And here I thought my wireless link using WPA-TKIP (WPA2 not out for access point yet) and an L2TP/IPSEC VPN using ESP 3DES would be secure enough for daily use. Guess I'll have to add yet another layer of encryption. Must I now install an english to pig-latin service for both ends?;)
And that would be what? The best legal system history has ever known?
Having a family member that has worked for a state university for 25 years, I can tell you for sure there is no state funded school in the United States right now that has so much money they can afford to have massive amounts of extra bandwidth as they did in the past. Internal usage by students eats up a major amount of bandwidth too. Your statement moves right into an assumption. Anyone that has a clue knows there is no such thing as a SAFE ASSUMPTION. You also assume Stanford's IT staff knew of this post ahead of time.
As far as potential liability goes, there is no need to even determine intention. For example, it doesn't matter whether I intended to rear-end the car in front of me. I'm still liable for the damage.
What I was trying to point out is that it does not take a lot of effort for slashdot to be more responsible and not end up knocking a web server or two offline per day with 100,000 unexpected hits.
I think it might be worth suggesting the addition of a new posting alias to go along with "Anonymous Coward" too. How about one titled "Anonymous Idiot".;)
Someday soon, the owners of a site that gets slashdotted are going to sue faster than CmdrTaco can say "tort reform".
It's irresponsible to post, unedited, an article suggesting readers download a 60mb movie without first making some effort to mirror/torrent the file and/or site.
That human soul you received has to be worth something. I bet you could resell it in eBay's "Everything Else > Weird Stuff > Totally Bizarre > Human Souls" category. You can probably get several hundred thousand dollars for it you agree to tattoo the winning bidder's corporate logo on the soul's forehead for a year. For added value, try toasting the soul to see if any images of the Holy Mother appear.
Just a thought.
Good lord man! Linux for Christmas? You might as well give them coal. One can at least safely burn coal and keep warm.;)
Interesting idea either way you look at it.
The problems with this service pack are much more complex than what most people and the media are making them. I don't think anyone will disagree that Microsoft has a huge user base, or that they have some flaws in their software.
Implementing major security upgrades, a very necessary thing to do, comes with difficulties. The main problem is trying not to cause problems with too many other applications; else MS would have more issues to deal with. The trick is to balance the fixes with their effect on applications and corporate network configurations where questionable Windows services are most commonly utilized.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to defend MS. But I think people need to see that problem this big can only be fixed in stages, else it will create so many problems that no one will install it. The 10% rate of SP2 problems recently cited is a very acceptable rate overall. Had MS locked much more down, we'd most likely be seeing problem rates closer to 50%.
I think we can all think of at least one past experience with a flawed application where the manufacturer went too far and basically destroyed their user base thanks to a fix or update. MS is not going to do that. In addition, end users have to take responsibility for implementing known measures to ensure their system is as secure/virus free as possible. I recently read an article I concur with based on years of working with end users. The article stated that a very high percentage of users do not bother to keep their virus scanners up to date. In addition, at least one company has made a good firewall available for end users to use FREE for one year. Microsoft has had a link to that software for quite some time now. If a user is not doing the minimum known procedures to keep their system secured and virus free, they have no one to blame beside themselves.
Give it time. As Windows grows up, is fixed further, it will slowly become a secure product. The only part of Windows that I'd saw in an unfixable mess is IE, and there are known, easy to obtain alternatives. One can do a lot to plug the security holes now, but they have to get over blaming MS for the problem and take responsibility for their system(s).
Ok, this concludes my rant. Let the flames begin.;)
Slashdot Mirror
The Microsoft sponsored car turned blue with white writing mid way through and idled in the middle of the track for the rest of the race.
Quick! Someone run out into the Iraqi desert and trace out 100 meter tall letters "WMD" and the outline of a mushroom cloud.
Right the fuck on! I live for Adult Swim (except for the Anime). I hope that proves that I have a life. ;)
Is this April 1? I'm so confused.
And here I thought my wireless link using WPA-TKIP (WPA2 not out for access point yet) and an L2TP/IPSEC VPN using ESP 3DES would be secure enough for daily use. Guess I'll have to add yet another layer of encryption. Must I now install an english to pig-latin service for both ends? ;)
And that would be what? The best legal system history has ever known?
;)
Having a family member that has worked for a state university for 25 years, I can tell you for sure there is no state funded school in the United States right now that has so much money they can afford to have massive amounts of extra bandwidth as they did in the past. Internal usage by students eats up a major amount of bandwidth too. Your statement moves right into an assumption. Anyone that has a clue knows there is no such thing as a SAFE ASSUMPTION. You also assume Stanford's IT staff knew of this post ahead of time.
As far as potential liability goes, there is no need to even determine intention. For example, it doesn't matter whether I intended to rear-end the car in front of me. I'm still liable for the damage.
What I was trying to point out is that it does not take a lot of effort for slashdot to be more responsible and not end up knocking a web server or two offline per day with 100,000 unexpected hits.
I think it might be worth suggesting the addition of a new posting alias to go along with "Anonymous Coward" too. How about one titled "Anonymous Idiot".
Someday soon, the owners of a site that gets slashdotted are going to sue faster than CmdrTaco can say "tort reform". It's irresponsible to post, unedited, an article suggesting readers download a 60mb movie without first making some effort to mirror/torrent the file and/or site.
That human soul you received has to be worth something. I bet you could resell it in eBay's "Everything Else > Weird Stuff > Totally Bizarre > Human Souls" category. You can probably get several hundred thousand dollars for it you agree to tattoo the winning bidder's corporate logo on the soul's forehead for a year. For added value, try toasting the soul to see if any images of the Holy Mother appear. Just a thought.
Good lord man! Linux for Christmas? You might as well give them coal. One can at least safely burn coal and keep warm. ;)
Interesting idea either way you look at it.
The problems with this service pack are much more complex than what most people and the media are making them. I don't think anyone will disagree that Microsoft has a huge user base, or that they have some flaws in their software.
;)
Implementing major security upgrades, a very necessary thing to do, comes with difficulties. The main problem is trying not to cause problems with too many other applications; else MS would have more issues to deal with. The trick is to balance the fixes with their effect on applications and corporate network configurations where questionable Windows services are most commonly utilized.
Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to defend MS. But I think people need to see that problem this big can only be fixed in stages, else it will create so many problems that no one will install it. The 10% rate of SP2 problems recently cited is a very acceptable rate overall. Had MS locked much more down, we'd most likely be seeing problem rates closer to 50%.
I think we can all think of at least one past experience with a flawed application where the manufacturer went too far and basically destroyed their user base thanks to a fix or update. MS is not going to do that. In addition, end users have to take responsibility for implementing known measures to ensure their system is as secure/virus free as possible. I recently read an article I concur with based on years of working with end users. The article stated that a very high percentage of users do not bother to keep their virus scanners up to date. In addition, at least one company has made a good firewall available for end users to use FREE for one year. Microsoft has had a link to that software for quite some time now. If a user is not doing the minimum known procedures to keep their system secured and virus free, they have no one to blame beside themselves.
Give it time. As Windows grows up, is fixed further, it will slowly become a secure product. The only part of Windows that I'd saw in an unfixable mess is IE, and there are known, easy to obtain alternatives. One can do a lot to plug the security holes now, but they have to get over blaming MS for the problem and take responsibility for their system(s).
Ok, this concludes my rant. Let the flames begin.