Hopefully that's one of those errors that you can move to the edge of the screen and continue using the program...until the plane has landed.
I remember IE crashing in Win95. You either clicked Details or OK on the dialog box. If you clicked OK, IE closed. If you moved the dialog box out of the way, you could keep using IE...for a while anyway...
Isn't the XP embedded machine at your local tire store that finds which tires you need pretty critical to that particular business? Sure this project is critical to the mission of the team, but XP Embedded is used in critical applications by many organizations.
Is a model airplane crashing really that much different than a store being shut down for 24 hours because their computers are down?
Unfortunately, the majority of P2P users are using this service illegally. Less than 1% of gun owners are convicted or even apprehended for gun crimes.
It's not the same argument. People can and should consider the two things very different.
That being said, I don't think these lawsuits will do squat. Sure, maybe they'll shut a couple P2P services down, but they're not going to stop P2P copyright violations. And they'll do more than their fair share of funding the lawyers of America in the process.
It's interesting to note that the 'Automatic Updates' service must be set to 'Automatic' and be running in order for Windows Update to work through IE. Even if you choose not to use Automatic Updates (as I have), you *must* have the service running all the time for Windows Update to work (or change it to Automatic each time before going to Windows Update in IE). Rather annoying.
>32bit compile-as-you-go-and-fight-dependencies Linux, or 64bit it-just-works OSX
At least if you fight with dependencies, you actually know what the dependencies are. This can be very helpful when pushing it out to many machines or when you find out that a library is buggy/exploitable.
>"X said something to Y at this date/time" which is still useful info in an intel puzzle...
But clearly not enough for their intel. The feds aren't asking VoIP companies to keep call logs that can be reviewed by subpoena. They're asking for the ability to actually tap the calls. Big difference.
Apparently they haven't gotten to writing the release notes for 0.9.2. Is this "shellblock" thing the only fix? Sounds like it would be much easier to install the shellblock.xpi extension. (redundant I know)
BUT, since I have XP SP2 installed (the latest release candidate), I can ignore 0.9.2 altogether? Or are other bug fixes included in this release?
>A RAID-5 array with hot spares or a remote backup site is much more reliable and cost-effective.
Customer: I accidentally modified this file 2 days ago, can I get a backup copy?
You: Sorry, you're screwed.
Me: Yes, I'll have that restored for you as soon as possible. How can I contact you to notify you that it is finished?
We use RAID-5 and tape backup (which is off-site). The RAID covers disk failures; the tape backup covers user screw-ups and disaster recovery. And we've used both frequently enough to make them worth the money.
>Ditto several places I used to work for had huge automated 30 tape backup systems that would back up the entire server drives every 24 hours. They had to pay a monkey to go in and fill the tape resevoir once in a while when it ran out.
Yes, our automated systems tend to cost much less than the monkeys:)
We still use tapes for backup, and have no intention on killing them anytime soon. It's a good system that is proven to work. Companies need more than a well-dressed salesperson to convince us otherwise.
Although the limits are very large, they are finite in the example of the computer. This can be shown trivially.
What makes you think the human mind is so limited? I am not convinced that a human can't evaluate nearly the same number of possibilities as a computer can in a set amount of time. It's much easier for the human to rule out possibilities, one thing it is difficult for the computer to do. While humans are still playing quite well against computers, I wouldn't count us out now, or ten years from now.
>Which unfortunately does you little good with our wonderful wireless routers having backdoors in them.
A NAT with a backdoor will still help you quite a bit. Sure, someone can get in your box with some effort...but any old worm trying to infect your machine will be effectively stopped.
Depending on your situation, the chances of someone try to manually hack your box are zilch. Not a good excuse for bad security...but still.
>the entertainment industry is trying to tell you what you can do with your own machines
The entertainment industry is telling you what you can do with their broadcasts. If you have created the broadcast, you can do whatever the hell you want with your own machine. You can't duplicate a concert or a baseball game you go to, why should you be able to duplicate a TV show you watch at home? Just because you've been able to do it for as long as you can remember doesn't make it right.
They've created the broadcast, so they are able to restrict it. The FCC probably shouldn't be getting involved, but that's another issue.
Slashdot Mirror
I remember IE crashing in Win95. You either clicked Details or OK on the dialog box. If you clicked OK, IE closed. If you moved the dialog box out of the way, you could keep using IE...for a while anyway...
