Riiiiiight. Because the one thing we brainwashed public-schoolers have is an innate love of the system.
Preschool kids in the area not only do the pledge of allegiance, but also a pledge to california. I will see if I can get the exact text of the pledge from my friend's daughter, but it essentially states that she loves this great state in about 4 different verses.
She sang it to me when she first learn it, and I was shocked at what I was hearing. It is brainwashing, pure and simple. Her mother didn't see the problem at all, even after I explain it.
1) We don't know how to do a desktop. If you want proof, look at what we've got so far.
2) We don't *want* to do desktops. This, too, should be fairly obvious by the effort ( or lack thereof ) put forth up to this point.
If OSX is a great desktop OS on commodity hardware ( it won't be, but that's the assumption at this point ), why should we spin our wheels coming up with yet another version of the wheel? The focus, I believe, should be server side. We should be making file/print and directory services under linux so damned impressive that no one would want to bother with the MS alternative.
Why does this necessarily mean and arch move? People have been clamoring for years to get OSX on an x86 chip; maybe that's all apple is doing. Getting ready to release osx for x86 along side their main ppc arch.
Not that I can see that being particularly sucessful, as I'm sure it would be crippled ( both intentionally and not ). At best, apple would view it as a gateway drug to get people hooked on OSX before they make the switch to the PPC arch.
Anyway, this is all speculation, and I doubt any of us are going to be close to the mark.
Did you completely miss the part where i said anybody could call and get ports opened?
You sir are an idiot, and sadly it will be twits like you that keep good ideas like this from ever taking root. You have a bright future in management.
How about this idea, everyone has complete access privileges. The isp notices for common characteristics of a bot net and common malware
And how is this easy for an ISP to implement? This would require realtime scanning on the streams coming and out of their network. My solution blocks first, askes questions later. Much easier for an ISP to impement, especially given that almost all their equipment can do this already.
And the best part is, most users wouldn't notice the difference. Those that do would be able to call up and have them open ports. No biggy.
I'm honestly schocked by the outcry I eet from this idea. It would work, and work well ( dependant on the ISP ), with minimal fuss for the techs out there.
If you want to be protected from the big bad Internet, signup with AOL. Some of us just want IP dialtone. Route the damn packets and leave us alone. I certainly don't want my ISP passing judgement on what ports they'll allow in packets that traverse their network.
Quite frankly, I don't care what some of you want. Some/most of you are on machines that try just about every available exploit against my web/email server, and chew up a significant portion of my bandwidth with spam forwarded through your rooted boxes.
Some/most of you have proven you don't know how to keep you box locked down, so I'm all for the ISPs doing it for us.
many virii get their foot in the door, so to speak, with an email. once something has executed, eg opening a document or some other vbscript, or an exe, it'll pull its full payload down from the web. and that can then sit and listen on one of those standard ports.
That's the other half of it: Block all incoming ports. You can make connections out, and they can make it back to you, but that's it.
all this will do is interfere with people who need things other than you deem "necessary", eg streaming audio, online gaming, p2p, or ANYTHING bespoke whatsoever.
Obviously there would be a standard range of ports open. By no means was my list compreshensive. Given that a vast majority wouldn't even notice the change, I think it's a good solution. As long as ISPs are willing to open ports on an individual basis, I don't see how anybody can have a problem with this.
Most, if not all, ISPs need to lock down the end user's access to ports. Give them the basics ( outgoing 80, 110 and 143 ), but lock everything else down. In this case, I'd say everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Then, when someone calls in, you simply open the port they request.
This is more work for ISP support staff, but it would dramatically reduce network traffic; I bet it'd be an even flush as far as overall cost.
But if there are patents on videogames, would it not stimulate the production of original games? If you couldn't make a game based on a certain set of ideas, wouldn't you be forced to create an original game?
As unpopular an opinion as it is now a days, the good creative content is often built on older creative content. For instance, we couldn't have had hl/hl2/cs with out id and doom.
Interesting mental exercise: Imagine a world where ID DID patent Doom and it's methods.
Imagine patents on books. Or, more telling, on scientific works. That's what this amounts to: Creating games and the like are creative, but also utilize a very scientific method of using the work of others to further your own.
Incidently, this is also why everyone is against software patents. It will kill our software design industry.
if you ever read mailing list of any large open source project, you know that significant piece of traffic is about platform-specific bugs or a new release broken on some exotic platform.
