They're persistent I'll give them that but I'm at boiling point (and they aren't going to stop by the looks of it).
Would you consider changing banks? Next time they ring, tell the person that you do not want to receive any more of those calls, tell them that these calls are annoying you and that you are considering leaving the Comm bank because of the annoyance. Keeping in mind that these people on the phone may be in India, work off a commision and really don't give a fuck, go in to your local Comm bank and also tell them of your annoyance and intentions on how to deal with it.
The very next time you receive one of those calls.... close your account and change banks.
You could also cite the fact that your bank is NOT WORKING IN THE INTERESTS OF AUSTRALIANS by closing branches, taking away jobs for Australians and moving those jobs overseas to exploit BOTH Australians and Indians. Find a bank which does not do this and reward them with your business. I'm sure I have seen a bank Advert on TV claiming to provide not only real people on the phone, but real Australians.
The only telemarketers I've got ringing up round here are people we're already with. It's very tempting to cancel our service with them as a result. Then again, we have an unlisted number so I guess that must be the reason. I always figured it wasn't a problem in Australia.
I also have a silent number and I was puzzled with all these complaints I have been seeing on current affairs type shows. Because I also never receive telemarketing calls.
He's been said to have a 'reality distortion field' - by a mixture of charm and exaggeration, he can make you believe pretty much anything.
I hear that it is even said, that he has managed, with the use of this "reality distortion field", to make many people believe that Apple systems have had far fewer virus, security and stability problems!
he has his logic and he wrote what he wrote while he was awake,...
"Wake up to yourself" is a figure of speech. I don't literally mean that he is not awake. I could have said, "wake up and smell the shit you are shoveling". He is not awake to how wrong he is.
and if you had his logic, why would you write anything else,... unless you had different initial assumptions... [and i'm guessin' that's the big difference before and after anything resembling logic]
Logic does not have to be correct. It can be flawed and his is.
or am i missing something,... again?
He is making fun of some of the crazy statements which get written here, yet the particular statement he is poking fun at is based on reasonable logic, which he is debunking with some very flawed logic and ridiculous extension to a silly analogy.
The two do not mesh.
1) My car is very venurable to break ins. You can smash a window, jimmy the locks and so on. It's easy, requries no knowledge to do.
Physical security being compared with logical security. If you want a car that can sustain such brute force physical attacks, then you need to spend more money on an amorized car or something like a BMW Protection. To do the same for a computer, you should be spending more on physically locking it up securely with good locks.
2) My car doesn't deal with faulty input. If I set it in neutral and floor it, the engine will overheat and seize up. There's no system to deal with faulty operation like that.
This is irresponsible USER action, being blamed on the MANUFACTURER. In addition, sanity checking of input in software is of almost negligible cost, yet preventing complete and utter stupidity of a USER causing damage in this case, adds cost of additional physical mechanisms. Costs which the general public should not have to worry about, because it is much cheaper and effective to just educate vehicle owners that they should not redline or rev highly an engine without load.
3) My car has problems with user error. If I drive it in to a wall on accident, it'll stop functioning. Same if a user of another car makes a mistake and hits it.
No reasonable person would claim that user misuse of a car or software should be blamed on the manufacturer. This is a silly comparison. Anything can be misused. It does not mean that the problem is with the product, rather the problem is with the user.
Worse yet, the manufacturer will not fix ANY of these faults, even for a price. Even worse they KNEW about ALL of them when they sold the car.
Okay, so lets see... car makers should somehow provide unbreakable glass and locks, should cover every possible scenario to prevent user (or other person) stupidity causing harm to the car or owner? I suppose this would have to be done at a reasonable price too?
Now compare that to software where we expect that it be essentially faultless and when a fault is found, that it be fixed quickly and for free.
As I've already said and now further elaborated on, this is ridiculous. He is comparing car owner complete and utter stupidity, with software users who paid a premium price and expect premium quality and response to stability and security issues which crop up.
One is completely unreasonable ("I drove my car into a wall / Someone threw a brick through my window... now fix it") versus a reasonable complaint like "I installed Windows XP and within minutes of being on the internet (while waiting for patches to download perhaps), I was infected with a WORM. Ever since vulnerabilities are found in my system every few weeks or so".
