I don't see what the big mystery is here. Misdirected (non-spam) e-mails should be sent back to the sender, as has long been done with physical mail.
I routinely reply to such e-mails with something along the lines of...
"It appears that you have e-mailed me by mistake. I am not the person addressed in this e-mail."
The sender can then track down the correct recipient or not, but at least they're aware it didn't reach the person intended. It's the considerate thing to do.
Chimpanzees are not human. They don't think like humans, they don't behave like humans, they aren't physically built like humans. Of all these things, probably the most important is that they don't think like humans.
The point is not whether chimps are human; it's whether they are persons.
Where I live (British Columbia), our provincial government has contracted a US multi-national to maintain our public health records. This caused considerable controversy at the time, including an unsuccessful court challenge.
It should come as no surprise to any Canadian that the US has access to their health records when we're paying a US company to maintain them.
$50 million in tax money could have paid for a whole lot of open source software development
I'm a staunch advocate of open source software, but for military applications? Would it be wise to share your military's tools with every other country on the planet? Would that not be assisting your enemies?
Reminds me of the time my brother had his wallet stolen. When I asked him if he cancelled his credit card, he said "Hell no! The thieves are spending less than my wife usually does".
Look, I'm just pointing out a lesser-known resource that's available for people who might be interested. I'm not interested in partaking in yet another tedious bout of Windows bashing on Slashdot. Others have already mentioned that Windows is not the only operating system to be exploited by maliciously crafted data files.
Using EMET provides additional layers of protection against this kind of thing.
So does not running Windows.
Ah, the predictable refrain of a MAC/Linux fan...
If Microsoft has additional layers of security for Windows, perhaps they should make them part of Windows.
I think in the case of EMET, it is not part of Windows by default because it uses techniques that may not be compatible with every Windows application. It also requires a bit more technical knowledge to deploy than, say, antivirus software.
Everything described in the article - BIOS-level rootkits, cross-platform malware, infection via USB, acoustic transmission of data - is entirely plausible, but for the one assertion that audio transmission was used as the primary means of infection in some cases. For the target machine to receive and act on data sent via high-frequency sound waves, there would have to be software already running on the target to listen for and decode the transmission. Unless one assumes that such software is already present in all the affected operating systems (i.e. they are all backdoored), this cannot be the initial method of infection.
Given that Dragos is known to be neither a fool or a hoaxer, I expect he was talking about audio communication between already-infected computers, and that Ars simply overstated this aspect in their article.
I understand that he wasn't arguing "technical" superiority, but when you use a phrase like "kicks its butt", you're clearly asserting superiority of some kind. I am refuting the assertion that DVD is superior to Blu-Ray in any significant way. In my opinion, DVD is crap, notwithstanding the fact that it's cheap, just like many people would argue the same about MacDonald's cuisine.
Consider how Blu-Ray has settled into the niche, high-end "I have a 800-inch TV and 13-point surround sound" video/audiophile nerd zone, while DVD still kicks its butt by being available to anyone who can scrape together $20 for a player, $20 for a tv of any sort (even an old CRT still works w/ it), and $5-10 a month for a Netflix subscription
You had a few good points there, until you asserted that DVD "kicks its butt" with respect to Blu-Ray. I must assume you're either vision-impaired or have never seen a movie in 1080p. DVD video is so poor incomparsion that I can't even stand to watch it anymore. It looks like absolute crap, the same way standard definition TV looks like crap compared to HDTV.
According to the KB article, all one has to do is...
Press F10 to display the menu bar, go to the Tools menu, and then click Compatibility View settings. Add the OWA site to the list of sites to be viewed in compatibility view.
Afterward, the setting will be remembered. Not such a big deal. As far back as IE 8, I've come across the odd site that requires compatibility view to work properly. So you set it, forget it, and move on.
I can live with the fact that SciFi like Gravity gets a few details wrong. For instance, having Sandra Bullock's hair floating around her head in a Medusa-like fashion the whole time might have been needlessly distracting. I am bothered, however, when a fundamental plot device defies the laws of physics.
Objects in (circular) orbits do so at a particular altitude proportional to their velocity. Decreasing or increasing their velocity would move them into a higher or lower orbit. In Gravity, a cloud of debris is circling the Earth at the same altitude as George and Sandra's spacecraft, but travelling at a much higher velocity. So much higher that it completely "laps" them, going past and them coming around again every 90 minutes. This repeated passing of the faster-moving debris cloud in the same orbit as Sandra Bullock is the key element in Gravity's plot, yet is completely impossible.
