I will send out an SMS on my cellphone and instantly tens of thousands of anarchists will descend on Washington and burn it to the ground.
In other words, the "right to assemble" is now a "security threat". (Unless it's the RNC, of course. And protesters get to be restricted to a cage a mile away.)
Heh, leaving aside the jpeg vulnerability, any tool that misses the ENTIRE WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM when looking for vulnerabilities is obviously useless.
Mod this flamebait, mod this troll. Is that all you got, huh? Are you nuts? Come at me!
Please back up your assertion that you are incapable of reading English or of not acting like a typical./ nerd-boy hunting for things to complain about another poster - like I'm doing right now.
"Criminal negligence" applies to idiots who do something that results in a criminal act which could have been prevented by application of common sense and due diligence.
Microsoft absolutely fits the "idiot" requirement.
What part of this don't you comprehend, Windows troll?
"then don't go places that have serious security concerns."
Like where, exactly? New York?
"Protect America. Vote Bush."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Bush is the biggest security threat the US has ever had. Makes Hitler (who after all was across the Atlantic) look like Bart Simpson.
Every intelligence agent, consultant and military authority on the planet has now come down saying Bush's policies have literally made the entire planet less safe from terrorism and war.
"War on terror", my ass.
"Troll" doesn't tell the half of it. We need a mod that says "Fucking moron".
"That totally marginalizes the work done to create those bits in the first place, though."
I have news for you. They ARE "marginalized". That is the PURPOSE of the free market - to minimize the cost of survival for everyone in the species. Which is why people who are first to market get "monopoly" profit - which is then rapidly eroded as others invest in that market and reduce the cost of acquiring that product.
Which is exactly what technology is supposed to do - and which is exactly what technology IS doing to so-called "intellectual property".
You have no clue. So you continue to blather "whatever", which demonstrates that fact clearly.
"Do you enjoy going through live being a complete and total self-centered, cheap ass bastard?"
Why not? Obviously you do, since according to your post, the whole world is about YOU.
Nothing - no intellectual concepts, no theory, no history of the human race, no effects of property and trade - nothing matters but that YOU GET PAID no matter how crappy your work, no matter how poor your marketing, no matter how limited your knowledge of anything, no matter how much of an asshole you have to be.
"If I create something and people use it without compensating me for my hard work and talent, then that is wrong."
Bullshit.
There is nothing in the theory of property or the history and evolution of the human species and economic social behavior which supports this notion.
Nothing.
Period.
As for "copying anything not a solid object", what the fuck do you think people are going to do when nanotech allows you to copy ANYTHING - including solid objects?
There is no such thing as "intellectual property" - except the one situation where I know something you don't and I sell that information to you - ONE TIME. After that, it is no longer "intellectual property" and becomes "general knowledge" (unless of course you keep it a secret, too - then you become a competitor.)
And in addition, your argument is bullshit because there is nothing in economic theory that says you HAVE to be compensated for anything, OR that you have to be "properly" compensated. All economic theory says is that you can trade something for something else. It does not say you have to be repeatedly compensated for the same item, nor does it say that you have to make a living from that compensation, nor does it say anything about replication and distribution by anyone else.
Nor does economic theory say anything about "fair". "Fair" is a value judgement and has nothing to do with economics. Economics measures "value" based on action - if you do it, you thought it was in your interest to do it, so that was the "value" you placed on it.
Anything else is moralistic bullshit.
If you produce a product which is easily reproducible and distributable, you'd better find a way to make your money up front or all at once, because in the real world - not the world of lawyers and politicians - in the real world of technology, the "value" of your product is going to go to near (but never absolute) zero very quickly. The way you deal with that is to be creative in your marketing - not by whining and passing laws and attempting to coerce people into giving you money for something which has MUCH less "value" than you think it does.
This is the guy who thinks a sculptor should be allowed to sue you - if not have you arrested - if you buy his sculpture, put it on your lawn and then paint it blue.
He has no clue about the nature and purpose of property in human society.
This is what you get when so-called "intellectual property" (an oxymoron at best) supercedes correct concepts of property.
The point was that some people are saying that patches won't be applied anymore to IE on XP systems, and other people are saying that patches will be applied to such. The real statement was Microsoft saying EXPLICITLY that if you want the SAME sort of "security" that XP has, you should UPGRADE! Period!
