So you just assume all those exploitable machines are "junk" machines that are left running in a closet somewhere? I would never want you to administer *my* network, bub. What if one of those junk machines could be exploited to give access to the more useful machines in the network? Or what if they weren't junk machines at all? If the admins of that network can leave easily exposed machines running what kind of security model do they have anyway? And if those machines are vulnerable to those old exploits then it's a sure thing that they are very very vulnerable to 0-day stuff, too.
How would you like to be a student at one of those universities, or a user of a commerce web site which has your credit card information, knowing that there is a *potential* and *very easy to exploit* vulnerability just waiting to happen? The articles point, methinks, is that if it's this easy to find an easily-compromised machine then there are probably a ridiculous amount of them on the internet and that people need to be more proactive about their security. Just assuming that these machines are internal department production servers is a risky way of administering a network. Why are they so exposed to the web if they don't matter? You would think a competent security admin would be proactive about finding and removing old, out-of-date machines that could potentially be compromised.
Of course, no amount of awesome admins will close all security holes. Physical and software security only can go so far. Hopefully these organizations that he pegged are smart enough to keep their really sensitive information locked up tight and not spread out all over their network.
There's so many extremely simple games that are insanely fun multiplayer, and will probably never, ever be released as stand-alone games.
Yeah, that's what I originally thought, too, but according to this you won't be able to access the networking features through the SDK, at least yet.
On the surface this looks like a great idea.. releasing the SDK so you can make your favorite single-player game on the XBox is great. But this seems overly restrictive... the dev tools are free, sure, but you can't do anything on an XBox 360 with them unless you pay $100.00 (which truthfully isn't that bad). The catch is that nobody *else* can do anything with your game unless they are also a subscriber. You can't distribute your game to anybody else any other way than through the developer subscriber network.
This is an interesting thing for Microsoft to do but by keeping it developer-only they're not making it compelling enough. First you have to pay a hundred bucks, second you don't have access to everything that makes XBox awesome, third barely anyone will be able to play it.
It's a good strategy to try and win people over to the XBox before the Wii comes along but I don't think they've gone quite far enough. But it's a step in the right direction!
That would work perfectly in a scenario like you described where there's no real need or desire to upgrade to a new version. It would certainly extend the life of your still-functional operating systems, that's for sure.
However, my point was that the OSS community should strive to make a cross-platform virtualization solution. I'm guessing MS is banking on the notion that, since virtualization is still a fairly young technology, making it accessible with free software will make it "take off" and that's when Microsoft can start selling its "better" suite of virtualization software. OSS software shouldn't be about making people use Linux over Windows.. it should be about making software that won't fuck people in the ass. And since Windows seems to be here to stay for at least a little while longer, the OSS community should focus more effort into developing an open solution to virtualization so that, eventually, when it expands to new and exciting uses, people won't be using software that just "might" be free in the future when they need it.
I'm certainly not an expert but it doesn't take a genius to see what *might* (and possibly will) happen.
OK. So Microsoft makes Virtual PC free. Suddenly everyone starts using virtualization software and (besides the licensing fees Microsoft will get for each copy of its OS that is virtualized) it's free and wonderful and everyone is happy that they can run all of their Operating Systems on one PC with much less hassle than before. Virtualization takes off, new uses are discovered for it, and it changes the way networks can be used. Hooray!
But eventually Microsoft stops maintaining Virtual PC (and discontinues support for it on any future operating systems) and decides to release Microsoft's new "Virtual Console" software that costs mucho bucks. Suddenly everyone that relies on Virtualization realizes that they'll either have to switch to some other virtualization software, change their software systems entirely, or simply bite the bullet and spend the money to upgrade to the new program.
This probably isn't news to anyone. In fact, it's the way things have been done since the first closed-source software program was created and sold. But I think that this is a perfect example of where Open Source software could really fit the bill and cause a paradigm shift to a better world where people aren't locked into one provider or another. If the OSS community could pull together and release a killer Virtualization app that's free as in speech perhaps people would start to see *why* software needs to be free, and perhaps they would realize it goes deeper than simply price.
I'm not trying to spread Microsoft FUD or spread the OSS gospel... but I think in scenarios like this an OSS alternative would be a no-brainer. Are there any OSS virtualization software suites in development right now (besides Wine)?