By the same token, doesn't this indicate the need for the software is there?
Give him time to mature a bit, I think you'll see another harrison ford. Hell, look at American Grafitti, Ford was *young* in that movie ( filmed in the very town I'm posting this from, btw ).
He's one of the greats of his generations, and he's just going to get better and better as he matures.
Maybe not a repost on slashdot, but I remember reading about this in Time over a year ago ( 2 years ago? ).
This is old tech, and while privacy is a concern, I'd rather have someone checkin' out my jimmah if it means weapons have a lesser chance of getting on the plane.
As an asside: I don't think tighter passenger security is where we should be headed: I think we should lock down the air planes. The cockpit simply isn't accessable from the main carrage of the plane, there would literally be a seperate entrance externally. Further, I favor undercover armed guards on every flight. Police officers, if you will.
I think this would go a long way in making our flights more secure, without having to resort to privacy encroachment methods.
I'm tired of people saying some apps need admin privileges
I'm sorry, but your solutions are simplistic at best, and don't work in this case. I know, they are the first things I tried.
The application in question is an application, that needs power user level access. Runas doesn't work with it due to the way it interacts with the printers on the system ( I think ). So runas can't be used with it, and it's not a system service. I even tried running the print spooler as administrator ( along with a whole slew of other users, SYSTEM included ) when using runas. This program is simply a mystery to the OS.
I'd drop the ego a notch, people will get the mistaken impression you know what you are talking about.
If you took a little time to find the reg entries/directories the software needs access to you could fix that issue.I've spent weeks picking through enormous security logs looking for failed access attempts. Time and experience is not a problem.
Of course you could also CHOOSE better software?
Not in my field, unfortunately. There isn't anything even remotely better than what we have.
Easier said then done. A lot of software is designed to only work as admin. One such example I have to deal with is a printer that sends data it captures to a remote server ( electronic claim processing ). Won't run as normal user, security audits to find the exact permissions don't find what's needed to make it work as a normal user. Power user and above. I have three examples where I work, and I know I'm not alone.
The problem isn't windows per se, it's the developers. There's all this bad inertia with the developers, and until MS addresses this, we will continue to see windows wonkiness.
Maybe the last line of parent was a joke... but maybe not. It would make a lot of sense for M$ to buy something that can handle real world better than VSS.
Look at it like this: MS is ruthless. We know this. If they could throw money at something to delay linux development, don't you think they'd take the shot? Regardless of whether they'll use it or not, it may be worth it to buy to create havoc with linux development.
it makes too much sense for me to discount completely, but at the same time, I feel I should be wearing a tinfoil hat.
The open source guys can scrape together enough resources to reverse engineer stuff. That's easy. It's way cheaper to reverse engineer something than to create something new
Wha..?
Not in terms of man hours, nor tools require, nor expertise of the people involved.
I'm calling this one: Bullshit.
But if the world goes to 100% open source, innovation goes to zero. The open source guys hate it when I say this, but it's true.
I'm trying, I'm really trying, to see how this one works. If I can have the source to anything I'm working on, and I decide that I like it better this way, and everybody else agrees with me, isn't that innovation? Hell, isn't it innovation even if NOBODY agrees with me? So, by the sheer numbers of casual programmers like myself in the world, doesn't this mean innovation actually sky rockets with the more code we have access to?
Newsline next week ( and remember, you heard it here first! ): MS buys out bitkeeper!
Ok, that was supposed to be a joke, but it makes a weird sort of sense, doesn't it?
although everyone needs to remember that if the card worked 100% fine with 16 pipelines they would have sold it that way.
Not necessarily. If they need to fill a price point, chip companies will sell the higher grade stuff at a lower price point and intentionally cripple it.
Intel and AMD have been doing it for years, and they are hardly the only ones.
Slashdot Mirror
Riiiiiight. Because the one thing we brainwashed public-schoolers have is an innate love of the system.
Preschool kids in the area not only do the pledge of allegiance, but also a pledge to california. I will see if I can get the exact text of the pledge from my friend's daughter, but it essentially states that she loves this great state in about 4 different verses.
She sang it to me when she first learn it, and I was shocked at what I was hearing. It is brainwashing, pure and simple. Her mother didn't see the problem at all, even after I explain it.
1) We don't know how to do a desktop. If you want proof, look at what we've got so far.
2) We don't *want* to do desktops. This, too, should be fairly obvious by the effort ( or lack thereof ) put forth up to this point.