Critical is definitely a relative term.
Isn't the XP embedded machine at your local tire store that finds which tires you need pretty critical to that particular business? Sure this project is critical to the mission of the team, but XP Embedded is used in critical applications by many organizations.
Is a model airplane crashing really that much different than a store being shut down for 24 hours because their computers are down?
That being said, I don't think these lawsuits will do squat. Sure, maybe they'll shut a couple P2P services down, but they're not going to stop P2P copyright violations. And they'll do more than their fair share of funding the lawyers of America in the process.
Umm, how about "It's an antenna, not a gun."
And if they did open the power supply with it on, they won't do it again. Touch the wrong thing and it hurts. A lot.
It's interesting to note that the 'Automatic Updates' service must be set to 'Automatic' and be running in order for Windows Update to work through IE. Even if you choose not to use Automatic Updates (as I have), you *must* have the service running all the time for Windows Update to work (or change it to Automatic each time before going to Windows Update in IE). Rather annoying.
>I wonder if this type of exploit could be prevented if the library was written in, say, java instead?
Sure it could be prevented. It can also be prevented when written in C. See release 1.2.6rc1.
If you're starting the arguement that Java is inherently more secure, and therefore everything should be written in Java, it's not worth the flamewar.
At least if you fight with dependencies, you actually know what the dependencies are. This can be very helpful when pushing it out to many machines or when you find out that a library is buggy/exploitable.
Why would people start encrypting phone calls when they won't even use PGP? After all, phones haven't been encrypted in the past anyway.
But clearly not enough for their intel. The feds aren't asking VoIP companies to keep call logs that can be reviewed by subpoena. They're asking for the ability to actually tap the calls. Big difference.
Unfortunately, I usually accept it anyway because I have stuff to do and can't verify with the admin immediately.
BUT, since I have XP SP2 installed (the latest release candidate), I can ignore 0.9.2 altogether? Or are other bug fixes included in this release?
Customer: I accidentally modified this file 2 days ago, can I get a backup copy?
You: Sorry, you're screwed.
Me: Yes, I'll have that restored for you as soon as possible. How can I contact you to notify you that it is finished?
We use RAID-5 and tape backup (which is off-site). The RAID covers disk failures; the tape backup covers user screw-ups and disaster recovery. And we've used both frequently enough to make them worth the money.
Yes, our automated systems tend to cost much less than the monkeys :)
We still use tapes for backup, and have no intention on killing them anytime soon. It's a good system that is proven to work. Companies need more than a well-dressed salesperson to convince us otherwise.
I'd like to see him carry his entire bag this far. Without a cart.
That's a bad assumption. He appears to be hitting towns with the most Starbucks in them. I doubt he's buying 5 frappucinos in an hour or two.
The cost of the hobby obviously lies in the outrageous traveling expenses.
And for all the nay-sayers, I have proof!
You're going to have cost for materials anyway, maybe not quite as much, but still a substantial cost.
Although the limits are very large, they are finite in the example of the computer. This can be shown trivially.
What makes you think the human mind is so limited? I am not convinced that a human can't evaluate nearly the same number of possibilities as a computer can in a set amount of time. It's much easier for the human to rule out possibilities, one thing it is difficult for the computer to do. While humans are still playing quite well against computers, I wouldn't count us out now, or ten years from now.
What's wrong with using a firewall? Or a NAT?
A NAT with a backdoor will still help you quite a bit. Sure, someone can get in your box with some effort...but any old worm trying to infect your machine will be effectively stopped.
Depending on your situation, the chances of someone try to manually hack your box are zilch. Not a good excuse for bad security...but still.
True, but what makes you think that Michael Moore is the sole copyright holder?
Am I the only one who thinks it's a chore to lay down on the couch and find something to watch when there's 500 channels?
The entertainment industry is telling you what you can do with their broadcasts. If you have created the broadcast, you can do whatever the hell you want with your own machine. You can't duplicate a concert or a baseball game you go to, why should you be able to duplicate a TV show you watch at home? Just because you've been able to do it for as long as you can remember doesn't make it right.
They've created the broadcast, so they are able to restrict it. The FCC probably shouldn't be getting involved, but that's another issue.