Instead of arguing all day about some fucking study, why not spend the time unifying the *nix distros, which is one of the major problems facing the OS. The reason people aren't migrating is because of the hefty amount of confusing feature-matching that has to occur going from a few "official" products to dozens and dozens of small, user-created programs. Flexibility, flexibility, I know... But c'mon, people. I don't use Linux much because I'm sick and tired of scouring through confusing, "assume-you-know-this-much" documentation and learning a hundred different text config files. There is great work being done in this department, but until the Linux community stops being nerd-centric and stops trying to re-invent the wheel with a different user interface then it stands no chance of overcoming Windows.
Personally, I think DRM hurts end users because you essentially have to prove to it that you're not a criminal every time you use your media. Right now it's assumed that you bought it. Once DRM is implemented it will be assumed that you stole it and you'll have "authorize" your media to prove otherwise.
I believe that it's our right as humans to be given the choice to be a criminal. DRM is bad for everyone because it chips away at the dwindling stone that is our basic human freedoms. Remember, you're not going to wake up one day and be enslaved in some Orwellian labor camp... tiny compromises like these will add up over a long period of time.
I tend to agree. Apple do good work but their mice are fucking irritating. Sure this thing can be configurable for "two" buttons but it still doesn't solve the problem of having the whole mouse function as a button, instead of having the buttons isolated into, well, buttons. I'm sick of accidently clicking the mouse when I'm just trying to move it.
I wasn't trying to imply that the Church is the CAUSE of the AIDS epidemic, just that they could be a large part of stopping it if they would just stop clinging to the "old ways" and start supporting contraception and birth control!
It wouldn't matter if people would start acting like responsible parents and keep an open dialogue with their kids. The problem only happens if kids discover these things on their own without ever hearing about it before, then they have no idea WHAT to think. Oh, gosh, but talking about BDSM and Gangbanging with your kids would just be too *EMBARASSING,* wouldn't it? A parent *SHOULD* talk about these things with their kids, because they *DO* happen in the real world. The idea is to promote sexual experimentation and sexual freedom, not stifle it by telling somebody what is "right" and what is "wrong" as far as sex is concerned. You have to do more as a parent then just have one talk about the "birds and the bees."
Wait.. doesn't the Catholic church frown upon the use of condoms? Is it a coincidence that Africa has one of the fastest-growing Catholic communities in the world, while also being plagued by an AIDS epidemic? Perhaps if the Church recognized that people are, *gasp*, having lots of sex, and instead spent more time promoting "safer sex," we would all be better off!
Why does our government concern itself with upholding moral standards that they have nothing to do with anyway? It seems to me that it shouldn't be in their interests to do this. We have to make people more responsible for themselves, not have Big Brother take care of everything for us.
Most atheists are some of the most generally "nice" people around (except when you ask them about religion!). The reason, I think, because we prescribe to THIS life, not something beyond. We realize that we are all we have!
Despite being wrong about whether a D- or an R- was beside the dude's name, this is right on.
Is it a coincidence that the sexually repressed countries of the world are also the most depressed and violent? Sex is probably THE most natural thing we have going for us. Humans have managed to breed a lot of natural instinct out of ourselves over the course of our evolution but the sex drive is something that still remains incredibly potent, despite centuries of trying to beat it back.
Love and monogamy is found nowhere else in nature... is it a coincidence that humans have historically been incredibly good at fooling ourselves (or to use an Orwellian concept: Doublethink)? We are quite adapt at doing one thing and thinking another. The staggering amount of sexually "deviant" priests is testament to this. It's so easy to call it a lack of willpower when really it's a much bigger issue: a problem with how we deal with sex in our lives.
And is it a coincidence that porn stars are usually the most happy, the most likeable, and the least self-conscious people you could ever meet? The people that make pornography, in reality, are a relatively small, tight-knit community of people built on trust, safety, and respect. Even the ones that make the hard-core gangbang porn. The people that call pornography "dirty" and "dangerous" are usually the ones that are completely jealous that they can't have it as often as they like.
Why does this even matter? It's their book, they can do whatever the hell they want with it. It's not harming anyone. I say, let those idiots waste their money and squander their profits on such ridiculous security measures.
