Yes, and don't forget the 350 MB of updates too. So...
Microsoft releases patches for OS: OMG! Don't they test?!?! They are teh sux0r!!1!
Linux releases 350 MB of patches: Hey, the power of open source is the continual improvement from so many eyes looking at the code. 350 MB of improvements! They rox0r!!1!
I imagine this could possibly harm acceptance in the corporate world/enterprise. When a network install smokes your CD-ROM, well, that's going to raise the TCO a bit.
Hell, who has mini-ITX hands? Not me. In fact, I want a case the size of a walk-in closet. I want to see everything at eye-level on the wall. I don't want to worry about bumping a ribbon cable and taking the CD-ROM drive offline. I want to be able to have lunch inside the case while I'm working on an upgrade. Yes, with a table and chair so I can put my stuff down. And I want a monitor inside the case so if I need to look up some jumper assignment or order parts I don't have to leave the case.
It's like cars. I like old cars, where you can practically sit in the engine bay while you work. Now to change the plugs in my car I have to remove the intake manifold and half the fuel injection harness. And damn if there isn't a computer under the hood too, so now I have to worry about bumping a ribbon cable lest I take the airbags or brakes offline.
...and commercial software doesn't bankrupt businesses. The problem here is the unethical behavior of the Appgen principals. To excoriate closed source software because of this is ridiculous. Yes, had the code been open this would have been prevented but that argument makes no sense. Because there is no open source alternative today I submit that the code could only exist in closed source...clearly there is neither a need nor advantage to having this product be open source (or it would already exist that way). Opening the source now would benefit those who paid money for the dev kit but that would be taking the work of others and giving it away without regards to the authors' rights.
Hacking your computer? Hardly. It wasn't addressed in the article but perhaps this is addressed in the EULA. In any case, haven't you had software adjust system settings for you without asking, such as setting itself as the default application for a given file type?
AOL is doing nothing wrong, and in any case anyone who needs that service running isn't using AOL.
1. Complaining about NYT registration is now considered whining, as the registration is free, you don't need to use real info, and in every NYT submission someone always posts NYT login information.
2. Jokes about NYT registration are not funny, because the requirements are not onerous.
I'm sure it seems unfair to have to do anything to gain access to world-class content, but really it's not. Thank you in advance.
And don't forget, some machines have thought-control devices that direct you how to vote. Unfortunately the devices are installed in an internal drive bay so you can't always tell when they're there.
...what are your qualifications to evaluate this system, other than, "a computer programmer familiar with software testing"? That's pretty vague.
Here's a drum you beat incessantly on your website (in bold even): Whether or not you are a fan of Microsoft Windows, you have to ask yourself: If Sequoia says that Windows is well known and understood by hackers, why are they using it?
This is a total red herring. Are the computers connected to a publicly accessible network? Is there a keyboard or mouse present? Floppy disk/CD-ROM drive and power switch? Or are these hackers skilled at breaking into systems via proprietary software using only a touch screen? "Put 3 fingers in the upper left corner, hold your little finger in the center and then circle your thumb around the menu twice to add 10 votes for the democratic candidate. Circle your index finger twice to add votes for the republican candidate"
Since you're a computer programmer, tell us how this system is vulnerable to attack. You go on and on about Windows but the choice of OS alone doesn't make the system insecure. You must have seen something else to indicate the system is insecure. Perhaps you were thinking of hackers as shown in movies, who can get into any system regardless of interface in under 30 seconds.
Your shrill website contains little information. Much ado about nothing.
Try pairnic. They're part of Pair, one of the best web hosts around. Pairnic is not the cheapest (for 1 year registrations anyway) but they're worth it, especially if you ever need support. They'll be there...
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Nice spin on the submission, though. +1 MS Hater. The article is really about 2 competing monopolies and how they differently implement their monopolistic ways. The real point of the article comes about 1/3 the way down: "Under which monopoly are users happier?"
Humor in the article aside, it's really a reasonably balanced look at the issue.
I don't have a slashdot account and don't care to take the time out of my day to create one just to be able to post anonymous messages, AC works fine for me.
This makes no sense. If you're taking the time to post messages you must want people to read those messages. It would be worth the effort of registering to make your messages more visible. If you're a common troll this does not apply of course.
Yes, this I understand. I should have explicitly excluded trolling from my posting. As far as other remarks, well, I wouldn't make a comment under my slashdot id that I wouldn't make using my real name or in person. My original comment was really directed at people who seem to be sincerely passionate about a point of view. Since people can create identities here that are separate from reality (and so be essentially anonymous) why not stand up and say, "I, l33tCoderD00d45, really and truly believe x, y, and z"?
I should have explicitly excluded trolls from my comments. By example I meant to narrow my definition but obviously I should have taken the time to write more. Troll on!
Apparently I didn't clearly make my point. Yes, we're all anonymous, so to me going one step further and being AC is weasely.
However, even though I am using a pseudonym I do conduct myself as I would if my comments were attributable to me. In other words I don't behave differently behind my slashdot id.
