's a a hell of a lot easier when you have the source so you can see what it's doing. Windows admins dread patching far more than *nix ones do, it's what keeps their lives "interesting" for want for a better term. /. complaining they've had to spend 2 days walking around patching a mere 50 boxes one at a time, whereas if it was *nix they could have written a script, such posts of course getting "+5 Insightful" rather than "-10 doesn't know how to do their job". You have either deliberately or accidently misunderstood the point I was making and have ranted on about patches breaking things, which I agree with. However if you dare claim *nix patches never break anything because "geek pride" means they write NASA standard code first time every time, then I'm afraid I will have to laugh long and hard.
But, I've never said MS patches were great, that patching isn't a pain, YOU decided I'd said that, because you want to argue rather than discuss. I used the example of patching 200 machines in a few minutes to show how good admins work, rather than the tiresome bad admin kiddies who spend all day on
Spectactulary missing the point in a failed attempt to be patronising. I hadn't forgotten about NT. I think I first encountered NT back in 94, running on possibly a P1 or maybe a 486DX. My only memory of the time was thinking "is it supposed to be this slow?".
My point was you were citing examples from 6 years ago. 6 years ago some bozo thought pressing cancel to login was somehow a neat idea. Times have changed, NT was more secure than that, but it still wasn't in W2K's league, which of course still isn't in UNIX's league. Citing an example of how hard it was to lock down users 6 years ago is one of your infamous strawmen.
I never said I was. Simply that my bad temper and constant outbursts of "f**king MS, f**king c**ting pile of stupid sh*t" everytime something bizarre happened that I knew was the OS's fault not mine generated my first and only official warning for constant foul language. I didn't jump ship when something new and more shiny came along. I stuck with it when SDK 7 evolved into Visual C++ and I could finally stay in Windows while coding, but by the second half of the 90's I fancied something less fru
Er, a trained chimp could set up multiple accounts in Windows, which doesn't mean to say most home boxes have them. As *nix takes hold in the home I guarantee you most boxes will have if you're lucky 2 accounts, and if you're unlucky 1 account (Lindows?) As PCs become commoditised, buy one get one free in Walmart or whatever, there will be a PC for every family member, and therefore there will be only one main account on each box. Lose that account and you may as well format. It doesn't matter if the hacker never got root, the box is effectively trashed.
The figures you're pulling out, aren't backed up with evidence, so I'm not going to take them seriously. In the last 20 or so patches only one has caused me any problems. I average around 3 patches a year that screw something up, only 1 of which will be on a vanilla box, the other 2 patches will break a third party app in someway. Those problems are either MS or the software apps fault, you can't apportion blame without serious source digging, Open Source being something I'm very much a fan of.
But you're still generating straw men totally irrelevant to my statement that you can patch 200 machines in a few minutes following successful testing. You aren't bothering to dispute or acknowledge that, and are instead going off on a tangent about crap patches.
Nice attempt at distraction because even a *nix admin has to test patches before rollout.
I'm a fan of open source, but your statement is BS. When Linux gets an exploit that patch gets rolled out usually within 1 day, far faster than MS. But how many people review that patch before it's rolled out? When a patch is rolled out in 24 hours, the many eyes claim is complete nonsense. Many eyes will then look at the patch and spot problems, but the patch has already been released, so any problems those "many eyes" see result in a patched patch, a fault you criticise MS of.
Er, You're agreeing with me again, I clearly stated my contempt for most Windows Admins who think they can admin because they can use a mouse. However
is nonsense. You're effectively saying *nix admins are zealous geeks and Windows admins are all teeth and suits. It's childish and completely untrue. For every paper MCSE there is a *nix idiot who believes that a default Red Hat box with all services running is secure because it isn't a 'doze box. There are some Windows admins that take security very seriously, and can lock boxes very tightly down, and there are *nix admins that couldn't shut anything down if their 9 key was hidden.
This is true, but completely irrelevant to the discussion.
6 years ago was Win 98. An OS where pressing cancel at the login prompt logged you in. Irrelevant to 2000/XP. This is the 21st century you know.