So let me get this straight... the author thinks it's arrogant for Microsoft to call him up, offer him the job unsolicited, and when he goes in for the interview they ask him technical questions instead of trying to sell him on the job? Who's the arrogant one here? I think he's just pissed that they didn't worship him because he has a PhD in CS.
I'm out of touch? Do you forget that the COMMON PEOPLE are what run businesses? If Joe Sales Guy can't work his PC, the business loses productivity. Therefor, you have to give your employees what they need to get the job done. Windows is easy for the common people to grasp.
Slashdot Mirror
So you just assume all those exploitable machines are "junk" machines that are left running in a closet somewhere? I would never want you to administer *my* network, bub. What if one of those junk machines could be exploited to give access to the more useful machines in the network? Or what if they weren't junk machines at all? If the admins of that network can leave easily exposed machines running what kind of security model do they have anyway? And if those machines are vulnerable to those old exploits then it's a sure thing that they are very very vulnerable to 0-day stuff, too.
How would you like to be a student at one of those universities, or a user of a commerce web site which has your credit card information, knowing that there is a *potential* and *very easy to exploit* vulnerability just waiting to happen? The articles point, methinks, is that if it's this easy to find an easily-compromised machine then there are probably a ridiculous amount of them on the internet and that people need to be more proactive about their security. Just assuming that these machines are internal department production servers is a risky way of administering a network. Why are they so exposed to the web if they don't matter? You would think a competent security admin would be proactive about finding and removing old, out-of-date machines that could potentially be compromised.
Of course, no amount of awesome admins will close all security holes. Physical and software security only can go so far. Hopefully these organizations that he pegged are smart enough to keep their really sensitive information locked up tight and not spread out all over their network.
What, me worry?
Sorry, had to do it.
Yeah, that's what I originally thought, too, but according to this you won't be able to access the networking features through the SDK, at least yet.
On the surface this looks like a great idea.. releasing the SDK so you can make your favorite single-player game on the XBox is great. But this seems overly restrictive... the dev tools are free, sure, but you can't do anything on an XBox 360 with them unless you pay $100.00 (which truthfully isn't that bad). The catch is that nobody *else* can do anything with your game unless they are also a subscriber. You can't distribute your game to anybody else any other way than through the developer subscriber network.
This is an interesting thing for Microsoft to do but by keeping it developer-only they're not making it compelling enough. First you have to pay a hundred bucks, second you don't have access to everything that makes XBox awesome, third barely anyone will be able to play it.
It's a good strategy to try and win people over to the XBox before the Wii comes along but I don't think they've gone quite far enough. But it's a step in the right direction!
However, my point was that the OSS community should strive to make a cross-platform virtualization solution. I'm guessing MS is banking on the notion that, since virtualization is still a fairly young technology, making it accessible with free software will make it "take off" and that's when Microsoft can start selling its "better" suite of virtualization software. OSS software shouldn't be about making people use Linux over Windows.. it should be about making software that won't fuck people in the ass. And since Windows seems to be here to stay for at least a little while longer, the OSS community should focus more effort into developing an open solution to virtualization so that, eventually, when it expands to new and exciting uses, people won't be using software that just "might" be free in the future when they need it.
OK. So Microsoft makes Virtual PC free. Suddenly everyone starts using virtualization software and (besides the licensing fees Microsoft will get for each copy of its OS that is virtualized) it's free and wonderful and everyone is happy that they can run all of their Operating Systems on one PC with much less hassle than before. Virtualization takes off, new uses are discovered for it, and it changes the way networks can be used. Hooray!
But eventually Microsoft stops maintaining Virtual PC (and discontinues support for it on any future operating systems) and decides to release Microsoft's new "Virtual Console" software that costs mucho bucks. Suddenly everyone that relies on Virtualization realizes that they'll either have to switch to some other virtualization software, change their software systems entirely, or simply bite the bullet and spend the money to upgrade to the new program.
This probably isn't news to anyone. In fact, it's the way things have been done since the first closed-source software program was created and sold. But I think that this is a perfect example of where Open Source software could really fit the bill and cause a paradigm shift to a better world where people aren't locked into one provider or another. If the OSS community could pull together and release a killer Virtualization app that's free as in speech perhaps people would start to see *why* software needs to be free, and perhaps they would realize it goes deeper than simply price.
I'm not trying to spread Microsoft FUD or spread the OSS gospel... but I think in scenarios like this an OSS alternative would be a no-brainer. Are there any OSS virtualization software suites in development right now (besides Wine)?