Windows is thankfully FINALLY getting better. However in the past, systems could be expected to be vulnerable to MANY different attacks out of the box and users had to be knowledgable on how to prepare and deal with those problems. Remember, Windows is targetted to be usable by people with a minimum knowledge of these sorts of
With SP1 (and 2003 until they fixed it) the firewall was enabled late in the boot sequence - so there was a window when the machine was vulnerable during boot.
This is once the firewall has been enabled by the user right? From my memory XP with SP1 had the firewall off by default, requiring the user to switch it ON. So you are saying that once the user switches it ON, there is the short delay where it is off at boot time after TCP/IP comes up?
If my car had millions of people throwing bricks, I'd be amazed if it lasted 30 seconds.
When are people going to stop using analogies which don't work? They rarely work well. This one does not work at all.
If a car gets bricks thrown at it, it will be damaged by each brick until eventually a brick will break through the car.
On the other hand if a single attack comes from the internet to your computer and your computer is vulnerable to that attack, it will be breached on the first attempt. Conversely, you could have all the attacks your connection could handle, but if none of those attacks addresses any vulnerability your computer has, then it won't be penetrated (it might die DoS style though).
Now compare that to software where we expect that it be essentially faultless and when a fault is found, that it be fixed quickly and for free.
This is ridiculous and not just because the analogy is ridiculous.
Nobody should expect faultless software. However people should expect a premium product for a premium price and free fixes within the warrantee period. Especially given that the fix can be made once and then applied by millions. Also, you are comparing VENDOR FAULT with USER FAULT.
Only on Slashdot:P.
Wake up to yourself. I wouldn't be poking fun at others if I had the screwed up logic that you do.
Ive heard this number before, but im not really sure what their testing it with. I bought a computer about 3 months ago and had it on the net for about a week straight before i bothered patching it installing my firewall etc etc. I've never gotten any spyware on this computer, any viruses , or other random crap and i havn't had any problems with the computer. Maybe if you install windows xp sans sp1 then something might happen this fast, but what computers come without sp2 these days that most consumers actually install?
I was at a client site once, installing XP (SP1). I forgot that I should: install while disconnected from the net, enable the firewall, connect to the net and then patch... instead I just thoughtlessly installed while the machine was still connected to the net (DSL MODEM configured as a half bridge). The machine became infected with a WORM at some stage either during or very shortly after (minutes) the install.
The current estimate by the ISC's DShield for how long it takes for a random computer to get infected after it's connected to the Internet is 26 minutes.
"Random computer" meaning, "random computer running some version of Microsoft Windows which has not been patched in the last 2 weeks"?
Think about that for a moment... and then ask yourself why we actually take this for granted instead of suing Microsoft into oblivion. Would a car company get away with cars breaking down on real-life roads an average 26 minutes after they're purchased? The thought is totally ridiculous, yet we accept the same from Microsoft. Why?
Same reason that people agree to EULA's which have clauses like, "If you suffer ANY losses as a result of using this Software, even if it is our fault, you waive all legal rights to compensation". People just roll over and then when they realise their mistake... it is too late. They rolled over too much, for too long and lost their rights because they "gave up essential liberty to gain a little temporary ease of use". ; )
Yeah, but that's not the kicker, the kicker is that these asswipes let the 18 million spams get sent! Totally irresponsible!
Yes but sent to where? Maybe all outgoing emails from this machine were re-directed to a local dummy mail server configured to just blindly accept these mails as a function of both evidence collection and prevention of actually sending SPAM to the intended recipients.
These stories are usually light on those sorts of details.
I never understood this reasoning. Private consumers aren't the only ones using PCs - enterprises and businesses use PCs too. And they do not get away with corporate-wide piracy of Windows.
Like they do in China and Indonesia (even in government installations)?
Crowded House - Recurring Dream - the Very Best Of
Is it my imagination, or is the music from the iTunes Store a little flat with poor channel separation?
Since I own an iRiver H340, I'm just going to keep buying cheap CD's from K-Mart, Target and Big-W then LAME them, given that I can't tell the difference between my LAME MP3's, my iRiver will play them and I will always have a raw backup to fall back on.
Anyone who is savvy enough to need GRID computing is savvy enough to build their own grid very cheaply.