I asked: "What part of that don't you Windows trolls get?"
And yet, another bunch of posters continue to bleat that MS will still supply patches for 2000, etc. Well, yes, they probably will - but you will NOT get BACK-PORTED security features - if you want the latest, you have to upgrade to XP.
"It's not as simple as don't use IE as a web browser. Outlook and Outlook Express use it. Quicken uses it. Any executable or VBscript could open an IE control and send an exploit to it."
Do I need to say what the solution to those problem are?
Don't use those products.
Turn off scripting.
If enough people do this, companies will stop using IE functions to open security holes in their products (provided of course that their customers tell them that's why they've stopped using their products.)
'Microsoft affirmed that its recent security improvements to IE would be made available only to XP users.
"We do not have plans to deliver Windows XP SP2 enhancements for Windows 2000 or other older versions of Windows," the company said in a statement. "The most secure version of Windows today is Windows XP with SP2. We recommend that customers upgrade to XP and SP2 as quickly as possible."'
Slashdot Mirror
I will send out an SMS on my cellphone and instantly tens of thousands of anarchists will descend on Washington and burn it to the ground.
In other words, the "right to assemble" is now a "security threat". (Unless it's the RNC, of course. And protesters get to be restricted to a cage a mile away.)
Doesn't get more obvious than this.
As you do note in your comments, however, it's not really doable without a good simulation of conceptual processing.
Still, every little bit helps. Certainly a "Semantic Web" would be more useful than the current one.
That's better.
This is more on Ballmer's level. The original version used too many big words - and none of them had to do with money.
One word.
Guess which word.
"Microsoft did not write their own JPEG code"
And they obviously never looked at it either, right?
Not during their last "security initiative" and not during their PREVIOUS "security initiative" either.
Anybody remember the "code freeze to tighten up security" several years back?
"I think Microsoft should start focusing at least SOME of their efforts on some sort of security initiative or something."
They did that in 2001 and again this year.
This is the result.
Depressing, isn't it?
Right - typical Microsoft coding practice.
"How to write a slashdot comment 101: ;)"
/. comments REQUIRE bad spelling.
don't ever bother to check your spelling
No, that belongs in "How To Write A Slashdot Headline".
Oops, just violated the rules. Let me korrect that.
Heh, leaving aside the jpeg vulnerability, any tool that misses the ENTIRE WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM when looking for vulnerabilities is obviously useless.
Mod this flamebait, mod this troll. Is that all you got, huh? Are you nuts? Come at me!
Thankfully, we're not running ./ code.
Please back up your assertion that you are incapable of reading English or of not acting like a typical ./ nerd-boy hunting for things to complain about another poster - like I'm doing right now.
"Criminal negligence" applies to idiots who do something that results in a criminal act which could have been prevented by application of common sense and due diligence.
Microsoft absolutely fits the "idiot" requirement.
What part of this don't you comprehend, Windows troll?
"then don't go places that have serious security concerns."
Like where, exactly? New York?
"Protect America. Vote Bush."
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Bush is the biggest security threat the US has ever had. Makes Hitler (who after all was across the Atlantic) look like Bart Simpson.
Every intelligence agent, consultant and military authority on the planet has now come down saying Bush's policies have literally made the entire planet less safe from terrorism and war.
"War on terror", my ass.
"Troll" doesn't tell the half of it. We need a mod that says "Fucking moron".
"Does Europe want to continue to alienate itself from America?"
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
To say this after Bush's performance prior to the start of the Iraq war is a major act of chutzpah.
You aren't Israeli by any chance, are you?
You didn't grasp anything I said.
No surprise.
"That totally marginalizes the work done to create those bits in the first place, though."
I have news for you. They ARE "marginalized". That is the PURPOSE of the free market - to minimize the cost of survival for everyone in the species. Which is why people who are first to market get "monopoly" profit - which is then rapidly eroded as others invest in that market and reduce the cost of acquiring that product.
Which is exactly what technology is supposed to do - and which is exactly what technology IS doing to so-called "intellectual property".
You have no clue. So you continue to blather "whatever", which demonstrates that fact clearly.
