"Now, what was your point? That M$ is insecure because it has so many "features"? Get real."
You blew it. Pull your head out of your ass and actually listen to what I said.
Man, you anti-MS zealots never give up. "We're not going to listen to the guy who has to maintain 20 or so Win2k machines running Office 2000/XP, no no no they did stuff in the past and that's all we need to be righteous."
"That is an urban legend, and in fact never happened [snopes.com]."
I find it amusing that three people (so far) have been willing to do research to verify the truth of the story I referred to, but they didn't do the research to find out that other people had already informed me of this.
"I do a fair amount of time-shifting now, using two S-VHS decks--a PVR would free me from the purchase of tapes and periodic cleaning," Jeff Carlson said. "But a PVR only duplicates the functions of a VCR; it doesn't provide any truly new-and-exciting, can't-live-without-it functions. "
Only duplicates the functions of a VCR?
- Random access to content - Pause live TV - Program it to tape a show instead of chunk of time on a particular channel - Commercial Skip - Dump it to your computer (more valuable than it'd seem)
I don't think this guy was doing anything BUT looking for negatives about these things. He finds them noisy?
Anyway, this guy doesn't really know what he's talking about. I think he's in the mode of "Well I can live without it if I just work a little harder". That's not a valid point or an educated opinion, it's a closed mind.
"There's something called "criminal negligence". Look it up. Criminal negligence is all about how, if you can't do a job right, you aren't allowed to do it at all. If you go ahead and do it anyways, and that causes some harm to some person, you're criminally negligent."
Oh grow up. I'd give a more detailed response if I thought you were saying anything but "I hate Microsoft, I hate Microsoft, I hate Microsoft."
By your logic, the company who made Kazaa would be 'criminally negligent' because of what some of its users do with it.
Man, if you're going to respond to me, spare me the anti-MS propoganda.
"So I still get the app for free -- it's just a question of paying for ancillary information (documentation, support, etc.) that will help me use the app more effectively."
That's probably what would happen in a real-world scenario. I was imagining a more extreme scenario. I'm just worried people will see Open Source as a way of making a quick buck, which kind of defeats the purpose of Open Source doesn't it? I'm also worried extreme measures will be taken to lock up valuable information until it's paid for.
I don't know if I was being entirely rational at the time. While I was in the middle of that thread, a friend of mine was fuming over a 3D Model he made of a Star Trek ship. Somebody had taken the model (that he provided for free...), taken pieces of it off and placed them on another model. Though he was credited with the work, he was mad that he was never contacted about obtaining permission to do that. Then he started saying things like "I'm not going to release any more meshes" or "The only way I'm going to release a mesh is if I only give it to people I absolutely trust".
His attitude rubbed me the wrong way. He contributed to a community, and somebody abused it. He nearly overreacted over that, and the numerous people who trated him and his work with the proper respect were the ones that would have been burned.
Is this totally relevant to our convo? Well, I'm not sure about that now. At the time, I was able to connect the two scenarios (the Open Source documentation and the harsh measures for protecting the mesh), but I'm not so sure I can connect them now. At least you get an idea of the state of mind I was in and why I was thinking in more extreme terms.:)
One thing that bugs me a bit about this article is that it defines an exploit as a security hole. While this is true, the tone of the article makes it sound worse than it really is.
I mean, think about what an exploit really is: Somebody has taken a feature of Windows and turned it against the user or the user's machine. The problem I see here is that you can't have a totally secure machine and have all those fancy features you like.
I'll give you an example: I use Outlooks's to do list to keep track of my tasks. There's a feature where you can attach shortcuts to each task. I've found this handy, whenever I need to do my time sheet I just pull up the task and double click the shortcut inside of it. Now, in order to 'crack down' on security on my computer, I turned off a bunch of those handy-dandy features and found myself unable to launch that shortcut anymore!
Now, before you start saying "Oh, MS could easily fix that...", instead think about the real problem here. Either I don't use that feature at all, or MS has to think of every single malicious use of a feature and only allow the non-dangerous ones. Sorry, that's not a good solution. You're holding MS (or anybody else) responsible for other people's creativity.
I'm not saying that MS is unfairly given a bad rap for this whole topic. I think their default choices are ill-thought and have caused serious damage. However, it needs to be considered that there is always an inherent risk with any piece of software you use. It's not a matter of security holes, it's a matter of deciding whether or not it's worth the risk.