Let me clarify my original statement further. I think it's weasel-like to offer valid points, express a point of view, or otherwise participate in a rational discussion under AC. That was the point of the example I gave in my original post. Trolls I understand need to be AC.
once you register you get a link to automatically log you in here. The only time I've had to remember my slashdot password is when I move to a new computer. Also, I've never received any e-mail as a result of posting here. I just don't display my e-mail address...
To keep track of all the (important) logins I use Password Safe, free from here. That's the older version, sourceforge has a later version.
Yes, that's my point and why AC is the highest (lowest?) level of weaselihood. Unless you're using your real name here you're already anonymous. AC is just hiding a pseudonym.
Nothing says "weasel" more than being AC. Unless your name is "Bob Smith" and your slashdot user id is "BobSmith", AC really has no benefit.
I especially love getting a passionate response on some topic from an AC. "I feel so strongly about this topic that I'm not even going to tell you my fake name I use on slashdot."
I was about halfway through the article, reached the paragraph that read, "But people in the open-source community are far from convinced. They cite the myriad of investment holding and other companies that firms like Microsoft can hide behind when making investments", and I realized I wasn't wearing my AFDB (aka "foil hat" by the masses).
I donned my AFDB and finished the article but now I'm worried. I've seen movies like "Antitrust" and "The Falcon and the Snowman" (the prequel to "The Cathedral and the Bazaar") so I know what this big companies can do. I want to post some information I've recently discovered before something...uh oh...what's that? Let me check...
As I stated in another posting, I was unclear in my response. The technical document from MS states users should set the Windows built-in firewall to block the ports. That would prevent collateral damage from someone mailing in a virus or bringing one from home. Sorry for the confusion.
As I stated in another message in this thread, I should have quoted Microsoft's solution directly where they say to set the Windows' firewall to block the ports. I just stated "firewall" which was unclear.
a firewall is not a perfect measure for protecting against this attack...Because some other machine behind the same firewall might become infected
Good point - I was unclear. I should have quoted Microsoft's technical documentation. They specify configuring Windows' built-in firewall to block those ports. If the ports are blocked at each machine then an infected machine behind a hardware firewall will not infect other machines on the LAN.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and don't forget the 350 MB of updates too. So...
Microsoft releases patches for OS: OMG! Don't they test?!?! They are teh sux0r!!1!
Linux releases 350 MB of patches: Hey, the power of open source is the continual improvement from so many eyes looking at the code. 350 MB of improvements! They rox0r!!1!
I imagine this could possibly harm acceptance in the corporate world/enterprise. When a network install smokes your CD-ROM, well, that's going to raise the TCO a bit.
Hell, who has mini-ITX hands? Not me. In fact, I want a case the size of a walk-in closet. I want to see everything at eye-level on the wall. I don't want to worry about bumping a ribbon cable and taking the CD-ROM drive offline. I want to be able to have lunch inside the case while I'm working on an upgrade. Yes, with a table and chair so I can put my stuff down. And I want a monitor inside the case so if I need to look up some jumper assignment or order parts I don't have to leave the case.
It's like cars. I like old cars, where you can practically sit in the engine bay while you work. Now to change the plugs in my car I have to remove the intake manifold and half the fuel injection harness. And damn if there isn't a computer under the hood too, so now I have to worry about bumping a ribbon cable lest I take the airbags or brakes offline.
...and commercial software doesn't bankrupt businesses. The problem here is the unethical behavior of the Appgen principals. To excoriate closed source software because of this is ridiculous. Yes, had the code been open this would have been prevented but that argument makes no sense. Because there is no open source alternative today I submit that the code could only exist in closed source...clearly there is neither a need nor advantage to having this product be open source (or it would already exist that way). Opening the source now would benefit those who paid money for the dev kit but that would be taking the work of others and giving it away without regards to the authors' rights.
Hacking your computer? Hardly. It wasn't addressed in the article but perhaps this is addressed in the EULA. In any case, haven't you had software adjust system settings for you without asking, such as setting itself as the default application for a given file type?
AOL is doing nothing wrong, and in any case anyone who needs that service running isn't using AOL.
Tell me what copyright holders think about this. Really. They have a stake in this too but I never see their points of view written about.
Emeril's latest book, "600 New Ways to Serve Fish" has just gone on sale.
1. Complaining about NYT registration is now considered whining, as the registration is free, you don't need to use real info, and in every NYT submission someone always posts NYT login information.
2. Jokes about NYT registration are not funny, because the requirements are not onerous.
I'm sure it seems unfair to have to do anything to gain access to world-class content, but really it's not. Thank you in advance.
And don't forget, some machines have thought-control devices that direct you how to vote. Unfortunately the devices are installed in an internal drive bay so you can't always tell when they're there.
...what are your qualifications to evaluate this system, other than, "a computer programmer familiar with software testing"? That's pretty vague.
Here's a drum you beat incessantly on your website (in bold even):
Whether or not you are a fan of Microsoft Windows, you have to ask yourself: If Sequoia says that Windows is well known and understood by hackers, why are they using it?
