Did anybody get the point that American Psycho was a satire on yuppies?
I never read the whole book, just scanned it, and I could see that. I did see the movie and it seemed to re-emphasize it to me.
It's like Thomas Harris and the Lector series - the whole series is nothing but satire. I mean, an FBI agent who is so good at getting into the mind of a serial killer that he freaks out, another FBI agent who's obsessed with her career because of a lamb who ends up sleeping with Lector, and a psychiatrist who is a cannibal.
I mean, c'mon. That and the fact that Harris is reputed to have a wicked dark sense of humor.
Heh, heh, and you know a statistic like that IS bound to be low given the consequences of admitting to such a thing...:-)
How Jim Corr ever stood being around his three younger sisters is a matter I dare not speculate about.
I remember one funny exchange between them in an interview I have on video. The usual question was asked of them how they felt being seen as the "sexiest band in rock". Jim immediately said. "I never think of myself as sexy." To which Sharon immediately said, "I don't think of you as sexy, either!" To which Jim replied, "WELL! Thank you for that, SISTER!"
"We can't ship an operating system that does what it needs to do yet has _zero_ security bugs ever discovered over its lifecycle. We don't know how. If you do, or you know somebody that does, we'll hire them. For whatever money they want."
s/zero/less/; I think Linus and the kernel maintainers would be available for the right price.
The average user does NOT suffer from "raw socket support" - that is bullshit. The average user suffers from poor OS design - period.
And your laying the blame on third-party software designers for forcing users to run as admin is bullshit, too.
How many years has Microsoft offered SDKs to Windows developers? How many years has MS extolled the "right way" to program on Windows?
Are you telling us MS has NO SAY in how systems are developed on Windows? That all the APIs (not to mention the CONCEALED APIS that Brian Livingston has made a living revealing) are all just developed by third party companies and just "blessed" by Microsoft?
Microsoft could have had a secure OS back in the early '90's simply by stopping the Not-Invented-Here bullshit and monopoly creation tactics and adopting design principles from the last twenty years of UNIX and other more secure OS's.
Telling us that it was a last-minute change only when XP was released - and that only because it would break third-party apps - which broke ANYWAY when XP came out - is bullshit.
When I point out that MS pissed away $37 billion in a one-time stock prop scheme instead of advancing the state of the art in computer science, the Windows trolls are all over me. So now you tell us that "someday" MS will "raise the bar" for how fast Windows can be compromised when attached to the Net? From what? Twenty minutes back to forty minutes?
With all the additional "features" in Longhorn - those that weren't yanked to make it deliverable sometime this decade, that is - I don't think so.
Believe ME - your testing is inadequate. More importantly, your design people are inadequate. And your management is the most inadequate of all.
"One area that until very recently was an utter pain in the arse is that of unmounting CDs (or USB pens) when you had a file manager open and showing their contents"
One thing that drives me NUTS about Windows is when I use a file manager other than Explorer - and Explorer locks the file so I can't delete it in the other file manager. I have to open Explorer just to delete a file when the other file manager tells me (on Explorer's advice) that the "file is in use by another program" - which it is: the fucking file manager trying to delete it.
Nice of Microsoft to design a file API that prevents anyone from using any other file manager than theirs.
The reason they're pulling all these features is: a) They can't do them because the OS is already too complicated to be maintained. b) It would require hardware nobody has.
People who are saying the "average" user doesn't "need" raw sockets while saying that the hacker who does will use another OS ANYWAY are obviously missing the point.
Why bother disabling something that's part of a standard when it will have no effect on either the average user or the hacker?
MS is saying here that if the "average" user had raw sockets, they could program DoS code? I don't think that's gonna happen.
All disabling sockets has done is inconvenience nmap users - who just happen to be sys admins running security scans on their networks from their workstations.
Maybe MS doesn't want them to be able to run nmap? Like maybe they might find out how insecure their systems are?
In other words, you're saying that someone who doesn't know what a raw socket is doesn't need an OS that has one, whereas a hacker who does will use an OS that does ANYWAY?
By this logic, most users don't need most of the "features" on Windows.
Considering the pissant poor fucking software the industry grinds out from you $80-90,000 assholes, I wonder why some poor sod like me who has some respect for good coding and design could never get a fucking job for twenty years in this fucked-up industry.
Oh, wait, I guess I answered my own question.
Fuck the IT industry and everybody in it, especially the management of same.
Bill wants cheap assholes he can use to pile more useless features into his already useless crap.
That's why he told people years ago that Microsoft could hire twice as many women at half the pay and they would do the grunt work because "they're only women."