I, for one, would never underestimate people's creativity. I read about an insurance scam once where this guy got fire insurance for each of his cigars, over $1,000 a piece. Then he smoked them. He took the insurance company to court, and the judge reluctantly ruled that the insurance company had to pay the guy $12,000. Fortunately for the insurance company, though, they were able to charge him with arson. Heh he got a hefty fine ($10,000 ish? I don't remember..) and served jail time.
Now, if you think about this insurance company, you probably wonder why they didn't a policy about cigars or items that were meant to work with fire? Well, it's simple: They never imagined that somebody'd do that. The only way they could be fraud proof is if they were to clearly define the rules for every ridiculous outcome they can think of. Know what'd happen then? There would be people unable to redeem fair claims because their unusual case strayed outside the boundaries that are clearly defined. There would also be that one guy who figures out a creative way to buck the system anyway. The insurance company is far better off coming up with ways to deal with the eventual fraud instead of over-relying on their policies and laws to protect them.
So where does that leave us computer people? Well, it's simple: Using a computer is risky. Take a few risks but protect yourself. Worried about people stealing your credit card info on-line? My answer is not: "well don't use one then!" Instead, my answer is: "Get a credit card with a company that'll protect you in that event." Worried about data loss? Make backups once in a while. Worried about hackers breaking in on your always on connection? Use a firewall, but use common sense too. A firewall is the equivalent of shutting a few windows, it's not a structural reinforcement.
Total security is a pipe dream. Instead of blaming Microsoft, take some sensible precautions to minimize the damage done. The benefit here is that you protect yourself from damage that can happen outside of the exploit world. (Lightning strikes, hardware failure, children...)
"Gamer1: Hey guys, I just picked up Doom 3. Gamer2: It isn't retail is it? Gamer1: Ummm...yeah? Gamer3: He bought retail! That lamer! Gamer2: He's a witch! Burn him!"
Gamer1: Give me a break guys, the Lunix version wasn't available yet! Gamer2: Yeah yeah, we know the real reason is that you haven't switched from AOL yet. What's the matter, do you feel threatened by their No Hacking Policy?
"Scrolling down to the bottom of the page, it also makes that age-old claim of the link between violence in video games and real-world violence."
I don't believe there's a link between violence and video games. There are two reasons for this:
1.) We haven't seen a rise in violence that correlates to the rise in video game popularity. It's kind of like that article yesterday about the Port Chicago tragedy. "If it was a nuclear bomb, where's the radiation?"
2.) What are video games teaching children that cartoons don't? Ever watch Tom & Jerry? Bugs Bunny? Itchy and Scratchy?
No, don't look at over population in schools and lack of activities for students, the problems must have come from these new-fangled video games. Funny thing is, I think video games will work towards creating friendships and social structures, not against it. Anybody who's made friends while playing Quake knows what I'm talking about.
"I won't even get into that here, but it's interesting to note that even though they claim "new research" supports them..."
The research probably went like this:
"I'm trying to play here, get out of the way!"
"That's it! He's more violent."
What's sad is that there's some parents out there who don't know anything about video games who'll read this BS and try to 'shelter' their kids. What do you think the result will be? Well behaved model children? Nope. You'll get rebellion.
"I was looking at 2 dead joysticks on my shelf the other day, and noticed how they looked oddly similar to male sex organs. Now if a feminist made this connection, and had a thing against male sex organs, then the computer gaming industry could be in real trouble;-)"
"I see a deliberate attempt to mislead customers, myself."
I wouldn't quite go that far. I vaguely remember hearing about Lindows before this whole PC deal. I'm not claiming to know the factual details of what happened, but I do remember having the impression that it was another Linux distro intended to woo over Windows uers. I remember being really surprised that Walmart would actually carry PC's with Lindows installed on it.
I'm not sure that they were thinking about mass-market considerations when they named it Lindows. Assuming I'm right (or at least close to it), that would mean they're not being malicious.
Its really hard to judge in a case like this given the names they were trying to merge.
... if Lindows was anything but an OS. If it were a game, for example, then there'd be no lawsuit. But you've got two products that do, from the customer's end, the same thing. Changing one letter of it is not enough. You have to remember that this product is being catered to people who are not computer saavy. They're not going to know why it's called Lindows and why it's different.
What should they have called it, though? Well, it's a Linux Alternative for the Consumer, how about LAC? LacOs. I like it.
"The article repeatedly suggests that crash data would be used to enhance safety, without ever specifying how that is supposed to occur. "
At best this might settle insurance disputes. The only way I can see this data being useful is if they can plug the recorder into a laptop and see a 3D animation of accident occuring. They *might* be able to save an occasional life with it.