If OSX is a great desktop OS on commodity hardware ( it won't be, but that's the assumption at this point ), why should we spin our wheels coming up with yet another version of the wheel? The focus, I believe, should be server side. We should be making file/print and directory services under linux so damned impressive that no one would want to bother with the MS alternative.
You can use msn! Or, maybe you'd prefer msn!
Or, if those two options don't suit you, you can use MSN!
Why does this necessarily mean and arch move? People have been clamoring for years to get OSX on an x86 chip; maybe that's all apple is doing. Getting ready to release osx for x86 along side their main ppc arch.
Not that I can see that being particularly sucessful, as I'm sure it would be crippled ( both intentionally and not ). At best, apple would view it as a gateway drug to get people hooked on OSX before they make the switch to the PPC arch.
Anyway, this is all speculation, and I doubt any of us are going to be close to the mark.
Did you completely miss the part where i said anybody could call and get ports opened?
You sir are an idiot, and sadly it will be twits like you that keep good ideas like this from ever taking root. You have a bright future in management.
How about this idea, everyone has complete access privileges. The isp notices for common characteristics of a bot net and common malware
And how is this easy for an ISP to implement? This would require realtime scanning on the streams coming and out of their network. My solution blocks first, askes questions later. Much easier for an ISP to impement, especially given that almost all their equipment can do this already.
And the best part is, most users wouldn't notice the difference. Those that do would be able to call up and have them open ports. No biggy.
I'm honestly schocked by the outcry I eet from this idea. It would work, and work well ( dependant on the ISP ), with minimal fuss for the techs out there.
If you want to be protected from the big bad Internet, signup with AOL. Some of us just want IP dialtone. Route the damn packets and leave us alone. I certainly don't want my ISP passing judgement on what ports they'll allow in packets that traverse their network.
Quite frankly, I don't care what some of you want. Some/most of you are on machines that try just about every available exploit against my web/email server, and chew up a significant portion of my bandwidth with spam forwarded through your rooted boxes.
Some/most of you have proven you don't know how to keep you box locked down, so I'm all for the ISPs doing it for us.
many virii get their foot in the door, so to speak, with an email. once something has executed, eg opening a document or some other vbscript, or an exe, it'll pull its full payload down from the web. and that can then sit and listen on one of those standard ports.
That's the other half of it: Block all incoming ports. You can make connections out, and they can make it back to you, but that's it.
all this will do is interfere with people who need things other than you deem "necessary", eg streaming audio, online gaming, p2p, or ANYTHING bespoke whatsoever.
Obviously there would be a standard range of ports open. By no means was my list compreshensive. Given that a vast majority wouldn't even notice the change, I think it's a good solution. As long as ISPs are willing to open ports on an individual basis, I don't see how anybody can have a problem with this.
Meanwhile, I'm trying to do work towards something that will fix the problem instead slacking the responsibility for it off on someone else.
Have a sign-up page. You could even make it automatic.
So the latest and greatest virus can automatically open it's own ports. Yeah! No.
Personally, I don't really like this. Better to make OS manufacturers accountable, methinks.
That's great in theory, but the reality is this:
1) The government isn't going to do anything to MS or anybody else for making insecure products
2) I want protection higher up the chain. It just makes sense, there are fewer points to control.
Most, if not all, ISPs need to lock down the end user's access to ports. Give them the basics ( outgoing 80, 110 and 143 ), but lock everything else down. In this case, I'd say everyone is guilty until proven innocent. Then, when someone calls in, you simply open the port they request.
This is more work for ISP support staff, but it would dramatically reduce network traffic; I bet it'd be an even flush as far as overall cost.
But if there are patents on videogames, would it not stimulate the production of original games? If you couldn't make a game based on a certain set of ideas, wouldn't you be forced to create an original game?
As unpopular an opinion as it is now a days, the good creative content is often built on older creative content. For instance, we couldn't have had hl/hl2/cs with out id and doom.
Interesting mental exercise: Imagine a world where ID DID patent Doom and it's methods.
Imagine patents on books. Or, more telling, on scientific works. That's what this amounts to: Creating games and the like are creative, but also utilize a very scientific method of using the work of others to further your own.
Incidently, this is also why everyone is against software patents. It will kill our software design industry.
You gotta be kidding me, this was modded as flame bait?
