Not at all. Microsoft got caught flat footed when the Internet went public. Windows was never able to be used safely on anything but a trusted network, and after almost twenty years it still isn't. If it were, why do I have to install a third-party firewall and run third-party anti-malware software, that is, if I want to use it on the Internet?
Stop making excuses. All operating systems are vulnerable, to varying degrees, when connected to the global network. Only one OS, however, stands out as a shining example of how not to do it.
And I spent five hours last night cleaning up friend's Vista machine. Her husband and her kids have a habit of repeatedly infecting the thing since they are either unwilling or unable to exhibit the slightest discipline when using the Web, and will install anything that's shiny and free.
I have neighbors like that. After cleaning up after them a few times I charged them my normal rate to clean up their computer. It hasn't been infected since.
Or it's just as infected but they're just dealing with it since they're too cheap to pay you what you're worth. Which is just the same so far as you're concerned, I agree.
Seriously though, if they couldn't even handle a switch from IE to Firefox, you think they're not going to raise holy hell if you swap out the entire OS?
Doesn't matter. So far as she's concerned, they're going to get told. We'll try to make the transition as easy as possible, but sometimes you just have to bite the bullet. It's her computer, and those are her kids, and they'll do as they're told. Her husband couldn't care less so long as he can get his email and go to a few Web sites he needs. The kids are the big problem. I also told her we could just get them their own computer, and when they break it... tough. Maybe then they'll start to learn a little respect. They've wasted enough of their mother's time, not to mention mine.
Fucking prudes. They should all just get laid, and get over it.
I think the problem in this case is that they did get laid, and still haven't gotten over it.
That's the problem with the Prude Cycle. If you are brought up to be largely incapable of truly enjoying sex, you'll pass that on to your kids, by inducing them to have the same irrational fears and anxieties about sex as you do. It's the same way all institutionalized irrationality is promulgated down through the ages. Hell, it's the reason why all organized religion insists upon indoctrinating the young: get them before they have any ability to think for themselves, instill your belief system before they have the mental tools to analyze it and possibly reject it. If you can get your thought patterns thoroughly embedded in your children, down at the level of attitudes where they're very hard to get at later, you can pretty much program them for life.
Personally, I believe in my father's approach to parenting, neatly summarized by this quote (I can't remember where I heard it): "Don't teach your kids what to think, just teach them to think."
And I spent five hours last night cleaning up friend's Vista machine. Her husband and her kids have a habit of repeatedly infecting the thing since they are either unwilling or unable to exhibit the slightest discipline when using the Web, and will install anything that's shiny and free. The last time around I installed Firefox and Chrome (so if some site wouldn't work in one, they could try in the other) and, at her request, removed all their file-sharing software.
So, of course, when I looked it at last night I found that they had gone back to Explorer (Firefox "didn't look the same") and the thing had a couple of Trojan downloaders running and at least a dozen other bits of active malware, plus two different browser hijackers. They were competing with each other for control of Explorer, and as a consequence Explorer wouldn't load anything at all.
I ran three different scanners and got rid of everything that I could. Tedious process. So, my friend asked if I could just disable Internet Explorer (she's had just about enough of this as well, since they don't live near us, and she's always the one that has to drive the computer over.)
After talking with this lady about what they actually need a computer for, and looking over their selection of installed applications, I think they may be a candidate for a Linux upgrade. They don't have any Windows-specific apps that would preclude trying another OS, and most of what they do is Web-based anyway (Yahoo Mail, Facebook, etc.) We tried all the major sites they use on an Ubuntu box, just to make sure they work well in Firefox and Chrome.
If I do wean them off of Windows, I want them to be as happy as possible with the new OS. Just replacing the operating system and expecting people to just adapt is unrealistic, so there will be some training involved, but it will be worth the investment since once it's done I won't hear from them very often about computer problems. Oh, they'll be irked that they won't be able to run the latest trojan, but that's the price they're going to have to pay.