I realize I'm being a little naieve here, but I've never studied medicine. TV is all I have to go by here. I've seen a couple of different shows where people have been involved in an accident and walked away, only to collapse later due to undetected head trauma. Now, this is TV, it's fiction, so I don't know if this happens in real life or not. But let's say it does: Wouldn't something like this give EMT's a clue that somebody could be more seriously injured than they appear?
I doubt this is something you'd turn the industry over for, but I can see uses for it popping up here and there after it's installed.
Anybody remember F-15 Strike Eagle for the Atari 800 series? Not only did it have an embarrasingly slow frame-rate, but you could land your plane upside-down!
"The $600 (or whatever) that you pay for Photoshop provides no guarantees either, and it's a lot easier to evaluate something that's freely available on many more platforms."
Not true. a.) I can download an evaluation copy of Photoshop with documentation. b.) $600 means there's a customer service obligation. You don't get that just by buying a manual.
"...many others seem to do fine without it, and some of those people have even put together free manuals..." -- I see what you're saying and think you make a good point. However, I don't totally agree. Do Open Source programs usually have people focused on QA? I'm not claiming to know the answer to that, but I'd be surprised to find that a significant portion does.
" If you don't like it, whining about it isn't going to change anything."
Whining? No need to be insulting. I have a legitimate criticism about this approach to making money on free software. It's a bas-ackwards approach to making a few bucks on it. It's totally okay to want money from me when they create something that solves a problem of mine, it is not okay to ask for money just to figure out how the thing works. They want the people who've never used it before to pay, not the people who are actually solving problems with it.
This has nothing to do with wanting something for nothing, it has everything to do with making sure that these guys don't lose interest in continuing work on a project.
Slashdot Mirror
"Now, what was your point? That M$ is insecure because it has so many "features"? Get real."
You blew it. Pull your head out of your ass and actually listen to what I said.
Man, you anti-MS zealots never give up. "We're not going to listen to the guy who has to maintain 20 or so Win2k machines running Office 2000/XP, no no no they did stuff in the past and that's all we need to be righteous."
Grow up.
"That is an urban legend, and in fact never happened [snopes.com]."
I find it amusing that three people (so far) have been willing to do research to verify the truth of the story I referred to, but they didn't do the research to find out that other people had already informed me of this.
Wow, talk about a flamebait article:
"I do a fair amount of time-shifting now, using two S-VHS decks--a PVR would free me from the purchase of tapes and periodic cleaning," Jeff Carlson said. "But a PVR only duplicates the functions of a VCR; it doesn't provide any truly new-and-exciting, can't-live-without-it functions. "
Only duplicates the functions of a VCR?
- Random access to content
- Pause live TV
- Program it to tape a show instead of chunk of time on a particular channel
- Commercial Skip
- Dump it to your computer (more valuable than it'd seem)
I don't think this guy was doing anything BUT looking for negatives about these things. He finds them noisy?
Anyway, this guy doesn't really know what he's talking about. I think he's in the mode of "Well I can live without it if I just work a little harder". That's not a valid point or an educated opinion, it's a closed mind.
"You may want to check [snopes.com] your sources first."
;)
Doh, it's a hoax. I stand corrected. It's a damn good anecdote, though.
"There's something called "criminal negligence". Look it up. Criminal negligence is all about how, if you can't do a job right, you aren't allowed to do it at all. If you go ahead and do it anyways, and that causes some harm to some person, you're criminally negligent."
Oh grow up. I'd give a more detailed response if I thought you were saying anything but "I hate Microsoft, I hate Microsoft, I hate Microsoft."
By your logic, the company who made Kazaa would be 'criminally negligent' because of what some of its users do with it.
Man, if you're going to respond to me, spare me the anti-MS propoganda.
"So I still get the app for free -- it's just a question of paying for ancillary information (documentation, support, etc.) that will help me use the app more effectively."
:)
That's probably what would happen in a real-world scenario. I was imagining a more extreme scenario. I'm just worried people will see Open Source as a way of making a quick buck, which kind of defeats the purpose of Open Source doesn't it?
I'm also worried extreme measures will be taken to lock up valuable information until it's paid for.
I don't know if I was being entirely rational at the time. While I was in the middle of that thread, a friend of mine was fuming over a 3D Model he made of a Star Trek ship. Somebody had taken the model (that he provided for free...), taken pieces of it off and placed them on another model. Though he was credited with the work, he was mad that he was never contacted about obtaining permission to do that. Then he started saying things like "I'm not going to release any more meshes" or "The only way I'm going to release a mesh is if I only give it to people I absolutely trust".
His attitude rubbed me the wrong way. He contributed to a community, and somebody abused it. He nearly overreacted over that, and the numerous people who trated him and his work with the proper respect were the ones that would have been burned.
