Towel??
What the hell will that stop? I'm going for the full-on ten-layer saran-wrapping and a layer or barbed wire just to be safe.
Screw towels.
Oh and by the way...you wouldn't be that "random dude" would you?
>I really don't believe any legitimate business would think >it made sense to pay some hacker millions of dollars in extortion money.
Hey - ask around.
I've had many conversations about black hats and what to do about them if you find things as innocuous as a rogue FTP server running on one of our hosting systems.
One interesting comment has been that an organization is inviting war on themselves when they kick our these kinds of squatters...best bet is to lay down ground rules for them so they don't affect your business/bandwidth and let sleeping dogs lie. The small amount of blood that these leeches take is small compared to the bloodletting that would ensue if they were denied.
The key point is often that your business looks very much less secure when you look as if you CAN'T prevent an onslaught that disrupts your client's business. They don't care that you're fighting a hacker army of darkness...they just take their business elsewhere.
It's not fair, but more and more it's looking like e-commerce is analogous to a running wildebeest herd...at every river crossing there are crocodiles waiting for that unlucky 2%. The there are the lions....
When it's your time to die, perhaps it really is better to pay up...in the minds of a board of directors without infinite resources, it's might seem better to face a payout than having certain info released. Imagine if ENRON had been compromised 12 months prior to it going belly up. You BET they'd have paid up if someone threatened to out them to their investors.
In the Australian interior (Coober Pedy and Lightning Ridge) they build many homes undergound...thsi kinds of thing would be perfect. Natural air conditioning and natural light sources.
I know people have already mentioned it here but I have to reiterate for thos people who are talking out their ass on deployment costs.
My emplyer is rolling out WinXP (+ Office XP) to 16000+ desktops. The post-migration issues are horrendous as we're jumping from WinNT and Office 97.
Keep in mind that when you upgrade - the license costs aren't too high compared...it's the re-training and migration of old sopftware that will kick your ass. We have countless Access 97 based DBs that are needing migrating, and I imaging every MS based shop out there will find the same deal. You fill in your niches gradually, but when you're forced to migrate you must pull up all those carefully ingrown roots and replant them elsewhere. Planning for that is never fun, and if your current software is doing the job (Win2k) then why shouldn't you stretch that out for as long as you can utilize only 50-80% of the product's usable features?
Granted a migration to Win2k would have been nice, but that's moot. Either way I'd say to all those Win2k shops out there to stay put for now.
I find it interesting that that a few consultant friends of mine have opted out of mentioning they are MCSEs when competing for some jobs. I can hold people back these days:P
You have it all wrong...this is a serious attempt to put a human face this kind of thing. I can just see their centre now:
"your data is important to us, please stay on the line and a random extortionista will be with you shortly."
The fact that they are asking for direct contact is a radical departure from the usual anonymous hacker behaviour. These poor souls _yearn_ for contact! I see it as a heartful longing for friendship - 200$ at a time:P
>So if I am not an atheist, if I dare to belive in higher structures invisible to us, will I be executed by the Holy Atheist Inquisition?
Who said anything about killing or being killed? Everything always comes down to some kind of blasphemy punishable by death with you Faith Types.
The argument a has always been about two different modes of thinking - one based on belief, and on based on reason. They are not mutually exclusive, but in practice they tend to be confused with each other. What some people on the science/epistemological-side find offensive is that empirical knowledge has been compared to creationist idealism - and made itse competitor. You have one group that takes their knowledge from interpreting the Bible/Koran/Baghavad Gita (which is fixed in scope), and the other that is taking their knowledge from watching how the world works...in a sense they are letting nature and observation write their "book". That latter knowledge base is always re-writing itself due to eveolving knoweldge and discovery.
How you have confused this as a form of anti-religion is beyond me. Science is a process, NOT a belief system. And the reason cretionists are being ridiculed more often than not is that they pick on silly things like the age of the earth when you could also be attacking things like the general theory of relativity. By framing your arguments as being science vs creationism you are avoiding the inevitiable. Scientific thinkers will always pick each other's hypotheses apart. If you want to at least debate scientists on the merits of creationist beliefs vs scientific knowledge, at teh VERY least play the game. If lack of "proof' is reason to discard evolutionary theory then lack of proof is what you're holding up as a replacement theory
How bizarre...
P.S. And if you're a little rusty on your history please remember that Galileo merely postulated that the SUN was the centre of the universe (solar system), upsetting biblical theory that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. He was nearly put to death for those "discoveries". Under that kind of a climate can you imagine any Christian Astronauts getting off the ground had Galileo's "scienctific" insistence not paid off?
I think it's best that we look at castration for the worst sex traders/offenders...given that people can be framed and the legal system is pretty good at putting a few innocent people to death every year we have to assume mistakes will happen. Only the worst and most verifiable offenders would face physical alteration
The ONLY way to solve this would be for chemical or physical castration. The sexual urges at the very least will be abated and we might be able to rahab the least worst offenders.