Yes, there are lots of desktops out there in corporate land. A lot of CPU's which are mostly idle, even during the busiest parts of the day. Word and Email don't chew up many cycles, although I imagine surfing the net could chew up lots more due to flash, etc. Then there's after hours...
It's unfortunate that reporters such as this guy would sensationalize a talk by carefully crafting his story from bits and pieces mostly taken out of context.
Oh my God! A journalist who actively manipulates statements and the facts to sensationalize a story?! What ever happened to journalistic integrity?
Oh, no wait, never mind. I forgot for a second there that I was actually living in a World where sensational stories sell more advertiser product, which is what REALLY matters. To hell with the truth! The Ab Master 3000 sales figures are through the roof!
This means that someone can't easily "screen" a lot of different phone lines without a lot of manpower. VoIP, on the other hand, could be tapped remotely without intervening with your installation at all, and the process can be automated.
To remotely tap your Internet connection, this would typically be done at your Internet Service Provider.
To remotely tap your telephone connection, this would typically be done at your Telephone Service Provider.
There are lots of points where these things can be eavesdropped and they are both quite similar with the pros and cons of each comparable method.
Do you realise that almost all PSTN networks in the World now are digital packet switched? Screening a lot of different phone lines is now trivial for a telco. Do you trust your telco and its staff? I do not trust them any more than the public on the Internet. They ARE "the public" outside of 9-5 and there is lots of opportunity at a telco for the opportunistic. And hell, telcos have never been hacked remotely, right?
* Eavesdropping on classic PSTN requires physical access to the line or switch.
I can easily listen to my next door neighbour if I really wanted to. Often the telco junction boxes are unlocked or sometimes they are even completely missing their covers in my part of the World.
* Snail mail conversations also require physical access.
People work at post offices. People cannot be trusted.
The potential "men in the middle" in your Internet traffic, are mostly ISP staff. ISP staff, telco staff, post office staff, what's the difference? Sometimes the public CAN intercept PSTN and snail mail, same goes for Internet traffic.
I certainly don't view PSTN or snail mail to provide greater security. I've had people eavesdrop and maliciously break into my phone conversations and I've had some of my snail mail stolen (sometimes even given back to me with the envelope opened) from my locked letterbox.
The issue is that anything that is transmitted over a public channel is open for analysis, and hence private information need to be secure.
Make that "ANY channel which leaves your scrutiny". Even if it does not pass the public.
Years ago, I was chatting with a friend on the phone and we started talking about our local telco, which I had previously worked for. We were having a bit of a bitch session about how poor their service is, their dodgy workmanship, the incredible profits they make and what a lazy bunch they are on average. I knew, I worked for them. During this bitch session, someone else broke into the conversation (a male voice) and said something to the effect of, "what a load of bullshit".
These were landlines with wired handsets on both ends. My friend assured me nobody at his end could have said it (he lived with his mother and sister) and I knew that nobody at my end could have said it. My friend was also not the joker type.
On another occasion, someone who was trying to ring me, could not get through because I was already on the phone. Apparently they have no idea what the engaged signal means, so they rang this telco to report a problem. During my phone conversation, an employee of this telco broke in, letting me know that someone was trying to get through.
If a signal leaves your control or goes beyond an area you are able to police, regardless of who could be listening, you can forget privacy without properly implemented and appropriate crypto measures.
This makes sense. I think rats would fare better than others though, since they will even resort to eating candle wax and soap from what I hear (wax from a documentary, soap I am not sure where I heard).
I've owned a few domestic rats over the years. They can be very nice little pets. They only turn into nasty little bastards if you don't handle/play with them enough.
I can understand this. I've never owned any rats, although I have had lots of birds in my life (mostly parrots). The parrots tend to get bitey if neglected of affection too. It is as if they are emotionally hurt.
I had a rat couple visiting my Sydney, Australia kitchen at nights. They were getting stuck into our flour and who knows what else, so I purchased a humane trap to catch them so that I could set them free elsewhere in the wild (I've since found out that this would have been a very bad idea for the native bird life, since rats are known to raid nests for eggs or baby birds). The trap I purchased was primarily intended for possums, however it was very sensitive and suitable for rat capture.