Is this totally relevant to our convo? Well, I'm not sure about that now. At the time, I was able to connect the two scenarios (the Open Source documentation and the harsh measures for protecting the mesh), but I'm not so sure I can connect them now. At least you get an idea of the state of mind I was in and why I was thinking in more extreme terms.
One thing that bugs me a bit about this article is that it defines an exploit as a security hole. While this is true, the tone of the article makes it sound worse than it really is.
I mean, think about what an exploit really is: Somebody has taken a feature of Windows and turned it against the user or the user's machine. The problem I see here is that you can't have a totally secure machine and have all those fancy features you like.
I'll give you an example: I use Outlooks's to do list to keep track of my tasks. There's a feature where you can attach shortcuts to each task. I've found this handy, whenever I need to do my time sheet I just pull up the task and double click the shortcut inside of it. Now, in order to 'crack down' on security on my computer, I turned off a bunch of those handy-dandy features and found myself unable to launch that shortcut anymore!
Now, before you start saying "Oh, MS could easily fix that...", instead think about the real problem here. Either I don't use that feature at all, or MS has to think of every single malicious use of a feature and only allow the non-dangerous ones. Sorry, that's not a good solution. You're holding MS (or anybody else) responsible for other people's creativity.
I'm not saying that MS is unfairly given a bad rap for this whole topic. I think their default choices are ill-thought and have caused serious damage. However, it needs to be considered that there is always an inherent risk with any piece of software you use. It's not a matter of security holes, it's a matter of deciding whether or not it's worth the risk.
I, for one, would never underestimate people's creativity. I read about an insurance scam once where this guy got fire insurance for each of his cigars, over $1,000 a piece. Then he smoked them. He took the insurance company to court, and the judge reluctantly ruled that the insurance company had to pay the guy $12,000. Fortunately for the insurance company, though, they were able to charge him with arson. Heh he got a hefty fine ($10,000 ish? I don't remember..) and served jail time.
Now, if you think about this insurance company, you probably wonder why they didn't a policy about cigars or items that were meant to work with fire? Well, it's simple: They never imagined that somebody'd do that. The only way they could be fraud proof is if they were to clearly define the rules for every ridiculous outcome they can think of. Know what'd happen then? There would be people unable to redeem fair claims because their unusual case strayed outside the boundaries that are clearly defined. There would also be that one guy who figures out a creative way to buck the system anyway. The insurance company is far better off coming up with ways to deal with the eventual fraud instead of over-relying on their policies and laws to protect them.
So where does that leave us computer people? Well, it's simple: Using a computer is risky. Take a few risks but protect yourself. Worried about people stealing your credit card info on-line? My answer is not: "well don't use one then!" Instead, my answer is: "Get a credit card with a company that'll protect you in that event." Worried about data loss? Make backups once in a while. Worried about hackers breaking in on your always on connection? Use a firewall, but use common sense too. A firewall is the equivalent of shutting a few windows, it's not a structural reinforcement.
Total security is a pipe dream. Instead of blaming Microsoft, take some sensible precautions to minimize the damage done. The benefit here is that you protect yourself from damage that can happen outside of the exploit world. (Lightning strikes, hardware failure, children...)
"Gamer1: Hey guys, I just picked up Doom 3.
Gamer2: It isn't retail is it?
Gamer1: Ummm...yeah?
Gamer3: He bought retail! That lamer!
Gamer2: He's a witch! Burn him!"
Gamer1: Give me a break guys, the Lunix version wasn't available yet!
Gamer2: Yeah yeah, we know the real reason is that you haven't switched from AOL yet. What's the matter, do you feel threatened by their No Hacking Policy?
"Scrolling down to the bottom of the page, it also makes that age-old claim of the link between violence in video games and real-world violence."
I don't believe there's a link between violence and video games. There are two reasons for this:
1.) We haven't seen a rise in violence that correlates to the rise in video game popularity. It's kind of like that article yesterday about the Port Chicago tragedy. "If it was a nuclear bomb, where's the radiation?"
2.) What are video games teaching children that cartoons don't? Ever watch Tom & Jerry? Bugs Bunny? Itchy and Scratchy?
No, don't look at over population in schools and lack of activities for students, the problems must have come from these new-fangled video games. Funny thing is, I think video games will work towards creating friendships and social structures, not against it. Anybody who's made friends while playing Quake knows what I'm talking about.
"I won't even get into that here, but it's interesting to note that even though they claim "new research" supports them..."
The research probably went like this:
"I'm trying to play here, get out of the way!"