This wasn't the worst-infected machine I've encountered by any means. I'm not an IT guy by profession, but people do ask me to help on occasion. I had a co-worker a couple of years ago who had (and I counted them) thirty five pieces of active malware, plus an even dozen Trojan downloaders. The hard disk in that box wouldn't stop, ever, and it would take ten seconds to respond to a keystroke. I had to pull the drive and install it in another system just to scan it.
Probably in the next couple of weeks she'll bring their system back and I'll remove Windows for her.
Linux kids aren't smart enough to know shit about the NT kernel. How can they patch something they literally know nothing about?
Hate feeding trolls, but just for clarity's sake, I was making a joke based upon the closed-source nature of Windows, and its inability to utilize outside developer resources for maintenance.
When has anyone, especially Microsoft, ever cared about them? Even the anti-malware outfits are just exploiting the fundamentally insecure nature of Windows to extract money from those clueless users. It's a sick ecosystem, and I'm hard pressed to decide if Microsoft is unwilling, or just unable, to ever fix it.
He trucked over to his ex-Marine brother's place, picked up a three-foot stack of magazines, brought them home and plopped them on my bed....compared to all my friends who were still being victimized by their parents
I'm not actually sure which of you were worse off.
Oh, if you're talking about my uncle, believe me, he got plenty of action. He eventually got married and had a couple of kids.
So naturally I overindulged for a week or two and then... kinda lost interest in pictures
You must be one of the few thirteen year olds in history who ever got bored that quickly.
I know, you're implying that because of your dad's enlightened attitude you immediately moved on to full time real life physical sex, but that sounds implausible to me, unless you were one lucky lucky bastard.
Sorry, that's not what I meant. What I was trying to say (and I think some other posters here understood) is that my father was trying to remove the fear and anxiety that our society associates with sex, and imagery of sex. And no, I didn't go out having a sex life at 12, but he did leave me with a healthier attitude towards the subject.
For me, at least, that was a good thing, and I've been a better person for it. Sex is something to be respected, sure, and certainly it has potential negative consequences. But I maintain that instilling a neurotic attitude towards sex in our children does them a disservice.
Umm...so when you say that people should just "realise" it will mean that their posts are less likely to be read by you, does that mean that because you spelled "realize" wrong, that your posts are as badly written as theirs?
My guess? The GP writes using the Queen's English. If you're going to communicate with people using variants of English, it helps to recognize those differences.
How about parents take all the "responsibility of protecting children." Seeing as they are the ones who want to decide what "protecting" means, why should the ISPs, or government, or anyone else have to "share" (or more accurately in this case, shoulder entirely by themselves) that responsibility?
Also: come on people, it's not like your children are going to be scarred for life if they see a penis. Get over yourselves.
No, but if they see a breast, they'll be severely stunted, emotionally, and God help them if they ever glimpse a pussy before they turn thirty. Gagh. Spare us from the prudes.
My father handled the whole pornography issue very simply when I was twelve or thirteen years old. He trucked over to his ex-Marine brother's place, picked up a three-foot stack of magazines, brought them home and plopped them on my bed. I still recall my eyes bulging out of my head. So naturally I overindulged for a week or two and then... kinda lost interest in pictures, at least compared to all my friends who were still being victimized by their parents, "forbidden fruit syndrome" and all that. They would come over to my place and see this huge stack of Playboys and Penthouses sitting in my room, and would flip out: "Oh my God, hide 'em quick before your parents get home!" When I explained the situation, the reaction was, "Gosh, your Dad is so cool."
Now I'm a senior engineer, about the only crime I've ever committed is the occasional speeding ticket (very occasional, I've had three in my entire life, lucky I guess) and some of my best friends are women. I also prefer participation to observation when it comes to the female body, and otherwise have experienced no ill effects from my early exposure to, well... nature. That's it, folks: the human body isn't some artificial evil, it's who we are.
If your kid needs psychotherapy after seeing a picture of a nude woman, it's because you convinced him that what he's doing is so wrong that he needs to punish himself for it.
Fucking prudes. They should all just get laid, and get over it.