That being said if anyone hurt my children they'd disappear pretty quickly once they were out of jail. I agree that the victimization of children is on eof the worst things you can do to a human. They just aren't capable of processing the exerience. Worst still they often grow up to be victimizers themselves, where their need to exact revenge or control over their world takes over as a base need. It's for THAT reason that child sex offenders are so quickly dealt judgment by their peers in prison. Just look at Jeffrey Dahmer
I'd wager that a lot of browser users (those who don't switch because they don't know the differences between browsers...very novice users) aren't using FireFox because they wouldn't understand how to switch.
Since windows ships with the browser you get that catch-22. Internet Savvy users are more likely to know how to keep safe when using online e-commerce sites, ergo they might spend the bulk of the money online for day-to-day purchases. These internet savvy users are the ones who switch browser like some users' change shirts. Ergo they are the current leading-edge FireFox switchers.
When calculating the percentages of web site visitors versus web site visitors who make purchases, are the numbers becoming skewed towards FireFox for the latter condition?
Anyone care to take a stab at this?
I only ask because I keep seeing the "IE is still "x"% of the market" argument for keeping certain sites IE-only or IE-biased. It makes less sense when considering that those browser users might be less likely to make a purchase, since we've opened the cusomer-base can-of-worms.
Slashdot Mirror
Towel??
What the hell will that stop? I'm going for the full-on ten-layer saran-wrapping and a layer or barbed wire just to be safe.
Screw towels.
Oh and by the way...you wouldn't be that "random dude" would you?
Towel?? What the hell will that stop? I'm going for the full-on ten-layer saran-wrapping and a layer or barbed wire just to be safe. Screw towels. Oh and by the way...you wouldn't be that "random dude" would you?
What kind of wild Roster was that??
:P
It was a "he" , and yet plural at the same time...my brain hurts
>I really don't believe any legitimate business would think
>it made sense to pay some hacker millions of dollars in extortion money.
Hey - ask around.
I've had many conversations about black hats and what to do about them if you find things as innocuous as a rogue FTP server running on one of our hosting systems.
One interesting comment has been that an organization is inviting war on themselves when they kick our these kinds of squatters...best bet is to lay down ground rules for them so they don't affect your business/bandwidth and let sleeping dogs lie. The small amount of blood that these leeches take is small compared to the bloodletting that would ensue if they were denied.
The key point is often that your business looks very much less secure when you look as if you CAN'T prevent an onslaught that disrupts your client's business. They don't care that you're fighting a hacker army of darkness...they just take their business elsewhere.
It's not fair, but more and more it's looking like e-commerce is analogous to a running wildebeest herd...at every river crossing there are crocodiles waiting for that unlucky 2%. The there are the lions....
When it's your time to die, perhaps it really is better to pay up...in the minds of a board of directors without infinite resources, it's might seem better to face a payout than having certain info released. Imagine if ENRON had been compromised 12 months prior to it going belly up. You BET they'd have paid up if someone threatened to out them to their investors.
Interesting topic no less.
http://www.opalcapitaloftheworld.com.au/ Read it and weep trollster.
In the Australian interior (Coober Pedy and Lightning Ridge) they build many homes undergound...thsi kinds of thing would be perfect. Natural air conditioning and natural light sources.
I've had this running all night now...perhaps 7 hours altogether and no crashes!
Mind you maybe I should move the mouse and do something.
I'll be back in 5!
When I zoomed in on Redmond WA all I saw was this:
http://xballonline.com/newsnewxballpreview.jpg
..and who IS that guy?
Ha ha!
I zoomed in first thing to see how detailed the images were and lo and behold...
So where are all the mice?
Maybe it was lost like this:
i es /Itemid,4/task,watch/id,88/>
;)
http://hornyferret.com/component/option,com_mov
That's why I stick to chairs
I think this is going to MS's way of getting "patch management" into the mainstream.
Think about it...delivering A/V and system updates via clickable Ads - brilliant!
Oooohhhh...and so so profitable.
JB
Yup...give them all the Missile Shield contracts.
Those 14km wide ICBMS won't know what hit 'em!
JB
That the fire they're saving up all that water for
duh...
;)
I know people have already mentioned it here but I have to reiterate for thos people who are talking out their ass on deployment costs.
My emplyer is rolling out WinXP (+ Office XP) to 16000+ desktops. The post-migration issues are horrendous as we're jumping from WinNT and Office 97.
Keep in mind that when you upgrade - the license costs aren't too high compared...it's the re-training and migration of old sopftware that will kick your ass. We have countless Access 97 based DBs that are needing migrating, and I imaging every MS based shop out there will find the same deal. You fill in your niches gradually, but when you're forced to migrate you must pull up all those carefully ingrown roots and replant them elsewhere. Planning for that is never fun, and if your current software is doing the job (Win2k) then why shouldn't you stretch that out for as long as you can utilize only 50-80% of the product's usable features?