Here's an imaginary scenario: As a consultant I go into any business and say "I've got a bright idea. Let's get rid of Microsoft Word and start using HTML + CSS + MathML + XML + SVG + JavaScript + whatever WYSIWYG editors I can find for them". You know what else would be imaginary? My credibility.
Sure, very easy. Just go learn MathML, SVG, and JavaScript. Apparently your idea of the "real world" is where everyone is conversant is 4 or 5 programming languages. As opposed to what actually happens in almost every business around, where people with minimal knowledge of computers and zero knowledge of programming can produce what I described with a single, widely-known application.
The assertion that Microsoft Word should be deprecated in favour of a hodgepodge solution like yours, in the majority of situations, is laughable.
With formal printed documents becoming less popular and an increasing emphasis on on-screen presentation and collaborative editing, is a word processor still a good model to manage business information? We have far more powerful (and systematic) formatting capabilities in numerous browsers that can render HTML+CSS content.
You must be kidding. Microsoft Word has far more formatting capabilities than any HTML + CSS content I'm familiar with. Try creating text with a multi-coloured gradient fill and a drop shadow. Try representing a complex mathematical equation. Try inserting a pie chart. Try inserting a date field that updates automatically. Try rotating a block of text by an arbitrary number of degrees.
Then consider that fact that many people using word processors in business today are capable of doing all these things without knowing a single thing about coding.
You could not be more wrong. Google was the first search engine that analyzed the links between pages rather than only the page contents. Lots of links to a page was comparable to having lots of "likes" in today's parlance. Pages with many outbound links also had significance. The results of taking links into consideration were dramatically better than everyone else's results. With my previous favourite search engine, AltaVista, I often went through more than five pages of results to find what I was looking for. With Google, I could often hit the mark by pressing the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button and going immediately to the top result. This is what drive people to Google.
Slashdot Mirror
the teacher who gave her students oral sex for good achievement on their math tests (in the novel "Cocksure" by Mordecai Richler).
how do they work?
I don't see what the big mystery is here. Misdirected (non-spam) e-mails should be sent back to the sender, as has long been done with physical mail.
I routinely reply to such e-mails with something along the lines of...
"It appears that you have e-mailed me by mistake. I am not the person addressed in this e-mail."
The sender can then track down the correct recipient or not, but at least they're aware it didn't reach the person intended. It's the considerate thing to do.
Where is the "hot tip on how to know if your own machines have been owned"?
The Gutenberg Bible can be viewed here.
The beautiful colour woodcuts in Stamp.Ross.283 can be viewed here.
Chimpanzees are not human. They don't think like humans, they don't behave like humans, they aren't physically built like humans. Of all these things, probably the most important is that they don't think like humans.
The point is not whether chimps are human; it's whether they are persons.
Where I live (British Columbia), our provincial government has contracted a US multi-national to maintain our public health records. This caused considerable controversy at the time, including an unsuccessful court challenge.
It should come as no surprise to any Canadian that the US has access to their health records when we're paying a US company to maintain them.
$50 million in tax money could have paid for a whole lot of open source software development
I'm a staunch advocate of open source software, but for military applications? Would it be wise to share your military's tools with every other country on the planet? Would that not be assisting your enemies?
Reminds me of the time my brother had his wallet stolen. When I asked him if he cancelled his credit card, he said "Hell no! The thieves are spending less than my wife usually does".
Great idea. For sure nobody will try popping the diamonds out from around the headlights.
The title should read:
Researchers Prevent Humans From Cracking New GOTCHA Password Scheme
Look, I'm just pointing out a lesser-known resource that's available for people who might be interested. I'm not interested in partaking in yet another tedious bout of Windows bashing on Slashdot. Others have already mentioned that Windows is not the only operating system to be exploited by maliciously crafted data files.
.
Using EMET provides additional layers of protection against this kind of thing.
So does not running Windows.
Ah, the predictable refrain of a MAC/Linux fan...
If Microsoft has additional layers of security for Windows, perhaps they should make them part of Windows.
I think in the case of EMET, it is not part of Windows by default because it uses techniques that may not be compatible with every Windows application. It also requires a bit more technical knowledge to deploy than, say, antivirus software.
Using EMET provides additional layers of protection against this kind of thing.
How can it even be a crime to molest a "virtual" person?
If it is a crime, then shouldn't we be informing the police about all the virtual people being murdered everyday in video games?