"The simple fact that the RIAA disagrees with them is sufficient indication that PC Mag is doing the right thing here."
Kinda sounds like a variation on "Hitler was wrong about everything, therefore always do the opposite and you'll be right" fallacy. Did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian? That's a reason not to be a vegetarian, right?
Yes, but the reason that Hitler is universally hated isn't because of his dietary choices, it's because was a warmongering, empire-building, genocidal maniac. Generalizing beyond that is, I agree, ridiculous.
Which I wasn't doing. Given the history and predictability of the RIAA on these issues, you can pretty much be sure that doing the opposite of anything they suggest is, if nothing else, probably ethical.
To be fair, the summary doesn't claim that "RIAA Now Blames Journalists For Its Piracy Trouble".
When it comes to organizations like the RIAA, fighting fair with fair just gets you burned. In this case, PC Mag is helping matters, so far as the general public is concerned, by getting a few facts out. The simple fact that the RIAA disagrees with them is sufficient indication that PC Mag is doing the right thing here. Kinda like the old saw, "When the competition threatens a lawsuit, you must be doing something right."
Helping the RIAA, from any reasonable perspective, serves no legitimate purpose.
It cost the RIAA $16 for every dollar they collected with the lawsuits
I've heard a lot of different takes on that. Some attorneys I've talked to about it the say quite the opposite, that given the way their scheme worked, the probably turned a profit. Regardless, you're absolutely correct: the music industry is going down because of their own inability to manage the business in the face of anything even resembling competition.
Generally, it's best to use non-existent units. That way, you can make anyone owe you anything you want. For example, "One hundred gazillion dollars for each moderation." If anyone asks what a gazillion is, you tell them it's a legal term for "every penny you will ever earn so long as you and your family lives, and after that if there's anything left in your estate when we get through with it."
Ummm, no, churches are at the forefront of suppresion of new ideas... oh except for crazy ones like condoms causing aids... they're all about getting the 'facts' out about that.
Case in point they hated the idea of translation of bibles from latin to ${LOCAL_LANGUAGE}, or indeed, any literacy amongst the unwashed, because then the laiety wouldn't need the clergey... or rather... the clergy couldn't just wave a book around and say "it says in the book to burn and destroy"... people could look it up for themselves and challenge. Likewise creation of the printing press, no co-incidence that a bible was one of the first books printed... it was all about the technical arts trying to break down the authoritarian rule of the clergy.
It is a virtual certainty that for every sick person they've nursed, or poor person they've fed they have cost another their life through religious skirmish... they are a blight upon the global with no redeeming facets, past nor present and the quicker we disabuse ourselves of belief systems based on superstition and fear the sooner we can realize how much we have held ourselves back as a species.
Yes, we are dumb all over... and maybe even be a little ugly on the side.... thanks Frank.
I think that Galileo Galilei and a few other scientists who were persecuted (if not outright murdered) down the centuries by various Churches and other religious "institutions" would tend to agree with you. Organized religion has always been the single greatest threat to scientific and technological advancement. One may claim to speak for God, but if at the same time one is willing to attack the free expression of logic and reason because it is a threat to one's hegemony... well.
Because, you know, when you think "church" you immediately think "progress."
Slashdot Mirror
What a completely uncalled for comment.
Not at all. Microsoft got caught flat footed when the Internet went public. Windows was never able to be used safely on anything but a trusted network, and after almost twenty years it still isn't. If it were, why do I have to install a third-party firewall and run third-party anti-malware software, that is, if I want to use it on the Internet?
Stop making excuses. All operating systems are vulnerable, to varying degrees, when connected to the global network. Only one OS, however, stands out as a shining example of how not to do it.
And I spent five hours last night cleaning up friend's Vista machine. Her husband and her kids have a habit of repeatedly infecting the thing since they are either unwilling or unable to exhibit the slightest discipline when using the Web, and will install anything that's shiny and free.
I have neighbors like that. After cleaning up after them a few times I charged them my normal rate to clean up their computer. It hasn't been infected since.
