what are you talking about? aol is part of one of the biggest corporations in the world, and provides access to millions of americans.
(ie., that's one tyrannical country with loads of internet access).
I'm not happy with the direction my country is moving, either, but if you think what currently exists in the US is "tyranny" you don't understand the meaning of the word.
They have no need to ever run a.com file, so if it comes up in the log, i can find out why, and deal with it.
I'm curious if these machines have any sort of net access? If so, watching a keystroke logger for ".com" seems like it would produce more than a few flase positives...:)
work for an ISP, and they have a banned IP list from within their domains. When they get a complaint, these userser a put on the list and can't send mail anymore using our servers (or any other SMTP servers on port 25)... the problem with that practice, is that they can only ban people on static IPs, and most of their customers are on DHCP and dynamic IPs.
I wonder why they don't take this to the next level and use the information in PPP or DHCP logs to blacklist the ones with dynamic addresses?
I can see this conversation is a waste of time, but I have to address this one:
No, they wouldn't. We are talking about clueless people here, not deliberately self-destructive ones. Clueless people wouldn't know how to su to root or build source code.
Come on, you've NEVER encountered a clueless "power user"/admin in the *IX world? I've seen MCSEs (who truly deserved the mocking title "Minesweeper Consultant") end up running multiple linux boxes, with fairly predictable results.
certainly many other OS's have the same problems.
Just about EVERY other OS has this problem. No system can survive an idiot with root access.
It seems to me that it is less likely that you will find the same equipment in both Alaska and Nevada. When you do, you generally fins that it needs a bit more care (=protection).
The F-15 flies out of both Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, and Nellis AFB, Nevada. Nothing I've ever heard suggests that maintenance requirements are that much different, but I'd be happy to read anything you'd care to cite to the contrary.
Let me try to explain it this way: I can give you a [Floppy/CDROM/Zip Disk/DVD/Keychain Drive/Papertape/Punchcard] containing the same file, and it will have the exact same results when you execute it. How, exactly, is this Outlook's (or even Windows'--except maybe for allowing untrusted code to execute with admin privs... but fixing that would require "trusted computing" which doesn't seem like a good idea to me) fault?
The same people who execute the above code, received via Outlook on Windows, would also execute it after having read the message in pine, saved the attachment, su'd to root (if they even ever logged in as an unprivledged user) and built the fucking thing from source on Linux, BSD, Solaris, or any other OS you'd care to name.
Allow me to reiterate: The particular problem I mentioned is not the fault of Outlook. If you can't see that, you're either being willfully obtuse or you've got such an axe to grind against MS that you're divorced from reality.
The operating system could tag the executable as "untrusted: downloaded-via-email", and therefore know to run it in a sandbox where it won't be able to bork up the system.
I'm curious why you think the above statement invalidates my suggestion that "outlook is t he least of our problems."
As you noted, something akin to the above would be reliant on the OS. How can you blame the email client for something that doesn't exist yet?
The problem only exists between the chair and the keyboard because the software allows it to exist -- there is nothing that says email software HAS to let the user execute viruses contained in incoming email
As the grandparent noted, you're talking about a password protected zip file containing malicious code. The user has to:
1) Save the attachment. 2) Open the saved file. 3) Type in the password(!!!!!!!) 4) Execute the malicious code.
You're not talking about vbscript being executed in a preview pane--in fact, other than being where the user initially encountered the offending code, the email platform has ZERO relation to the actual infection. You're talking about an idiot who will literally run anything. And if the statistics about the number of infected machines out there are true, OUTLOOK IS THE LEAST OF OUR PROBLEMS.
The other point is that Russia being extremely diverse for weather conditions means that one design has to cope with a lot.
What, you think the US doesn't have equally diverse weather conditions? From the Arctic Circle in the north, to the Tropic of Cancer in the south, I think you'll find the weather is just as extreme as Russia's.
The printout would need advanced and numerous forgery protection measures (like the ones in modern bank notes).
No it wouldn't.