This is a total red herring. Are the computers connected to a publicly accessible network? Is there a keyboard or mouse present? Floppy disk/CD-ROM drive and power switch? Or are these hackers skilled at breaking into systems via proprietary software using only a touch screen? "Put 3 fingers in the upper left corner, hold your little finger in the center and then circle your thumb around the menu twice to add 10 votes for the democratic candidate. Circle your index finger twice to add votes for the republican candidate"
Since you're a computer programmer, tell us how this system is vulnerable to attack. You go on and on about Windows but the choice of OS alone doesn't make the system insecure. You must have seen something else to indicate the system is insecure. Perhaps you were thinking of hackers as shown in movies, who can get into any system regardless of interface in under 30 seconds.
Your shrill website contains little information. Much ado about nothing.
Try pairnic. They're part of Pair, one of the best web hosts around.
Pairnic is not the cheapest (for 1 year registrations anyway) but they're worth it, especially if you ever need support. They'll be there...
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Nice spin on the submission, though. +1 MS Hater. The article is really about 2 competing monopolies and how they differently implement their monopolistic ways. The real point of the article comes about 1/3 the way down: "Under which monopoly are users happier?"
Humor in the article aside, it's really a reasonably balanced look at the issue.
I don't have a slashdot account and don't care to take the time out of my day to create one just to be able to post anonymous messages, AC works fine for me.
This makes no sense. If you're taking the time to post messages you must want people to read those messages. It would be worth the effort of registering to make your messages more visible. If you're a common troll this does not apply of course.
Yes, this I understand. I should have explicitly excluded trolling from my posting. As far as other remarks, well, I wouldn't make a comment under my slashdot id that I wouldn't make using my real name or in person. My original comment was really directed at people who seem to be sincerely passionate about a point of view. Since people can create identities here that are separate from reality (and so be essentially anonymous) why not stand up and say, "I, l33tCoderD00d45, really and truly believe x, y, and z"?
I should have explicitly excluded trolls from my comments. By example I meant to narrow my definition but obviously I should have taken the time to write more. Troll on!
Apparently I didn't clearly make my point. Yes, we're all anonymous, so to me going one step further and being AC is weasely.
However, even though I am using a pseudonym I do conduct myself as I would if my comments were attributable to me. In other words I don't behave differently behind my slashdot id.
Let me clarify my original statement further. I think it's weasel-like to offer valid points, express a point of view, or otherwise participate in a rational discussion under AC. That was the point of the example I gave in my original post. Trolls I understand need to be AC.
Good point, but...
once you register you get a link to automatically log you in here. The only time I've had to remember my slashdot password is when I move to a new computer. Also, I've never received any e-mail as a result of posting here. I just don't display my e-mail address...
To keep track of all the (important) logins I use Password Safe, free from here. That's the older version, sourceforge has a later version.
Yes, that's my point and why AC is the highest (lowest?) level of weaselihood. Unless you're using your real name here you're already anonymous. AC is just hiding a pseudonym.
Nothing says "weasel" more than being AC. Unless your name is "Bob Smith" and your slashdot user id is "BobSmith", AC really has no benefit.
I especially love getting a passionate response on some topic from an AC. "I feel so strongly about this topic that I'm not even going to tell you my fake name I use on slashdot."
Yes, for true weaseliness you can't beat AC.
France stood up to the UN for many years and continued illegal sales to Iraq, and opposed Gulf 2 lest those sales be exposed.
it could be ideal for things like TV remotes
And what would power the pump needed to move the water? Or would you have to shake your remote every time you wanted to change the channel?
Sure its being hyped a bit there is a lot of potential here.
No pun intended, right?
Atari rulz!!!11!!
right on.
I was about halfway through the article, reached the paragraph that read, "But people in the open-source community are far from convinced. They cite the myriad of investment holding and other companies that firms like Microsoft can hide behind when making investments", and I realized I wasn't wearing my AFDB (aka "foil hat" by the masses).
I donned my AFDB and finished the article but now I'm worried. I've seen movies like "Antitrust" and "The Falcon and the Snowman" (the prequel to "The Cathedral and the Bazaar") so I know what this big companies can do. I want to post some information I've recently discovered before something...uh oh...what's that? Let me check...
PAK CHOOIE UNF
As I stated in another posting, I was unclear in my response. The technical document from MS states users should set the Windows built-in firewall to block the ports. That would prevent collateral damage from someone mailing in a virus or bringing one from home. Sorry for the confusion.
As I stated in another message in this thread, I should have quoted Microsoft's solution directly where they say to set the Windows' firewall to block the ports. I just stated "firewall" which was unclear.
a firewall is not a perfect measure for protecting against this attack...Because some other machine behind the same firewall might become infected
Good point - I was unclear. I should have quoted Microsoft's technical documentation. They specify configuring Windows' built-in firewall to block those ports. If the ports are blocked at each machine then an infected machine behind a hardware firewall will not infect other machines on the LAN.