Or it's just as infected but they're just dealing with it since they're too cheap to pay you what you're worth. Which is just the same so far as you're concerned, I agree.
I found that they had gone back to Explorer (Firefox "didn't look the same")
Get them this.
Seriously though, if they couldn't even handle a switch from IE to Firefox, you think they're not going to raise holy hell if you swap out the entire OS?
Doesn't matter. So far as she's concerned, they're going to get told. We'll try to make the transition as easy as possible, but sometimes you just have to bite the bullet. It's her computer, and those are her kids, and they'll do as they're told. Her husband couldn't care less so long as he can get his email and go to a few Web sites he needs. The kids are the big problem. I also told her we could just get them their own computer, and when they break it ... tough. Maybe then they'll start to learn a little respect. They've wasted enough of their mother's time, not to mention mine.
Fucking prudes. They should all just get laid, and get over it.
I think the problem in this case is that they did get laid, and still haven't gotten over it.
That's the problem with the Prude Cycle. If you are brought up to be largely incapable of truly enjoying sex, you'll pass that on to your kids, by inducing them to have the same irrational fears and anxieties about sex as you do. It's the same way all institutionalized irrationality is promulgated down through the ages. Hell, it's the reason why all organized religion insists upon indoctrinating the young: get them before they have any ability to think for themselves, instill your belief system before they have the mental tools to analyze it and possibly reject it. If you can get your thought patterns thoroughly embedded in your children, down at the level of attitudes where they're very hard to get at later, you can pretty much program them for life.
Personally, I believe in my father's approach to parenting, neatly summarized by this quote (I can't remember where I heard it): "Don't teach your kids what to think, just teach them to think."
I always upgrade my Linux distro by sharpening the edge of the DVD-R it's burned on. That's how I stay on the cutting edge.
That's nothing. I use that sharpened DVD to cut myself to pieces. That's how I stay on the bleeding edge.
Yep. Their computers turn into zombies.
And what do zombies do? They suck out your brains. It's a vicious circle.
Of course, somebody sharp could submit a patch ... oh wait.
I made a 3rd party patch already, it's available for download at http://fileservz.it:8080/sd.kfg?freetard=true
You can trust me, I'm an open source community member.
T. Monkey
"freetard=true"
Thanks, I needed that.
Yeah, cause I'm gonna install a patch made by a random "sharp" dude.
Oh, wait, we were not supposed to question your claim. I'm really sorry, yeah, Windows should be open source
Well, you do understand that the kernel maintainers actually vet patches before including them, don't you?
What about the clueless home users?
And I spent five hours last night cleaning up friend's Vista machine. Her husband and her kids have a habit of repeatedly infecting the thing since they are either unwilling or unable to exhibit the slightest discipline when using the Web, and will install anything that's shiny and free. The last time around I installed Firefox and Chrome (so if some site wouldn't work in one, they could try in the other) and, at her request, removed all their file-sharing software.
So, of course, when I looked it at last night I found that they had gone back to Explorer (Firefox "didn't look the same") and the thing had a couple of Trojan downloaders running and at least a dozen other bits of active malware, plus two different browser hijackers. They were competing with each other for control of Explorer, and as a consequence Explorer wouldn't load anything at all.
I ran three different scanners and got rid of everything that I could. Tedious process. So, my friend asked if I could just disable Internet Explorer (she's had just about enough of this as well, since they don't live near us, and she's always the one that has to drive the computer over.)
After talking with this lady about what they actually need a computer for, and looking over their selection of installed applications, I think they may be a candidate for a Linux upgrade. They don't have any Windows-specific apps that would preclude trying another OS, and most of what they do is Web-based anyway (Yahoo Mail, Facebook, etc.) We tried all the major sites they use on an Ubuntu box, just to make sure they work well in Firefox and Chrome.
If I do wean them off of Windows, I want them to be as happy as possible with the new OS. Just replacing the operating system and expecting people to just adapt is unrealistic, so there will be some training involved, but it will be worth the investment since once it's done I won't hear from them very often about computer problems. Oh, they'll be irked that they won't be able to run the latest trojan, but that's the price they're going to have to pay.