So now it's "foreigners" he can hire for half the pay to do the grunt work, since his wife might be irritated if he kept shafting women.
He's a fucking greedy, unprincipled asshole.
Period.
While I think there should be no restrictions on anybody working anywhere in the world they want to, anybody who says Gates is just looking for good help is an idiot.
Does MS actually figure out anything from these dumps? Especially when most users don't bother to send them?
If so, it appears to me that this is just another "feature" being added to the OS which has only marketing value and nothing else - like most of the rest of Windows.
If a third party program crashes on your system, how is MS's black box going to help? It's the third party programmers who should be cleaning up their act. If Windows crashes, MS should have done better testing.
The basic problem obviously is that Windows is too bloated and complex to function properly. A black box isn't going to help that.
Instead of making "black boxes", the morons at MS should be figuring out ways to make their code more reliable by improved testing or better yet, improved design.
Which means advancing the state of the art in software development rather than spending that $37 billion on a one time stock prop scheme as they did. Instead they spend their system designers's time trying to figure out ways to suck more stuff from the end user's machine.
And then Bill has the nerve to talk about "information overload".
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but they're all in Iraq getting their asses kicked...
Accordng to tests I've read, SUSE Linux would be about twice as fast - on 32-bit anyway.
Microsoft's problem is that their server OSes simply don't scale well, which means more servers, which means more failures on average.
Am I wrong or wasn't that because they were embarassed by the revelation that Akamai was using Linux servers to serve their pages?
I vaguely remember a headline that said "Microsoft protected by the penguin!"
"There are some visually stunning, stylish, yet intelligent and thought-provocative movies out there."
Really?
Name one.
I didn't think so.
I for one welcome our new Apple over...
Oh, forget it...
As Wolverine put it: "Terrorists? Yeah...That's what the big army calls the little army."
Did anybody get the point that American Psycho was a satire on yuppies?
I never read the whole book, just scanned it, and I could see that. I did see the movie and it seemed to re-emphasize it to me.
It's like Thomas Harris and the Lector series - the whole series is nothing but satire. I mean, an FBI agent who is so good at getting into the mind of a serial killer that he freaks out, another FBI agent who's obsessed with her career because of a lamb who ends up sleeping with Lector, and a psychiatrist who is a cannibal.
I mean, c'mon. That and the fact that Harris is reputed to have a wicked dark sense of humor.
What superhero DOESN'T that checklist apply to?
I dunno...My favorite was where Joker had just killed Jack Palance and was sitting at Palance's desk reading the paper about Batman and going:
"Batman? Terrorizes? Wait 'til they get a load of me! Oooop! Oooop! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA"
I quoted that line for days...
Heh, heh, and you know a statistic like that IS bound to be low given the consequences of admitting to such a thing...:-)
How Jim Corr ever stood being around his three younger sisters is a matter I dare not speculate about.
I remember one funny exchange between them in an interview I have on video. The usual question was asked of them how they felt being seen as the "sexiest band in rock". Jim immediately said. "I never think of myself as sexy." To which Sharon immediately said, "I don't think of you as sexy, either!" To which Jim replied, "WELL! Thank you for that, SISTER!"
Haven't you seen Angelina Jolie frenching her brother?
Everybody wants a sister like that, admit it!
Given that an estimated 15% of siblings have some sort of sexual experiences, it's no surprise.
"We can't ship an operating system that does what it needs to do yet has _zero_ security bugs ever discovered over its lifecycle. We don't know how. If you do, or you know somebody that does, we'll hire them. For whatever money they want."
s/zero/less/; I think Linus and the kernel maintainers would be available for the right price.
The average user does NOT suffer from "raw socket support" - that is bullshit. The average user suffers from poor OS design - period.
And your laying the blame on third-party software designers for forcing users to run as admin is bullshit, too.
How many years has Microsoft offered SDKs to Windows developers? How many years has MS extolled the "right way" to program on Windows?
Are you telling us MS has NO SAY in how systems are developed on Windows? That all the APIs (not to mention the CONCEALED APIS that Brian Livingston has made a living revealing) are all just developed by third party companies and just "blessed" by Microsoft?
Microsoft could have had a secure OS back in the early '90's simply by stopping the Not-Invented-Here bullshit and monopoly creation tactics and adopting design principles from the last twenty years of UNIX and other more secure OS's.
Telling us that it was a last-minute change only when XP was released - and that only because it would break third-party apps - which broke ANYWAY when XP came out - is bullshit.