Granted a migration to Win2k would have been nice, but that's moot. Either way I'd say to all those Win2k shops out there to stay put for now.
I don't know about that
I find it interesting that that a few consultant friends of mine have opted out of mentioning they are MCSEs when competing for some jobs. I can hold people back these days :P
No No!
You have it all wrong...this is a serious attempt to put a human face this kind of thing. I can just see their centre now:
"your data is important to us, please stay on the line and a random extortionista will be with you shortly."
The fact that they are asking for direct contact is a radical departure from the usual anonymous hacker behaviour. These poor souls _yearn_ for contact! I see it as a heartful longing for friendship - 200$ at a time :P
Ummmmm...iMovie?
>So if I am not an atheist, if I dare to belive in higher structures invisible to us, will I be executed by the Holy Atheist Inquisition?
Who said anything about killing or being killed? Everything always comes down to some kind of blasphemy punishable by death with you Faith Types.
The argument a has always been about two different modes of thinking - one based on belief, and on based on reason. They are not mutually exclusive, but in practice they tend to be confused with each other. What some people on the science/epistemological-side find offensive is that empirical knowledge has been compared to creationist idealism - and made itse competitor. You have one group that takes their knowledge from interpreting the Bible/Koran/Baghavad Gita (which is fixed in scope), and the other that is taking their knowledge from watching how the world works...in a sense they are letting nature and observation write their "book". That latter knowledge base is always re-writing itself due to eveolving knoweldge and discovery.
How you have confused this as a form of anti-religion is beyond me. Science is a process, NOT a belief system. And the reason cretionists are being ridiculed more often than not is that they pick on silly things like the age of the earth when you could also be attacking things like the general theory of relativity. By framing your arguments as being science vs creationism you are avoiding the inevitiable. Scientific thinkers will always pick each other's hypotheses apart. If you want to at least debate scientists on the merits of creationist beliefs vs scientific knowledge, at teh VERY least play the game. If lack of "proof' is reason to discard evolutionary theory then lack of proof is what you're holding up as a replacement theory
How bizarre...
P.S. And if you're a little rusty on your history please remember that Galileo merely postulated that the SUN was the centre of the universe (solar system), upsetting biblical theory that the Earth was the centre of the Universe. He was nearly put to death for those "discoveries". Under that kind of a climate can you imagine any Christian Astronauts getting off the ground had Galileo's "scienctific" insistence not paid off?
What...you mean China??
Hell - can't we just put the hard drive in reverse and roll it back a bit? It worked for Ferris Buehler didn't it?
*natch
>How can Windows still be ahead?
Your sarcasm detecter needs checking
I think it's best that we look at castration for the worst sex traders/offenders...given that people can be framed and the legal system is pretty good at putting a few innocent people to death every year we have to assume mistakes will happen. Only the worst and most verifiable offenders would face physical alteration
The ONLY way to solve this would be for chemical or physical castration. The sexual urges at the very least will be abated and we might be able to rahab the least worst offenders.
That being said if anyone hurt my children they'd disappear pretty quickly once they were out of jail. I agree that the victimization of children is on eof the worst things you can do to a human. They just aren't capable of processing the exerience. Worst still they often grow up to be victimizers themselves, where their need to exact revenge or control over their world takes over as a base need. It's for THAT reason that child sex offenders are so quickly dealt judgment by their peers in prison. Just look at Jeffrey Dahmer
anyone see post-it notes around their office with things "puppy13" or "john1" written on them?
Knowing some of our people, they'd just tape their secutiy key to the monitor
JB
The MSN Search page includes a "Letter from Bill Gates."
Of course I only assumed it'd be scrawled across the page in three or four run-on sentences and little smileys, but it was just Times New Roman.
Sighhhhh...
This notion:
I'd wager that a lot of browser users (those who don't switch because they don't know the differences between browsers...very novice users) aren't using FireFox because they wouldn't understand how to switch.
Since windows ships with the browser you get that catch-22. Internet Savvy users are more likely to know how to keep safe when using online e-commerce sites, ergo they might spend the bulk of the money online for day-to-day purchases. These internet savvy users are the ones who switch browser like some users' change shirts. Ergo they are the current leading-edge FireFox switchers.
When calculating the percentages of web site visitors versus web site visitors who make purchases, are the numbers becoming skewed towards FireFox for the latter condition?
Anyone care to take a stab at this?
I only ask because I keep seeing the "IE is still "x"% of the market" argument for keeping certain sites IE-only or IE-biased. It makes less sense when considering that those browser users might be less likely to make a purchase, since we've opened the cusomer-base can-of-worms.
JB