This wasn't the worst-infected machine I've encountered by any means. I'm not an IT guy by profession, but people do ask me to help on occasion. I had a co-worker a couple of years ago who had (and I counted them) thirty five pieces of active malware, plus an even dozen Trojan downloaders. The hard disk in that box wouldn't stop, ever, and it would take ten seconds to respond to a keystroke. I had to pull the drive and install it in another system just to scan it.
Probably in the next couple of weeks she'll bring their system back and I'll remove Windows for her.
Linux kids aren't smart enough to know shit about the NT kernel. How can they patch something they literally know nothing about?
Hate feeding trolls, but just for clarity's sake, I was making a joke based upon the closed-source nature of Windows, and its inability to utilize outside developer resources for maintenance.
What about the clueless home users?
When has anyone, especially Microsoft, ever cared about them? Even the anti-malware outfits are just exploiting the fundamentally insecure nature of Windows to extract money from those clueless users. It's a sick ecosystem, and I'm hard pressed to decide if Microsoft is unwilling, or just unable, to ever fix it.
Don't they secretly like it, or think they deserve it
I think it's the personal satisfaction they receive for helping out the members of their local Geek Squad.
I'm not actually sure which of you were worse off.
Oh, if you're talking about my uncle, believe me, he got plenty of action. He eventually got married and had a couple of kids.
So naturally I overindulged for a week or two and then ... kinda lost interest in pictures
You must be one of the few thirteen year olds in history who ever got bored that quickly.
I know, you're implying that because of your dad's enlightened attitude you immediately moved on to full time real life physical sex, but that sounds implausible to me, unless you were one lucky lucky bastard.
Sorry, that's not what I meant. What I was trying to say (and I think some other posters here understood) is that my father was trying to remove the fear and anxiety that our society associates with sex, and imagery of sex. And no, I didn't go out having a sex life at 12, but he did leave me with a healthier attitude towards the subject.
For me, at least, that was a good thing, and I've been a better person for it. Sex is something to be respected, sure, and certainly it has potential negative consequences. But I maintain that instilling a neurotic attitude towards sex in our children does them a disservice.
this could be a very bad omen for Windows users.
Only if Microsoft doesn't fix it. Of course, somebody sharp could submit a patch ... oh wait.
Umm...so when you say that people should just "realise" it will mean that their posts are less likely to be read by you, does that mean that because you spelled "realize" wrong, that your posts are as badly written as theirs?
My guess? The GP writes using the Queen's English. If you're going to communicate with people using variants of English, it helps to recognize those differences.
How about parents take all the "responsibility of protecting children." Seeing as they are the ones who want to decide what "protecting" means, why should the ISPs, or government, or anyone else have to "share" (or more accurately in this case, shoulder entirely by themselves) that responsibility? Also: come on people, it's not like your children are going to be scarred for life if they see a penis. Get over yourselves.
No, but if they see a breast, they'll be severely stunted, emotionally, and God help them if they ever glimpse a pussy before they turn thirty. Gagh. Spare us from the prudes.
... kinda lost interest in pictures, at least compared to all my friends who were still being victimized by their parents, "forbidden fruit syndrome" and all that. They would come over to my place and see this huge stack of Playboys and Penthouses sitting in my room, and would flip out: "Oh my God, hide 'em quick before your parents get home!" When I explained the situation, the reaction was, "Gosh, your Dad is so cool."
... nature. That's it, folks: the human body isn't some artificial evil, it's who we are.
My father handled the whole pornography issue very simply when I was twelve or thirteen years old. He trucked over to his ex-Marine brother's place, picked up a three-foot stack of magazines, brought them home and plopped them on my bed. I still recall my eyes bulging out of my head. So naturally I overindulged for a week or two and then
Now I'm a senior engineer, about the only crime I've ever committed is the occasional speeding ticket (very occasional, I've had three in my entire life, lucky I guess) and some of my best friends are women. I also prefer participation to observation when it comes to the female body, and otherwise have experienced no ill effects from my early exposure to, well
If your kid needs psychotherapy after seeing a picture of a nude woman, it's because you convinced him that what he's doing is so wrong that he needs to punish himself for it.
