out of its @$$ will be the "plague of biblical proportions" the author describes. And maybe not even because of Microsoft but in spite of them, as everyone ELSE wakes up to how bad it really is.
Consider:
"When the damage occurs, as it inevitably does, the original authors just shrug. We may have created the monster, they'll say, but we didn't set it loose. This dodge infuriates security professionals and the police, who say it is legally precise but morally corrupt."
Now isn't that just precisely what Microsoft says about their crappy software?
Hey man, we just release the sh!tty code with all the holes, but we don't *force* anyone to go exploit them; the user should protect himself; &c...
Congratulations to AOL, M$, and all those who've worked *so* hard over the last 20+ years to make sure the average person is convinced that computers and technology is something only an elite few can operate correctly - an elite few you'll have to pay extensively to make it all work for you, not incidentally. The ongoing policy of the Stupid Scared Consumer as applied to the Internet is now DDoSing you in the ass.
Re:Reviewer a shill or a nut
on
Starcraft
·
· Score: 1
This is obviously a ploy to prepare us for telepathic biotinkering for the upcoming Shadow war. It's published by der Vorlon, fer chrissakes....
Riiiight. Meanwhile you have a sig that bashes the RIAA. If repetition of important issues serves no purpose and has no effect (such as raising awareness), why do you have that sig? Sorry, i think maybe *you're* just sick of hearing this. I can't blame you, because likely you feel that *you* can't do anything about it. And you're right. But you and lots of other people *can*, thus the need to raise awareness. Or simply repeat it until it sinks in... sinks in... sinks in...
and your name is Axe. Clearly all we have to do is how up at his house and announce, "Axe here would like a word with you, sir." Wow! It'd be like living in a UserFriendly strip!
This is my favorite part of the article. I'm sure mr. spammer can appreciate keeping an agreement to the letter:
"Ralsky agreed to this interview and the tour of his operation only if I promised not to print the address of his new home, which I found in Oakland County real estate records."
well thanks anyway, it's the thought that counts.
this is not to imply i'd prefer the redundant rating however:D. I see it as '2, Funny' so i suppose something worked...
Very nice point by point that misses the point. I'm more than willing to pay for what I get. The problem is, who determines the pricing scheme? Like Ma Bell, they got the Ill Communication...
ferinstance the business side of Comcast charges its customers for a service called Open Port. Go to their website and look. The customers get a router that's a basic firewall with NAT. If you wish to use say PCAnywhere on one of your machines whilst out of the office, this involves opening a port or two and pointing it at the workstation, right? Big deal, takes 2 seconds to do and incurs no maintenance.
Open Port costs $45 per month. For the life of the contract. Oh, and there's a $95 setup fee.
It's nice to see someone step up and try to be a good libertarian capitalist guy and all, but make no mistake about what monopolies are and how they work. The whole POINT of trying to grab 99.999% market share is so you can dictate terms and prices, increase your profit margins to ridiculous levels, and convince an ignorant public that this is fair and equitable and "that's just what it costs." If you think usage charges are there to "open services up to poorer people," that's sweet, but wake up. It's there to make money. Broadband is expensive to hold a line; start high, keep it high, as demand increases pressure to lower the price will evaporate. If the online division is profitable and *growing* at current prices, do you think prices will rise or fall?
I'm not going to go into the spam issue much since i see it scattered around this thread and i have more reading to do, but it bears mentioning. I'd like to encourage people to do this: If caps are implemented and i have to pay, I'm going to submit invoices to each and every mother%^$#er whose equipment has passed spam along to me, and if that doesn't get anyone's attention, i'd *really* like to see charges filed for theft of services...