Dell will do the monkey work for you. If you adjust the image, then simply send Dell the new one, and all future laptops get that one instead.
Besides, if you're managing the rollout of 130,000 machines, you get the image right first time, otherwise you're going to have 5 or 6 different versions out there to support. Supporting kids will be a nightmare, supporting 5 or 6 builds on top of that will be much much worse.
Any changes you make following the initial roll-out are done in a very controlled manner, certainly no tweaking and constant adjustment to the image every week.
As I said, I don't know if Apple does or doesn't do this, but I know Dell does, and does this every day for 1000's of clients. So even if Apple would if you bought 100K of machines, Dell has the edge, because they have lots of experience of custom build images for small and large customers.
You only need a couple of dozen guaranteed sales a year to for Dell to provide the boxes with a sysprep image of your design, rather than standard OEM Windows.
So basically each school could be issued with completely customised laptops that are fully configured straight out of the box.
I'm not sure if Apple do this?
I used to rave about ZA being the king of firewalls.
However I've now seen with my own eyes several machines totally screwed by ZA - and yes, by trial and error I've proven it was ZA that was causing the problems.
It can do weird things to the TCP/IP stack that can only be undone under XP with an NETSH IPRESET command, or by uninstalling and reinstalling the protocol in 2000/ME/98. The problem will reoccur as soon as you reactivate Zone Alarm.
I wouldn't recommend it, even in it's free form anymore. Which is a shame, because it used to be damn good.
What's that got to do with my statement that a decent admin can distribute patches to 200 machines in a few minutes?
A decent admin won't be running windows update on those boxes, they'll be using SUS. Of course you test the patch before moving it from quarantine to the live SUS server. Patches regularly break things. Be they in house patches, *nix patches, 3rd party drivers or whatever. All admins know this and accept this whatever the OS they're managing.
But seeing as I'm arguing with someone who uses terms like "astroturf" because someone has a slightly alternative viewpoint, and admits they actually "care" about OS pissing contests rather than genuine discussion about security I may as well stop posting and find an adult to talk to.
I'm curious if anyone knows what exploit he may be talking about. As far as I'm aware all preview exploits were patched by 2000 SP3.
If Outlook preview pane caused this, then MS need slapping, and slapping hard, but if this was an unpatched box then the ball is back in Valve's court...
Something I never even brought up or alluded to
/.
/. claiming they spend hours going around installing patches. An admin who knows what they are doing should take around 10 minutes to serve the patch to 200 machines. During a viral outbreak, a decent admin will have the latest virus signature files on everyone's desktop inside 5 minutes via an epolicy. The bad ones will be on /. complaining about Windoze security.
But you should have brought up, if we're going to talk about security seriously and not enter into a pissing contest. The fact that the user isn't running as root means nothing if the hacker can still run useful processes as that user. Any claim that somehow *nix is secure because most users don't run as root is nonsense. I can still cause massive damage to a box, and I can still run some interesting trojans without needing root.
But you make some assumptions that can't possibly be backed up by fact here:
A decent systems admin can lock down a Windows box to a very decent degree. If you'd delved into the depths of group policy and registry editing you'd agree. I can lock down a machine so you have to get written permission to get execute privs on notepad.exe, let alone do anything remotely interesting in cpanel. You won't be able to install gator, you won't be able to delete Mplayer.exe via an IE exploit which I notice someone has been trying to get people to do today on
Of course, this is just my experience, but it is a "real world example" which you seem fond of.
The problem is of course training. You wouldn't use RedHat for a week and call yourself a Linux admin, but that's exactly what happens with Windows.
For a classic example of this witness every time there is a Windows patch, you'll see dozens of posts from so called Windows Admins on
You truly shine here though:...Which is ultimately my point and the point of the story as well
Perhaps you should have re-read my original post? Because I clearly state it there too. So if it truly is your point to say that, then you are in fact agreeing with me. Perhaps you should also re-read the article, because it complains about Windows ability to click and run attachments, which is exactly the functionality end users want.