"That's it! He's more violent."
What's sad is that there's some parents out there who don't know anything about video games who'll read this BS and try to 'shelter' their kids. What do you think the result will be? Well behaved model children? Nope. You'll get rebellion.
"I was looking at 2 dead joysticks on my shelf the other day, and noticed how they looked oddly similar to male sex organs. Now if a feminist made this connection, and had a thing against male sex organs, then the computer gaming industry could be in real trouble ;-)"
So how do you explain 'Game Pads' to feminists?
Yuck I grossed myself out.
"Where's teh mention that you need to register to read this article?"
They probably never mentioned it because you don't need one.
"They point to the fact that the current "Back" is more of an "Up" in a stack of pages. They propose a system that records all pages visited."
Yeah, you're going "Up" in a stack of pages that you've visisted. So who's the twerp that thought this needed to be fixed?
"I see a deliberate attempt to mislead customers, myself."
I wouldn't quite go that far. I vaguely remember hearing about Lindows before this whole PC deal. I'm not claiming to know the factual details of what happened, but I do remember having the impression that it was another Linux distro intended to woo over Windows uers. I remember being really surprised that Walmart would actually carry PC's with Lindows installed on it.
I'm not sure that they were thinking about mass-market considerations when they named it Lindows. Assuming I'm right (or at least close to it), that would mean they're not being malicious.
Its really hard to judge in a case like this given the names they were trying to merge.
I personally will not be drooling over this processor until Lightwave is ported over to it to take advantage of its processing capabilities.
"If this chip...Doesn't perform..and I mean really perform...I'm not sure if AMD will be with us much longer...
Good catch. We should probably avoid buying AMD products until things turn around for them.
... if Lindows was anything but an OS. If it were a game, for example, then there'd be no lawsuit. But you've got two products that do, from the customer's end, the same thing. Changing one letter of it is not enough. You have to remember that this product is being catered to people who are not computer saavy. They're not going to know why it's called Lindows and why it's different.
What should they have called it, though? Well, it's a Linux Alternative for the Consumer, how about LAC? LacOs. I like it.
"Everyone that bought thier PC at Wal-Mart in the last few months."
Some of them have 2 or 3 PC's. They're sitting in their front yards on top of cinder blocks.
When a disaster like this happens, I hope I'm able to say "What the hell was that?!"
"Ah, but are they anti-matter?"
Before or after the blast?
Yep yep, I think we're in agreeance.
:)
Cheers man.
"The article repeatedly suggests that crash data would be used to enhance safety, without ever specifying how that is supposed to occur. "
At best this might settle insurance disputes. The only way I can see this data being useful is if they can plug the recorder into a laptop and see a 3D animation of accident occuring. They *might* be able to save an occasional life with it.
I realize I'm being a little naieve here, but I've never studied medicine. TV is all I have to go by here. I've seen a couple of different shows where people have been involved in an accident and walked away, only to collapse later due to undetected head trauma. Now, this is TV, it's fiction, so I don't know if this happens in real life or not. But let's say it does: Wouldn't something like this give EMT's a clue that somebody could be more seriously injured than they appear?
I doubt this is something you'd turn the industry over for, but I can see uses for it popping up here and there after it's installed.
Anybody remember F-15 Strike Eagle for the Atari 800 series? Not only did it have an embarrasingly slow frame-rate, but you could land your plane upside-down!
"The $600 (or whatever) that you pay for Photoshop provides no guarantees either, and it's a lot easier to evaluate something that's freely available on many more platforms."
Not true. a.) I can download an evaluation copy of Photoshop with documentation. b.) $600 means there's a customer service obligation. You don't get that just by buying a manual.
"...many others seem to do fine without it, and some of those people have even put together free manuals..." -- I see what you're saying and think you make a good point. However, I don't totally agree. Do Open Source programs usually have people focused on QA? I'm not claiming to know the answer to that, but I'd be surprised to find that a significant portion does.
" If you don't like it, whining about it isn't going to change anything."
Whining? No need to be insulting. I have a legitimate criticism about this approach to making money on free software. It's a bas-ackwards approach to making a few bucks on it. It's totally okay to want money from me when they create something that solves a problem of mine, it is not okay to ask for money just to figure out how the thing works. They want the people who've never used it before to pay, not the people who are actually solving problems with it.
This has nothing to do with wanting something for nothing, it has everything to do with making sure that these guys don't lose interest in continuing work on a project.
"I'm guessing only when the moon is full? Do you chase cars and howl at the moon at the same time?"
;)
No, but I am typing with only one hand right now.
Thanks man. CHeers. :)