The man who I purchased the trap from, informed me that I should tie the trap open and leave food inside, because the rats will cautiously investigate it and would be likely to trigger it from the outside by crawling on it and then be scared away from it from that point on. I thought this was a bit of exageration and did not think they were all that smart, so in my great haste, I set the trap proper with some apple that night.
In bed that night I listened, eager to hear the trap close... it did... I walked out into the kitchen to find a closed, empty trap.
So I set it again and over a period of weeks those rats NEVER triggered that trap again. Smart little buggers. They were amazing to watch too. They would run right up and down the gas pipe from my oven to the ceiling so fast, as if they were on flat ground. They would even watch me enter the kitchen, turn on the light and stand at the door to look back at them... and they'd just continue to eat my food while they looked back at me. They would not run until I approached further.
Unfortunately, the people down stairs from us used Rat Sack against them, so we were unable to save them and had a terrible smell coming up from the floorboards for weeks after that.
I won't underestimate the rat again. I really wish I'd taken that guys advice too. I would have been willing to keep them captive to see out their lives, although I certainly would never handle wild rats. I've had run-ins with some domestic rats and they were VERY nasty little bastards, so I would not want to be bitten by a wild, potentially diseased rat. In hindsight, I think in the future I'd probably just used a normal old killer rat trap. As horrible as it may sound. I put native wildlife before them any day.
MS was presenting today how they plan to integrate Virtual Server directly into Longhorn. How long with VMWare count MS as a partner instead of as their primary threat?
I was about to say, "When will Microsoft learn?". But of course they have learned. They have learned that acting in a predatory monopolistic manner has practically all benefit and little cost. Even if you do loose major legal cases.
Slashdot Mirror
They're persistent I'll give them that but I'm at boiling point (and they aren't going to stop by the looks of it).
Would you consider changing banks? Next time they ring, tell the person that you do not want to receive any more of those calls, tell them that these calls are annoying you and that you are considering leaving the Comm bank because of the annoyance. Keeping in mind that these people on the phone may be in India, work off a commision and really don't give a fuck, go in to your local Comm bank and also tell them of your annoyance and intentions on how to deal with it.
The very next time you receive one of those calls.... close your account and change banks.
You could also cite the fact that your bank is NOT WORKING IN THE INTERESTS OF AUSTRALIANS by closing branches, taking away jobs for Australians and moving those jobs overseas to exploit BOTH Australians and Indians. Find a bank which does not do this and reward them with your business. I'm sure I have seen a bank Advert on TV claiming to provide not only real people on the phone, but real Australians.
South Sydney where it's a huge hassle with telemarketers ringing every day!
Wow. Do you have a silent number?
I live in South Sydney too (karn the Bunnies!) and as I've said, never get called. This number has been silent for a LOOONG time though.
The only telemarketers I've got ringing up round here are people we're already with. It's very tempting to cancel our service with them as a result. Then again, we have an unlisted number so I guess that must be the reason. I always figured it wasn't a problem in Australia.
I also have a silent number and I was puzzled with all these complaints I have been seeing on current affairs type shows. Because I also never receive telemarketing calls.
He's been said to have a 'reality distortion field' - by a mixture of charm and exaggeration, he can make you believe pretty much anything.
I hear that it is even said, that he has managed, with the use of this "reality distortion field", to make many people believe that Apple systems have had far fewer virus, security and stability problems!
A little known secret, is that Apple sells this so called "reality distortion field" here.
he has his logic and he wrote what he wrote while he was awake,...
... now fix it") versus a reasonable complaint like "I installed Windows XP and within minutes of being on the internet (while waiting for patches to download perhaps), I was infected with a WORM. Ever since vulnerabilities are found in my system every few weeks or so".
"Wake up to yourself" is a figure of speech. I don't literally mean that he is not awake. I could have said, "wake up and smell the shit you are shoveling". He is not awake to how wrong he is.
and if you had his logic, why would you write anything else,... unless you had different initial assumptions... [and i'm guessin' that's the big difference before and after anything resembling logic]
Logic does not have to be correct. It can be flawed and his is.
or am i missing something,... again?
He is making fun of some of the crazy statements which get written here, yet the particular statement he is poking fun at is based on reasonable logic, which he is debunking with some very flawed logic and ridiculous extension to a silly analogy.