It's probably why I have my 3 sisters, Mother, Mother-In-Law, and Father-In-Law using it instead of Windows
My family like to play games on their PCs, so *nix isn't an option. They couldn't care less about messing around with WINE to get games working. However none of them have ever been hacked, I administer them remotely, and the MS "security" updates are blocked by Outlook so their only option is to delete the spoof email.
The point I've been constantly making is that Windows is not secure for the average home owner, but the article was dishonest about certain aspects of MS and outlook security. I'm not getting into a pissing contest about how great Mandrake is or isn't. Save it for someone who cares.
You correctly point out my deliberate hyperbole and generate some yourself - namely that somehow you're protected if you run as a limited user in Linux.
It's more difficult to expand privileges up to root in Linux, but a virus can still wipe out $HOME which is devestating to most users, it can still propagate through your entire address book.
There is a common misconception that the end goal of the hacker has to be to root the box so he can claim 0wzership of it. Which is simply not true. Sometimes you don't need root to do some "useful" things on a box.
The Windows security model for home use is broken, but it isn't for office use, I admin enough machines to know how tightly the boxes are locked down. Like I said, the problem is getting ease of use for the home user, and balancing it with decent security. Typing in passwords everytime you need to install something simply won't work in the home enviroment. People want one click installs, and it's up to IT to think of a way of making that secure.
So they block executables, you can't save or run them, but running attachments that are executable is a security flaw in Windows, even though you can't in Outlook, MS's flagship mail client. Fair enough. He's made a clear argument there...
You know he's being disengenuous when he claims and provides a hyperlink that most readers won't bother clicking on.
If you did click on the hyperlink, it details how you can bypass Outlook 2002's security. It involves hacking the registry. I don't think the average "clueless luser" will know how to do that, and so executable attachments stay safely out of reach for most people. It's not like there is a remote exploit to turn off this feature, or a big red "disable security" button on the Outlook toolbar.
There are certain things that are crap with Windows - there needs to be a better security model for home users - office PCs with limited users and sensible group policies are locked down tighter than the average Linux box, but home machines aren't. That does need to change.
But criticising the fact that word documents or pictures can be opened via one click on the email attachment is missing the point of the home computing explosion spectactulary. - People want that feature, people think it's stupid when they have to save, chmod, rename a file just to look a their new baby granddaughter's photo.
You need ease of use, and you need security, Windows isn't there yet, but neither is Linux.
Well for one thing I doubt they were using Outlook Express, if they were using MS email they'd have been using Outlook, a different product, and a lot more secure out of the box (at least 2000 SP3, or 2002 versions are anyway).
Putting aside the pros and cons of MS email clients, I'm curious as to why you think MS is to blame for this?
From the linked article : "We still don't know their entry method."
For all you know, someone on the inside could have installed the tools deliberately.
He's such a fan he made one of the central characters a Doctor Who fan in Queer as Folk.
He included story lines where characters discussed Doctor Who, and even had a full sized replica of K-9 in one episode.
If anyone can bring Doctor Who back with a vengeance, Russell can.
Outlook is actually one of the few clients that cannot spread the sobig virus.
PIF/EXE/SCR cannot be run or even saved to disk using the default settings - as in straight out of the box - in Outlook 2002.
Let me repeat that. The standard default security setting for Outlook makes it absolutely impossible for it to spread the sobig virus.
The people getting infected are the ones using other mail clients.
OE, Mozilla, Opera, Eudora and so on are the culprits here, not Outlook.
Outlook blocks such attachments by default. I've never seen an option to turn it off, and you can't even save the attachment to disk.
Blocking
A company that emails
There is no way, even if you were the most trusted company on the planet, that I would allow anyone in my department to open an exe file. Even if we were using a mail client that allowed it.
It depends on how clueless your email admins are.
.scr/Pif/.exe and deleting any email with such an attachment, they are letting the group virus scanner on our exchange servers deal with the entire load.
.scr and .exe attachments, so why they don't delete this crap before it hits the servers I don't know.
Rather than blocking
So the virus scanner is scanning and moving to the infected folder literally thousands of these an hour. After it moves the infected message, it generates a nice email letting you know an email that was sent to you is currently in quarantine. Therefore this is generating even more work for the mail servers. Turning off this feature for a couple of days is apparently too much trouble.