Fucking prudes. They should all just get laid, and get over it.
"The simple fact that the RIAA disagrees with them is sufficient indication that PC Mag is doing the right thing here." Kinda sounds like a variation on "Hitler was wrong about everything, therefore always do the opposite and you'll be right" fallacy. Did you know that Hitler was a vegetarian? That's a reason not to be a vegetarian, right?
Yes, but the reason that Hitler is universally hated isn't because of his dietary choices, it's because was a warmongering, empire-building, genocidal maniac. Generalizing beyond that is, I agree, ridiculous.
Which I wasn't doing. Given the history and predictability of the RIAA on these issues, you can pretty much be sure that doing the opposite of anything they suggest is, if nothing else, probably ethical.
I personally would prefer we just stop using grammar. If the intention is clear then does it really matter?
Yes, yes it does. Intent is not sufficient to assure good communication. The Devil is in the details.
To be fair, the summary doesn't claim that "RIAA Now Blames Journalists For Its Piracy Trouble".
When it comes to organizations like the RIAA, fighting fair with fair just gets you burned. In this case, PC Mag is helping matters, so far as the general public is concerned, by getting a few facts out. The simple fact that the RIAA disagrees with them is sufficient indication that PC Mag is doing the right thing here. Kinda like the old saw, "When the competition threatens a lawsuit, you must be doing something right."
Helping the RIAA, from any reasonable perspective, serves no legitimate purpose.
It cost the RIAA $16 for every dollar they collected with the lawsuits
I've heard a lot of different takes on that. Some attorneys I've talked to about it the say quite the opposite, that given the way their scheme worked, the probably turned a profit. Regardless, you're absolutely correct: the music industry is going down because of their own inability to manage the business in the face of anything even resembling competition.
One hundred billion dollars for each moderation.
Generally, it's best to use non-existent units. That way, you can make anyone owe you anything you want. For example, "One hundred gazillion dollars for each moderation." If anyone asks what a gazillion is, you tell them it's a legal term for "every penny you will ever earn so long as you and your family lives, and after that if there's anything left in your estate when we get through with it."
PCMag has also refused to retract the article.
+5 Doing the Right Thing
Since when has news been imaginary property?
When it shows up in a Slashdot summary, that's when.
> they should at least get their facts straight.
Ummm, no, churches are at the forefront of suppresion of new ideas... oh except for crazy ones like condoms causing aids... they're all about getting the 'facts' out about that.
Case in point they hated the idea of translation of bibles from latin to ${LOCAL_LANGUAGE}, or indeed, any literacy amongst the unwashed, because then the laiety wouldn't need the clergey... or rather... the clergy couldn't just wave a book around and say "it says in the book to burn and destroy"... people could look it up for themselves and challenge. Likewise creation of the printing press, no co-incidence that a bible was one of the first books printed... it was all about the technical arts trying to break down the authoritarian rule of the clergy.
It is a virtual certainty that for every sick person they've nursed, or poor person they've fed they have cost another their life through religious skirmish... they are a blight upon the global with no redeeming facets, past nor present and the quicker we disabuse ourselves of belief systems based on superstition and fear the sooner we can realize how much we have held ourselves back as a species.
Yes, we are dumb all over... and maybe even be a little ugly on the side.... thanks Frank.
I think that Galileo Galilei and a few other scientists who were persecuted (if not outright murdered) down the centuries by various Churches and other religious "institutions" would tend to agree with you. Organized religion has always been the single greatest threat to scientific and technological advancement. One may claim to speak for God, but if at the same time one is willing to attack the free expression of logic and reason because it is a threat to one's hegemony ... well.
Because, you know, when you think "church" you immediately think "progress."