You're right, theoretical physicists created the atom bomb and last I checked not a single person had died because of their findings.
Instead of arguing all day about some fucking study, why not spend the time unifying the *nix distros, which is one of the major problems facing the OS. The reason people aren't migrating is because of the hefty amount of confusing feature-matching that has to occur going from a few "official" products to dozens and dozens of small, user-created programs. Flexibility, flexibility, I know... But c'mon, people. I don't use Linux much because I'm sick and tired of scouring through confusing, "assume-you-know-this-much" documentation and learning a hundred different text config files. There is great work being done in this department, but until the Linux community stops being nerd-centric and stops trying to re-invent the wheel with a different user interface then it stands no chance of overcoming Windows.
The only time we'll ever be secure is when we all learn to live in a society without secrets!
I believe that it's our right as humans to be given the choice to be a criminal. DRM is bad for everyone because it chips away at the dwindling stone that is our basic human freedoms. Remember, you're not going to wake up one day and be enslaved in some Orwellian labor camp... tiny compromises like these will add up over a long period of time.
I tend to agree. Apple do good work but their mice are fucking irritating. Sure this thing can be configurable for "two" buttons but it still doesn't solve the problem of having the whole mouse function as a button, instead of having the buttons isolated into, well, buttons. I'm sick of accidently clicking the mouse when I'm just trying to move it.
Because you're a complete dickhead.
I wasn't trying to imply that the Church is the CAUSE of the AIDS epidemic, just that they could be a large part of stopping it if they would just stop clinging to the "old ways" and start supporting contraception and birth control!
Wait.. doesn't the Catholic church frown upon the use of condoms? Is it a coincidence that Africa has one of the fastest-growing Catholic communities in the world, while also being plagued by an AIDS epidemic? Perhaps if the Church recognized that people are, *gasp*, having lots of sex, and instead spent more time promoting "safer sex," we would all be better off!
Why does our government concern itself with upholding moral standards that they have nothing to do with anyway? It seems to me that it shouldn't be in their interests to do this. We have to make people more responsible for themselves, not have Big Brother take care of everything for us.
Most atheists are some of the most generally "nice" people around (except when you ask them about religion!). The reason, I think, because we prescribe to THIS life, not something beyond. We realize that we are all we have!
Is it a coincidence that the sexually repressed countries of the world are also the most depressed and violent? Sex is probably THE most natural thing we have going for us. Humans have managed to breed a lot of natural instinct out of ourselves over the course of our evolution but the sex drive is something that still remains incredibly potent, despite centuries of trying to beat it back.
Love and monogamy is found nowhere else in nature... is it a coincidence that humans have historically been incredibly good at fooling ourselves (or to use an Orwellian concept: Doublethink)? We are quite adapt at doing one thing and thinking another. The staggering amount of sexually "deviant" priests is testament to this. It's so easy to call it a lack of willpower when really it's a much bigger issue: a problem with how we deal with sex in our lives.
And is it a coincidence that porn stars are usually the most happy, the most likeable, and the least self-conscious people you could ever meet? The people that make pornography, in reality, are a relatively small, tight-knit community of people built on trust, safety, and respect. Even the ones that make the hard-core gangbang porn. The people that call pornography "dirty" and "dangerous" are usually the ones that are completely jealous that they can't have it as often as they like.
Damn my lack of mod points!
Why does this even matter? It's their book, they can do whatever the hell they want with it. It's not harming anyone. I say, let those idiots waste their money and squander their profits on such ridiculous security measures.
You said falmed!!!
So let me get this straight... the author thinks it's arrogant for Microsoft to call him up, offer him the job unsolicited, and when he goes in for the interview they ask him technical questions instead of trying to sell him on the job? Who's the arrogant one here? I think he's just pissed that they didn't worship him because he has a PhD in CS.
So now I have to figure out whether OS means "Operating System" or "Open Source?" ;P
I'm out of touch? Do you forget that the COMMON PEOPLE are what run businesses? If Joe Sales Guy can't work his PC, the business loses productivity. Therefor, you have to give your employees what they need to get the job done. Windows is easy for the common people to grasp.
I have no opinions about Mr. Dvorak, but I think he really let his over-active imagination get the better of him here.