The servers exchange is running on are therefore hanging every few minutes with all the disk and processor activity. Everyone gets a message every few minutes about "please wait, connecting to server" until you get fed up and close outlook down for the day.
This is the first virus I've ever seen to disrupt my work like this. But this is 100% the fault of our email admins who can't be bothered to write a couple of simple mail rules.
At the basic internet security zone Outlook can't even open
200 quid for a lamp life of 2000 hours. That's retail, I get them a lot cheaper because I work in with AV equipment all day.
My bulbs only last a year because I use the projector a lot, for films and for games playing. You can't beat playing Civ III on a screen that literally fills the wall!
As others have said, always make sure you let the projector run through the cooling routine before you turn off the mains power, that will help prevent the bulb blowing.
The point is anyone who can afford a projector system,isn't going to be using a PS2 for a DVD player, unless their system has limited scart connections. Complaining about the noise of the PS2's fan, which the parent post did, was pretty weird as well, considering the noise the cooling system on a projector makes...
I was talking about the UK where PS2 were around 200-300 pounds and easily available and DVD players were the same price.
The dreamcast was never a serious option in the UK.
The point is even now the PS2 is still good value for those who use their "main" TV for TV watching and their second TV for games or in a kid's bedroom. - When they aren't playing games, you can keep them quiet in their bedroom with a disney DVD.
"Hardcore" gamers only make up a small percentage of console sales. For Joe Public getting a free DVD or MP3 or CD player with their console can be extremely important.
If you have a home projection system, then a dedicated DVD player is a minor cost in the whole budget. I have a projector - cost 1500 plus 200 a year for a new bulb, 100-150 for a super silent high quality dedicated DVD player is nothing when you're playing with that budget.
People bought PS2s before DVD players dropped in price - you could spend 200 on a DVD player, or 250 on a DVD player and PS2 combo - no contest really. The DVD option is still attractive even now to those on limited budgets or limited space.
Joe Average is going to be attracted to the console that plays DVDs as well. If you're buying for the kids and you don't know which company does the best games then a free DVD player can swing the deal. Either because they still don't own a DVD player, or the console is going in a bedroom or den where the main entertainment system isn't accessible.
Creating a properietry format disk like Nintendo, rather than just using cheap DVDs is stupid. The cost of throwing a DVD player into the mix has to be tiny compared with the additional sales you will get.
It's the point for some beers, such as Guiness, and bitters which are often still hand drawn.
I suspect this is for bland lager beers - Stella,Fosters, Carlsberg, Coors, American Budweiser, Carling etc etc.
These are extremely bland mass produced beers and the speed it is delivered to the glass makes no difference to the taste and is so carefully carbonated it doesn't froth up.
This is a minor speed improvement, I've seen these kind of beers served with dual head nozzles that deliver twice the volume and take around 10 seconds to pour.
Even a normal lager pump only takes around 15-20 seconds currently and doesn't fizz up the beer.
I suspect there could be marketing problems with this though. Even though people are aware of the fact they are drinking cheap mass produced lagers, they still like to see it being poured. Having it appear in a glass as if by magic, makes it seem all the more instant, and disposable. It may makes some people question what on earth they are drinking that can be poured that quickly and easily.
Another point is that anonymity is one of /. greatest strengths.
Except you aren't anonymous. Your IP address is stored for at least 24 hours via slashcode. Some IP addresses are stored for longer.
If slashdot truly respected privacy, trolls would crapflood because slashcode wouldn't record the IP address of posters. Bad moderators could mod posts down while posting on the same thread "anonymously". As it stands, slashcode prevents you from doing that.
Actively participating in slashdot means you relinquish privacy. Even if you don't get an account, slashcode remembers who you are for at least 24 hours.
If privacy while reading the NY times is important to you, read it in a library, pay cash for a newstand copy, or google for the thousands of user names and passwords out there.
To be honest, I've probably been trolled, as anyone bringing up the universal declaration of human rights in relation to free registration of an online newspaper is getting things way out of perspective.