"Do you enjoy going through live being a complete and total self-centered, cheap ass bastard?"
Why not? Obviously you do, since according to your post, the whole world is about YOU.
Nothing - no intellectual concepts, no theory, no history of the human race, no effects of property and trade - nothing matters but that YOU GET PAID no matter how crappy your work, no matter how poor your marketing, no matter how limited your knowledge of anything, no matter how much of an asshole you have to be.
Read my lips.
FUCK YOU.
"If I create something and people use it without compensating me for my hard work and talent, then that is wrong."
Bullshit.
There is nothing in the theory of property or the history and evolution of the human species and economic social behavior which supports this notion.
Nothing.
Period.
As for "copying anything not a solid object", what the fuck do you think people are going to do when nanotech allows you to copy ANYTHING - including solid objects?
There is no such thing as "intellectual property" - except the one situation where I know something you don't and I sell that information to you - ONE TIME. After that, it is no longer "intellectual property" and becomes "general knowledge" (unless of course you keep it a secret, too - then you become a competitor.)
And in addition, your argument is bullshit because there is nothing in economic theory that says you HAVE to be compensated for anything, OR that you have to be "properly" compensated. All economic theory says is that you can trade something for something else. It does not say you have to be repeatedly compensated for the same item, nor does it say that you have to make a living from that compensation, nor does it say anything about replication and distribution by anyone else.
Nor does economic theory say anything about "fair". "Fair" is a value judgement and has nothing to do with economics. Economics measures "value" based on action - if you do it, you thought it was in your interest to do it, so that was the "value" you placed on it.
Anything else is moralistic bullshit.
If you produce a product which is easily reproducible and distributable, you'd better find a way to make your money up front or all at once, because in the real world - not the world of lawyers and politicians - in the real world of technology, the "value" of your product is going to go to near (but never absolute) zero very quickly. The way you deal with that is to be creative in your marketing - not by whining and passing laws and attempting to coerce people into giving you money for something which has MUCH less "value" than you think it does.
This is the guy who thinks a sculptor should be allowed to sue you - if not have you arrested - if you buy his sculpture, put it on your lawn and then paint it blue.
He has no clue about the nature and purpose of property in human society.
This is what you get when so-called "intellectual property" (an oxymoron at best) supercedes correct concepts of property.
Can't find the review on the magazine site, either.
Real helpful links we've got here.
I replied to the entire list of entries following my post - which included exactly the sort of comments I referenced in my last post.
Nothing I said here contradicts the article. How is that possible when I DIRECTLY QUOTED the article?
Another Windows troll.
You wouldn't be trying to suck up now, would you?
Won't work, I gotta tell ya.
As usual, everyone missed the point.
The point was that some people are saying that patches won't be applied anymore to IE on XP systems, and other people are saying that patches will be applied to such. The real statement was Microsoft saying EXPLICITLY that if you want the SAME sort of "security" that XP has, you should UPGRADE! Period!
I asked: "What part of that don't you Windows trolls get?"
And yet, another bunch of posters continue to bleat that MS will still supply patches for 2000, etc. Well, yes, they probably will - but you will NOT get BACK-PORTED security features - if you want the latest, you have to upgrade to XP.
RTFA! R-T-F-EXPLICIT-Quote-I-Reproduced!
"It's not as simple as don't use IE as a web browser. Outlook and Outlook Express use it. Quicken uses it. Any executable or VBscript could open an IE control and send an exploit to it."
Do I need to say what the solution to those problem are?
Don't use those products.
Turn off scripting.
If enough people do this, companies will stop using IE functions to open security holes in their products (provided of course that their customers tell them that's why they've stopped using their products.)
What part of THIS don't you get?
'Microsoft affirmed that its recent security improvements to IE would be made available only to XP users.
"We do not have plans to deliver Windows XP SP2 enhancements for Windows 2000 or other older versions of Windows," the company said in a statement. "The most secure version of Windows today is Windows XP with SP2. We recommend that customers upgrade to XP and SP2 as quickly as possible."'
Windows troll alert!!!
P2P email account?
Hosted over the whole P2P network?
Nobody said it has to work, it just has to have an "email address", right?
Anybody know what Maria's email address is?
Or maybe Laura Bush?