On a before-the-apocolypse note, tho, i'd urge every geek on here to write in to Comcast, snail and email, and let them know (POLITELY!) that this is a bad idea and why, in its current form (if you agree of course;) ). Include your impassioned moral urgings if you must, but concentrate on the potential legal and technical sticking points of the issue(s). One thing I've noticed about Comcast is they listen to geeks. They were a little cable TV station in the late 70s, that's still their main business and probably always will be (convergence, we hardly knew ye...) and they know they don't know freaking everything about the Internet and are willing to listen. Rather unusual.
But for them to listen you gotta start talking. Contact them.
We stand a good chance of seeing some fireballs, which might be even more noticible due to the moon's generally washing out the weaker stuff. Don't give up on them. Bring cameras and tripods and friends - you'll feel like a goof if something blows up and you miss it!
wait, so don't mention security through obscurity, just mention obfuscated sloppiness and virtual voodoo instead? I think you're better off with option 1, there...;)
For Taiwan, not a chance in hell. Not as long as the fatcats in this country can droolingly mumble "...one biiillion more cuuuustomerssss..." every time they give China the elevator glance, Tawiwan's going to get ignored. It's every capitalist's duty to screw over a democracy in favor of a communist regieme in the name of free trade... uh... yeah.
Now if China said something like, "Mr. Gates, if you don't give us the source to Windows we're gonna make Slackware the new Offically Mandated State Distro and Chinese citizen must then use it or be deemed a counter-revolutionary and we're firing up the CD-RWs now to start handing 'em out," well, i'd pay good money to be able to peek at the schizoid explosion that'd cause in ol' Bill's brain, i would.
I'm not sure it can even be called peeping. I think a fundamental flaw in this discussion so far is: we're assuming something was done wrong by someone's standards 'cause there's a lawsuit. Pretend there isn't a lawsuit, and the subject matter wasn't a financial report:
They put a file in a public directory on a publically-accessable webserver as a world-readable file. Now the world read it. I don't see how they have a case if the Reuter's legal team has a technical clue and jumps on this. If i have a bunch of boxes labeled "COME LOOK HERE" and you root through it and find something, and THEN i say "...hey, that's private, you bastard!" are you a criminal or am I an id10t?
Slashdot Mirror
out of its @$$ will be the "plague of biblical proportions" the author describes. And maybe not even because of Microsoft but in spite of them, as everyone ELSE wakes up to how bad it really is. Consider: "When the damage occurs, as it inevitably does, the original authors just shrug. We may have created the monster, they'll say, but we didn't set it loose. This dodge infuriates security professionals and the police, who say it is legally precise but morally corrupt." Now isn't that just precisely what Microsoft says about their crappy software? Hey man, we just release the sh!tty code with all the holes, but we don't *force* anyone to go exploit them; the user should protect himself; &c... Congratulations to AOL, M$, and all those who've worked *so* hard over the last 20+ years to make sure the average person is convinced that computers and technology is something only an elite few can operate correctly - an elite few you'll have to pay extensively to make it all work for you, not incidentally. The ongoing policy of the Stupid Scared Consumer as applied to the Internet is now DDoSing you in the ass.
This is obviously a ploy to prepare us for telepathic biotinkering for the upcoming Shadow war. It's published by der Vorlon, fer chrissakes....
Riiiight. Meanwhile you have a sig that bashes the RIAA. If repetition of important issues serves no purpose and has no effect (such as raising awareness), why do you have that sig? Sorry, i think maybe *you're* just sick of hearing this. I can't blame you, because likely you feel that *you* can't do anything about it. And you're right. But you and lots of other people *can*, thus the need to raise awareness. Or simply repeat it until it sinks in... sinks in... sinks in...
and your name is Axe. Clearly all we have to do is how up at his house and announce, "Axe here would like a word with you, sir." Wow! It'd be like living in a UserFriendly strip!