MODS: Wake the fuck up. THIS post can be considered flame bait ( watch, I'll be modded insightful or interesting ).
if you ever read mailing list of any large open source project, you know that significant piece of traffic is about platform-specific bugs or a new release broken on some exotic platform.
By the same token, doesn't this indicate the need for the software is there?
Give him time to mature a bit, I think you'll see another harrison ford. Hell, look at American Grafitti, Ford was *young* in that movie ( filmed in the very town I'm posting this from, btw ).
He's one of the greats of his generations, and he's just going to get better and better as he matures.
I can't think of any guy who has that right mix of bad-ass, intelligence, commedy and sex appeal.
Ewan McGregor
Why no one has modded that hilarious yet is beyond me.
I am having issues parsing your sentance...
And I yours.
I wonder how many people are going to think this is some sort of threat to 'national security.'
I wonder how many of those will be our beloved chimp for president.
yeah yeah, mod me flamebait
Maybe not a repost on slashdot, but I remember reading about this in Time over a year ago ( 2 years ago? ).
This is old tech, and while privacy is a concern, I'd rather have someone checkin' out my jimmah if it means weapons have a lesser chance of getting on the plane.
As an asside: I don't think tighter passenger security is where we should be headed: I think we should lock down the air planes. The cockpit simply isn't accessable from the main carrage of the plane, there would literally be a seperate entrance externally. Further, I favor undercover armed guards on every flight. Police officers, if you will.
I think this would go a long way in making our flights more secure, without having to resort to privacy encroachment methods.
I'm tired of people saying some apps need admin privileges
I'm sorry, but your solutions are simplistic at best, and don't work in this case. I know, they are the first things I tried.
The application in question is an application, that needs power user level access. Runas doesn't work with it due to the way it interacts with the printers on the system ( I think ). So runas can't be used with it, and it's not a system service. I even tried running the print spooler as administrator ( along with a whole slew of other users, SYSTEM included ) when using runas. This program is simply a mystery to the OS.
I'd drop the ego a notch, people will get the mistaken impression you know what you are talking about.
If you took a little time to find the reg entries/directories the software needs access to you could fix that issue.I've spent weeks picking through enormous security logs looking for failed access attempts. Time and experience is not a problem.
Of course you could also CHOOSE better software?
Not in my field, unfortunately. There isn't anything even remotely better than what we have.
Don't allow users to run as admin (never)!
Easier said then done. A lot of software is designed to only work as admin. One such example I have to deal with is a printer that sends data it captures to a remote server ( electronic claim processing ). Won't run as normal user, security audits to find the exact permissions don't find what's needed to make it work as a normal user. Power user and above. I have three examples where I work, and I know I'm not alone.
The problem isn't windows per se, it's the developers. There's all this bad inertia with the developers, and until MS addresses this, we will continue to see windows wonkiness.
Maybe the last line of parent was a joke... but maybe not. It would make a lot of sense for M$ to buy something that can handle real world better than VSS.
Look at it like this: MS is ruthless. We know this. If they could throw money at something to delay linux development, don't you think they'd take the shot? Regardless of whether they'll use it or not, it may be worth it to buy to create havoc with linux development.
it makes too much sense for me to discount completely, but at the same time, I feel I should be wearing a tinfoil hat.
The open source guys can scrape together enough resources to reverse engineer stuff. That's easy. It's way cheaper to reverse engineer something than to create something new
Wha..?
Not in terms of man hours, nor tools require, nor expertise of the people involved.
I'm calling this one: Bullshit.
But if the world goes to 100% open source, innovation goes to zero. The open source guys hate it when I say this, but it's true.
I'm trying, I'm really trying, to see how this one works. If I can have the source to anything I'm working on, and I decide that I like it better this way, and everybody else agrees with me, isn't that innovation? Hell, isn't it innovation even if NOBODY agrees with me? So, by the sheer numbers of casual programmers like myself in the world, doesn't this mean innovation actually sky rockets with the more code we have access to?
Newsline next week ( and remember, you heard it here first! ): MS buys out bitkeeper!
Ok, that was supposed to be a joke, but it makes a weird sort of sense, doesn't it?
although everyone needs to remember that if the card worked 100% fine with 16 pipelines they would have sold it that way.
Not necessarily. If they need to fill a price point, chip companies will sell the higher grade stuff at a lower price point and intentionally cripple it.
Intel and AMD have been doing it for years, and they are hardly the only ones.