When I point out that MS pissed away $37 billion in a one-time stock prop scheme instead of advancing the state of the art in computer science, the Windows trolls are all over me. So now you tell us that "someday" MS will "raise the bar" for how fast Windows can be compromised when attached to the Net? From what? Twenty minutes back to forty minutes?
With all the additional "features" in Longhorn - those that weren't yanked to make it deliverable sometime this decade, that is - I don't think so.
Believe ME - your testing is inadequate. More importantly, your design people are inadequate. And your management is the most inadequate of all.
"Usually you don't have to reinstall the OS to install a service pack, even if it does replace half the OS"
Have you tried installing Service Pack 1 for Windows 2003 Server?
Nearly three hundred megabytes.
Plan to spend an hour or so.
"at the time I used it"
Like I said, four years ago...
Why do people who's last experience with Linux was four years ago talk about it?
There's a new release of most major distros every six months or so. Windows comes out every five years.
Do the math.
Interesting you mentioned this:
"One area that until very recently was an utter pain in the arse is that of unmounting CDs (or USB pens) when you had a file manager open and showing their contents"
One thing that drives me NUTS about Windows is when I use a file manager other than Explorer - and Explorer locks the file so I can't delete it in the other file manager. I have to open Explorer just to delete a file when the other file manager tells me (on Explorer's advice) that the "file is in use by another program" - which it is: the fucking file manager trying to delete it.
Nice of Microsoft to design a file API that prevents anyone from using any other file manager than theirs.
"And the last time I used it""
Which was what? Four years ago?
Make that 512MB of RAM minimum.
And expect to need a 3GHz CPU.
The reason they're pulling all these features is:
a) They can't do them because the OS is already too complicated to be maintained.
b) It would require hardware nobody has.
Windows was never a bathtub - it was a sewer.
People who are saying the "average" user doesn't "need" raw sockets while saying that the hacker who does will use another OS ANYWAY are obviously missing the point.
Why bother disabling something that's part of a standard when it will have no effect on either the average user or the hacker?
MS is saying here that if the "average" user had raw sockets, they could program DoS code? I don't think that's gonna happen.
All disabling sockets has done is inconvenience nmap users - who just happen to be sys admins running security scans on their networks from their workstations.
Maybe MS doesn't want them to be able to run nmap? Like maybe they might find out how insecure their systems are?
"another overpriced Microsoft based proxy server"
And don't forget - Microsoft recommends you run EVERY server on a DIFFERENT machine. So you'll need another license...
In other words, you're saying that someone who doesn't know what a raw socket is doesn't need an OS that has one, whereas a hacker who does will use an OS that does ANYWAY?
By this logic, most users don't need most of the "features" on Windows.
Oh, wait...
Considering the pissant poor fucking software the industry grinds out from you $80-90,000 assholes, I wonder why some poor sod like me who has some respect for good coding and design could never get a fucking job for twenty years in this fucked-up industry.
Oh, wait, I guess I answered my own question.
Fuck the IT industry and everybody in it, especially the management of same.
"No, what Bill wants are the best employees"
Bwahahahahahahah!!!
Yeah, right, moron.
Bill wants cheap assholes he can use to pile more useless features into his already useless crap.
That's why he told people years ago that Microsoft could hire twice as many women at half the pay and they would do the grunt work because "they're only women."
So now it's "foreigners" he can hire for half the pay to do the grunt work, since his wife might be irritated if he kept shafting women.
He's a fucking greedy, unprincipled asshole.
Period.
While I think there should be no restrictions on anybody working anywhere in the world they want to, anybody who says Gates is just looking for good help is an idiot.
Does the current method even have any value?
Does MS actually figure out anything from these dumps? Especially when most users don't bother to send them?
If so, it appears to me that this is just another "feature" being added to the OS which has only marketing value and nothing else - like most of the rest of Windows.
If a third party program crashes on your system, how is MS's black box going to help? It's the third party programmers who should be cleaning up their act. If Windows crashes, MS should have done better testing.
The basic problem obviously is that Windows is too bloated and complex to function properly. A black box isn't going to help that.
Instead of making "black boxes", the morons at MS should be figuring out ways to make their code more reliable by improved testing or better yet, improved design.
Which means advancing the state of the art in software development rather than spending that $37 billion on a one time stock prop scheme as they did. Instead they spend their system designers's time trying to figure out ways to suck more stuff from the end user's machine.
And then Bill has the nerve to talk about "information overload".
Yes, 'cause when it goes down, you won't have network access...:-)
Bwahahahahahah!!!