This is my favorite part of the article. I'm sure mr. spammer can appreciate keeping an agreement to the letter:
"Ralsky agreed to this interview and the tour of his operation only if I promised not to print the address of his new home, which I found in Oakland County real estate records."
well thanks anyway, it's the thought that counts. :D. I see it as '2, Funny' so i suppose something worked...
this is not to imply i'd prefer the redundant rating however
Very nice point by point that misses the point. I'm more than willing to pay for what I get. The problem is, who determines the pricing scheme? Like Ma Bell, they got the Ill Communication...
ferinstance the business side of Comcast charges its customers for a service called Open Port. Go to their website and look. The customers get a router that's a basic firewall with NAT. If you wish to use say PCAnywhere on one of your machines whilst out of the office, this involves opening a port or two and pointing it at the workstation, right? Big deal, takes 2 seconds to do and incurs no maintenance.
Open Port costs $45 per month. For the life of the contract. Oh, and there's a $95 setup fee.
It's nice to see someone step up and try to be a good libertarian capitalist guy and all, but make no mistake about what monopolies are and how they work. The whole POINT of trying to grab 99.999% market share is so you can dictate terms and prices, increase your profit margins to ridiculous levels, and convince an ignorant public that this is fair and equitable and "that's just what it costs." If you think usage charges are there to "open services up to poorer people," that's sweet, but wake up. It's there to make money. Broadband is expensive to hold a line; start high, keep it high, as demand increases pressure to lower the price will evaporate. If the online division is profitable and *growing* at current prices, do you think prices will rise or fall?
I'm not going to go into the spam issue much since i see it scattered around this thread and i have more reading to do, but it bears mentioning. I'd like to encourage people to do this: If caps are implemented and i have to pay, I'm going to submit invoices to each and every mother%^$#er whose equipment has passed spam along to me, and if that doesn't get anyone's attention, i'd *really* like to see charges filed for theft of services...
On a before-the-apocolypse note, tho, i'd urge every geek on here to write in to Comcast, snail and email, and let them know (POLITELY!) that this is a bad idea and why, in its current form (if you agree of course ;) ). Include your impassioned moral urgings if you must, but concentrate on the potential legal and technical sticking points of the issue(s). One thing I've noticed about Comcast is they listen to geeks. They were a little cable TV station in the late 70s, that's still their main business and probably always will be (convergence, we hardly knew ye...) and they know they don't know freaking everything about the Internet and are willing to listen. Rather unusual.
But for them to listen you gotta start talking. Contact them.
We stand a good chance of seeing some fireballs, which might be even more noticible due to the moon's generally washing out the weaker stuff. Don't give up on them. Bring cameras and tripods and friends - you'll feel like a goof if something blows up and you miss it!
wait, so don't mention security through obscurity, just mention obfuscated sloppiness and virtual voodoo instead? I think you're better off with option 1, there... ;)
For Taiwan, not a chance in hell. Not as long as the fatcats in this country can droolingly mumble "...one biiillion more cuuuustomerssss..." every time they give China the elevator glance, Tawiwan's going to get ignored. It's every capitalist's duty to screw over a democracy in favor of a communist regieme in the name of free trade... uh... yeah.
Now if China said something like, "Mr. Gates, if you don't give us the source to Windows we're gonna make Slackware the new Offically Mandated State Distro and Chinese citizen must then use it or be deemed a counter-revolutionary and we're firing up the CD-RWs now to start handing 'em out," well, i'd pay good money to be able to peek at the schizoid explosion that'd cause in ol' Bill's brain, i would.
yeah, it ain't called private_html.
I'm not sure it can even be called peeping. I think a fundamental flaw in this discussion so far is: we're assuming something was done wrong by someone's standards 'cause there's a lawsuit. Pretend there isn't a lawsuit, and the subject matter wasn't a financial report:
They put a file in a public directory on a publically-accessable webserver as a world-readable file. Now the world read it. I don't see how they have a case if the Reuter's legal team has a technical clue and jumps on this. If i have a bunch of boxes labeled "COME LOOK HERE" and you root through it and find something, and THEN i say "...hey, that's private, you bastard!" are you a criminal or am I an id10t?