The two do not mesh.
1) My car is very venurable to break ins. You can smash a window, jimmy the locks and so on. It's easy, requries no knowledge to do.
Physical security being compared with logical security. If you want a car that can sustain such brute force physical attacks, then you need to spend more money on an amorized car or something like a BMW Protection. To do the same for a computer, you should be spending more on physically locking it up securely with good locks.
2) My car doesn't deal with faulty input. If I set it in neutral and floor it, the engine will overheat and seize up. There's no system to deal with faulty operation like that.
This is irresponsible USER action, being blamed on the MANUFACTURER. In addition, sanity checking of input in software is of almost negligible cost, yet preventing complete and utter stupidity of a USER causing damage in this case, adds cost of additional physical mechanisms. Costs which the general public should not have to worry about, because it is much cheaper and effective to just educate vehicle owners that they should not redline or rev highly an engine without load.
3) My car has problems with user error. If I drive it in to a wall on accident, it'll stop functioning. Same if a user of another car makes a mistake and hits it.
No reasonable person would claim that user misuse of a car or software should be blamed on the manufacturer. This is a silly comparison. Anything can be misused. It does not mean that the problem is with the product, rather the problem is with the user.
Worse yet, the manufacturer will not fix ANY of these faults, even for a price. Even worse they KNEW about ALL of them when they sold the car.
Okay, so lets see... car makers should somehow provide unbreakable glass and locks, should cover every possible scenario to prevent user (or other person) stupidity causing harm to the car or owner? I suppose this would have to be done at a reasonable price too?
Now compare that to software where we expect that it be essentially faultless and when a fault is found, that it be fixed quickly and for free.
As I've already said and now further elaborated on, this is ridiculous. He is comparing car owner complete and utter stupidity, with software users who paid a premium price and expect premium quality and response to stability and security issues which crop up.
One is completely unreasonable ("I drove my car into a wall / Someone threw a brick through my window
Windows is thankfully FINALLY getting better. However in the past, systems could be expected to be vulnerable to MANY different attacks out of the box and users had to be knowledgable on how to prepare and deal with those problems. Remember, Windows is targetted to be usable by people with a minimum knowledge of these sorts of
With SP1 (and 2003 until they fixed it) the firewall was enabled late in the boot sequence - so there was a window when the machine was vulnerable during boot.
This is once the firewall has been enabled by the user right? From my memory XP with SP1 had the firewall off by default, requiring the user to switch it ON. So you are saying that once the user switches it ON, there is the short delay where it is off at boot time after TCP/IP comes up?
Ouch.
If my car had millions of people throwing bricks, I'd be amazed if it lasted 30 seconds.
:P.
When are people going to stop using analogies which don't work? They rarely work well. This one does not work at all.
If a car gets bricks thrown at it, it will be damaged by each brick until eventually a brick will break through the car.
On the other hand if a single attack comes from the internet to your computer and your computer is vulnerable to that attack, it will be breached on the first attempt. Conversely, you could have all the attacks your connection could handle, but if none of those attacks addresses any vulnerability your computer has, then it won't be penetrated (it might die DoS style though).
Now compare that to software where we expect that it be essentially faultless and when a fault is found, that it be fixed quickly and for free.
This is ridiculous and not just because the analogy is ridiculous.
Nobody should expect faultless software. However people should expect a premium product for a premium price and free fixes within the warrantee period. Especially given that the fix can be made once and then applied by millions. Also, you are comparing VENDOR FAULT with USER FAULT.
Only on Slashdot
Wake up to yourself. I wouldn't be poking fun at others if I had the screwed up logic that you do.
Ive heard this number before, but im not really sure what their testing it with. I bought a computer about 3 months ago and had it on the net for about a week straight before i bothered patching it installing my firewall etc etc. I've never gotten any spyware on this computer, any viruses , or other random crap and i havn't had any problems with the computer. Maybe if you install windows xp sans sp1 then something might happen this fast, but what computers come without sp2 these days that most consumers actually install?
I was at a client site once, installing XP (SP1). I forgot that I should: install while disconnected from the net, enable the firewall, connect to the net and then patch... instead I just thoughtlessly installed while the machine was still connected to the net (DSL MODEM configured as a half bridge). The machine became infected with a WORM at some stage either during or very shortly after (minutes) the install.