Everything described in the article - BIOS-level rootkits, cross-platform malware, infection via USB, acoustic transmission of data - is entirely plausible, but for the one assertion that audio transmission was used as the primary means of infection in some cases. For the target machine to receive and act on data sent via high-frequency sound waves, there would have to be software already running on the target to listen for and decode the transmission. Unless one assumes that such software is already present in all the affected operating systems (i.e. they are all backdoored), this cannot be the initial method of infection.
Given that Dragos is known to be neither a fool or a hoaxer, I expect he was talking about audio communication between already-infected computers, and that Ars simply overstated this aspect in their article.
(Shudder)
I understand that he wasn't arguing "technical" superiority, but when you use a phrase like "kicks its butt", you're clearly asserting superiority of some kind. I am refuting the assertion that DVD is superior to Blu-Ray in any significant way. In my opinion, DVD is crap, notwithstanding the fact that it's cheap, just like many people would argue the same about MacDonald's cuisine.
Consider how Blu-Ray has settled into the niche, high-end "I have a 800-inch TV and 13-point surround sound" video/audiophile nerd zone, while DVD still kicks its butt by being available to anyone who can scrape together $20 for a player, $20 for a tv of any sort (even an old CRT still works w/ it), and $5-10 a month for a Netflix subscription
You had a few good points there, until you asserted that DVD "kicks its butt" with respect to Blu-Ray. I must assume you're either vision-impaired or have never seen a movie in 1080p. DVD video is so poor incomparsion that I can't even stand to watch it anymore. It looks like absolute crap, the same way standard definition TV looks like crap compared to HDTV.
According to the KB article, all one has to do is...
Press F10 to display the menu bar, go to the Tools menu, and then click Compatibility View settings. Add the OWA site to the list of sites to be viewed in compatibility view.
Afterward, the setting will be remembered. Not such a big deal. As far back as IE 8, I've come across the odd site that requires compatibility view to work properly. So you set it, forget it, and move on.
I can live with the fact that SciFi like Gravity gets a few details wrong. For instance, having Sandra Bullock's hair floating around her head in a Medusa-like fashion the whole time might have been needlessly distracting. I am bothered, however, when a fundamental plot device defies the laws of physics.
Objects in (circular) orbits do so at a particular altitude proportional to their velocity. Decreasing or increasing their velocity would move them into a higher or lower orbit. In Gravity, a cloud of debris is circling the Earth at the same altitude as George and Sandra's spacecraft, but travelling at a much higher velocity. So much higher that it completely "laps" them, going past and them coming around again every 90 minutes. This repeated passing of the faster-moving debris cloud in the same orbit as Sandra Bullock is the key element in Gravity's plot, yet is completely impossible.
Here's an imaginary scenario: As a consultant I go into any business and say "I've got a bright idea. Let's get rid of Microsoft Word and start using HTML + CSS + MathML + XML + SVG + JavaScript + whatever WYSIWYG editors I can find for them". You know what else would be imaginary? My credibility.
Sure, very easy. Just go learn MathML, SVG, and JavaScript. Apparently your idea of the "real world" is where everyone is conversant is 4 or 5 programming languages. As opposed to what actually happens in almost every business around, where people with minimal knowledge of computers and zero knowledge of programming can produce what I described with a single, widely-known application.
The assertion that Microsoft Word should be deprecated in favour of a hodgepodge solution like yours, in the majority of situations, is laughable.
With formal printed documents becoming less popular and an increasing emphasis on on-screen presentation and collaborative editing, is a word processor still a good model to manage business information? We have far more powerful (and systematic) formatting capabilities in numerous browsers that can render HTML+CSS content.
You must be kidding. Microsoft Word has far more formatting capabilities than any HTML + CSS content I'm familiar with. Try creating text with a multi-coloured gradient fill and a drop shadow. Try representing a complex mathematical equation. Try inserting a pie chart. Try inserting a date field that updates automatically. Try rotating a block of text by an arbitrary number of degrees.
Then consider that fact that many people using word processors in business today are capable of doing all these things without knowing a single thing about coding.
You could not be more wrong. Google was the first search engine that analyzed the links between pages rather than only the page contents. Lots of links to a page was comparable to having lots of "likes" in today's parlance. Pages with many outbound links also had significance. The results of taking links into consideration were dramatically better than everyone else's results. With my previous favourite search engine, AltaVista, I often went through more than five pages of results to find what I was looking for. With Google, I could often hit the mark by pressing the "I'm Feeling Lucky" button and going immediately to the top result. This is what drive people to Google.