The current estimate by the ISC's DShield for how long it takes for a random computer to get infected after it's connected to the Internet is 26 minutes.
"Random computer" meaning, "random computer running some version of Microsoft Windows which has not been patched in the last 2 weeks"?
Think about that for a moment... and then ask yourself why we actually take this for granted instead of suing Microsoft into oblivion. Would a car company get away with cars breaking down on real-life roads an average 26 minutes after they're purchased? The thought is totally ridiculous, yet we accept the same from Microsoft. Why?
Same reason that people agree to EULA's which have clauses like, "If you suffer ANY losses as a result of using this Software, even if it is our fault, you waive all legal rights to compensation". People just roll over and then when they realise their mistake... it is too late. They rolled over too much, for too long and lost their rights because they "gave up essential liberty to gain a little temporary ease of use". ; )
Yeah, but that's not the kicker, the kicker is that these asswipes let the 18 million spams get sent! Totally irresponsible!
Yes but sent to where? Maybe all outgoing emails from this machine were re-directed to a local dummy mail server configured to just blindly accept these mails as a function of both evidence collection and prevention of actually sending SPAM to the intended recipients.
These stories are usually light on those sorts of details.
I never understood this reasoning. Private consumers aren't the only ones using PCs - enterprises and businesses use PCs too. And they do not get away with corporate-wide piracy of Windows.
Like they do in China and Indonesia (even in government installations)?
Crowded House - Recurring Dream - the Very Best Of
Is it my imagination, or is the music from the iTunes Store a little flat with poor channel separation?
Since I own an iRiver H340, I'm just going to keep buying cheap CD's from K-Mart, Target and Big-W then LAME them, given that I can't tell the difference between my LAME MP3's, my iRiver will play them and I will always have a raw backup to fall back on.
Anyone who is savvy enough to need GRID computing is savvy enough to build their own grid very cheaply.
Yes, there are lots of desktops out there in corporate land. A lot of CPU's which are mostly idle, even during the busiest parts of the day. Word and Email don't chew up many cycles, although I imagine surfing the net could chew up lots more due to flash, etc. Then there's after hours...
He has Asbergers, a form of Autism, and it's an obsession with solving a problem that leads him to do what he does, not business sense.
Ah, last I heard, he had self diagnosed himself, thinking that he had "Aspergers".
Have his thoughts on this been confirmed by a professional?
It's unfortunate that reporters such as this guy would sensationalize a talk by carefully crafting his story from bits and pieces mostly taken out of context.
Oh my God! A journalist who actively manipulates statements and the facts to sensationalize a story?! What ever happened to journalistic integrity?
Oh, no wait, never mind. I forgot for a second there that I was actually living in a World where sensational stories sell more advertiser product, which is what REALLY matters. To hell with the truth! The Ab Master 3000 sales figures are through the roof!
I feel that stability is a result of good security.
Theo's attitude goes along the lines of, "From code quality comes security and stability".
This means that someone can't easily "screen" a lot of different phone lines without a lot of manpower. VoIP, on the other hand, could be tapped remotely without intervening with your installation at all, and the process can be automated.
To remotely tap your Internet connection, this would typically be done at your Internet Service Provider.
To remotely tap your telephone connection, this would typically be done at your Telephone Service Provider.
There are lots of points where these things can be eavesdropped and they are both quite similar with the pros and cons of each comparable method.
Do you realise that almost all PSTN networks in the World now are digital packet switched? Screening a lot of different phone lines is now trivial for a telco. Do you trust your telco and its staff? I do not trust them any more than the public on the Internet. They ARE "the public" outside of 9-5 and there is lots of opportunity at a telco for the opportunistic. And hell, telcos have never been hacked remotely, right?
* Eavesdropping on classic PSTN requires physical access to the line or switch.
I can easily listen to my next door neighbour if I really wanted to. Often the telco junction boxes are unlocked or sometimes they are even completely missing their covers in my part of the World.
* Snail mail conversations also require physical access.
People work at post offices. People cannot be trusted.
The potential "men in the middle" in your Internet traffic, are mostly ISP staff. ISP staff, telco staff, post office staff, what's the difference? Sometimes the public CAN intercept PSTN and snail mail, same goes for Internet traffic.
I certainly don't view PSTN or snail mail to provide greater security. I've had people eavesdrop and maliciously break into my phone conversations and I've had some of my snail mail stolen (sometimes even given back to me with the envelope opened) from my locked letterbox.
"Locks". They mostly just make people feel good.
The issue is that anything that is transmitted over a public channel is open for analysis, and hence private information need to be secure.
Make that "ANY channel which leaves your scrutiny". Even if it does not pass the public.
Years ago, I was chatting with a friend on the phone and we started talking about our local telco, which I had previously worked for. We were having a bit of a bitch session about how poor their service is, their dodgy workmanship, the incredible profits they make and what a lazy bunch they are on average. I knew, I worked for them. During this bitch session, someone else broke into the conversation (a male voice) and said something to the effect of, "what a load of bullshit".
These were landlines with wired handsets on both ends. My friend assured me nobody at his end could have said it (he lived with his mother and sister) and I knew that nobody at my end could have said it. My friend was also not the joker type.
On another occasion, someone who was trying to ring me, could not get through because I was already on the phone. Apparently they have no idea what the engaged signal means, so they rang this telco to report a problem. During my phone conversation, an employee of this telco broke in, letting me know that someone was trying to get through.
If a signal leaves your control or goes beyond an area you are able to police, regardless of who could be listening, you can forget privacy without properly implemented and appropriate crypto measures.
This makes sense. I think rats would fare better than others though, since they will even resort to eating candle wax and soap from what I hear (wax from a documentary, soap I am not sure where I heard).
I've owned a few domestic rats over the years. They can be very nice little pets. They only turn into nasty little bastards if you don't handle/play with them enough.
I can understand this. I've never owned any rats, although I have had lots of birds in my life (mostly parrots). The parrots tend to get bitey if neglected of affection too. It is as if they are emotionally hurt.
I had a rat couple visiting my Sydney, Australia kitchen at nights. They were getting stuck into our flour and who knows what else, so I purchased a humane trap to catch them so that I could set them free elsewhere in the wild (I've since found out that this would have been a very bad idea for the native bird life, since rats are known to raid nests for eggs or baby birds). The trap I purchased was primarily intended for possums, however it was very sensitive and suitable for rat capture.
The man who I purchased the trap from, informed me that I should tie the trap open and leave food inside, because the rats will cautiously investigate it and would be likely to trigger it from the outside by crawling on it and then be scared away from it from that point on. I thought this was a bit of exageration and did not think they were all that smart, so in my great haste, I set the trap proper with some apple that night.
In bed that night I listened, eager to hear the trap close... it did... I walked out into the kitchen to find a closed, empty trap.
So I set it again and over a period of weeks those rats NEVER triggered that trap again. Smart little buggers. They were amazing to watch too. They would run right up and down the gas pipe from my oven to the ceiling so fast, as if they were on flat ground. They would even watch me enter the kitchen, turn on the light and stand at the door to look back at them... and they'd just continue to eat my food while they looked back at me. They would not run until I approached further.
Unfortunately, the people down stairs from us used Rat Sack against them, so we were unable to save them and had a terrible smell coming up from the floorboards for weeks after that.
I won't underestimate the rat again. I really wish I'd taken that guys advice too. I would have been willing to keep them captive to see out their lives, although I certainly would never handle wild rats. I've had run-ins with some domestic rats and they were VERY nasty little bastards, so I would not want to be bitten by a wild, potentially diseased rat. In hindsight, I think in the future I'd probably just used a normal old killer rat trap. As horrible as it may sound. I put native wildlife before them any day.
MS was presenting today how they plan to integrate Virtual Server directly into Longhorn. How long with VMWare count MS as a partner instead of as their primary threat?
I was about to say, "When will Microsoft learn?". But of course they have learned. They have learned that acting in a predatory monopolistic manner has practically all benefit and little cost. Even if you do loose major legal cases.
Are you sure that the image it points to does contain any extra data
Sorry, this should read:
Are you sure that the image it points to does NOT contain any extra data
So far, no virtualization systems I've used has ever supported dynamic USB support.
VMWare 4 in Windows does this just fine.