Otherwise, what's to stop someone voting, getting their printout and then feeding a slip of paper of the same size back in so they can vote again without destroying their original.
Err, how about a barcode? You know, unique, random, generated when the ballot is printed, scanned and verified if the user wishes to destroy the ballot and start again...
Optical scanning by a computer sounds like e-voting to me. OK, it's not the full-on Diebold 'touch the screen and trust us' kind of democracy, but it's not far off.
This is Scantron technology that has been around for a VERY long time (remember when you used to take tests in school using #2 pencil?) and is pretty much the most reliable voting mechanism out there right now--it's accuracy is second only to hand counting.
Microsoft can then sell a "Plus" pack, which I would go so far as to make them put each application on a separate CD (browser, media player, etc), but which CANNOT be sold in the same box or in conjunction with the OS itself (ie retailers have to invoice them as two separate items). On the "Plus - browser edition" all the competing browsers can then ask to be put on. Same for media players etc.
Will you also require Apple and the Linux distros to strip out Apache, OpenOffice, Sendmail, etc, from their boxed product?
Also, do you realize you second suggestion above essentally requires MS to bear most of the cost and effort of marketting their competitors' products? I'm all for breaking up MS into an OS company and an app company, and making them compete fairly in that way. What you suggest, on the other hand, bears absolutely zero resemblance to a "fair market" and instead is a welfare market with MS paying the bills.
The whole point seems a bit moot anyway as the vast majority of Windows users just use the copy installed by their OEM. With hard drive sizes what they are, the OEM could easily ship several competing media players or office suites and let the user decide.
If the OEM WANTS to do this, that's cool--and MS should be bared from using coercion to force the OEM to do things their way.
OTOH, forcing MS to do what you and the original poster suggest (offer everything under the sun as part of a windows install--including forcing it to promote competitors products!) is just as bad, if not worse than anything MS has ever done.
So basically what you're saying is that Windows should come on like 10 CDs and include just about every alternative to any piece of software Microsoft makes (I like your suggestion that the several hundred MB OpenOffice replace the 20kb notepad, btw--very smart) and MS develop tools to make a windows install even more complex?
Look, I'm a big fan of Linux and Open Source, but if you're wondering why so many people believe the SCO line about the mentality of FOSS types, you need look no further than your own damn words.
It was passed after the girl who bought the guns for the Columbine massacre testified that she deliberately sought out someone who would sell her guns without doing a background check
It's worth noting that the girl who bought the guns for the Columbine shootings would have passed the background check. I can't see how it's possible to hold up Columbine as the reason we need these laws, when they wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference.
Also, I've got a question for you: As you noted, dealers are required to conduct background checks (no matter if they sell the weapon at their store, or at a gun show) while private parties are exempt. Why should this be any different at a gun show? What purpose does it really serve? Why wouldn't the two parties attempting to avoid the background check leave the gun show, and conduct the sale in the parking lot?
One would need to require background checks on ALL sales (which, by the way, is an idea most gun owners would be open to, given the proper frame) in order to have any real impact. So why even bother with gun shows?
Well, here's my idea of reasonable gun control. In order to own guns, you must:
a) Know how to handle a gun correctly b) Not have any convictions for violent felonies
In addition, if you have small children and don't lock up your guns so they can't get them, I would make you liable for anything that happens as a result of that.
I'm sure the NRA would consider these to be totally unreasonable. What's your idea of reasonable gun control?
If you believe the NRA would consider the above unreasonable, you don't know much about the NRA. Most people who support gun control see the NRA as a giant political machine--which (sadly) it is these days--but that's a relatively recent development, dating back to the 1970s. The NRA's core mission (which it has been doing for over 130 years) is education in firearms safety and marksmanship. It takes both of these tasks very seriously, and there's no organization in the world better at doing it.
What you suggest really is "common sense," and a law offered that aimed to accomplish that (without unduly imposing on the law abiding) would probably earn the SUPPORT of the NRA, unless it were proposed by someone like Dianne Feinstein, or was written in such as way as to be more than what it claimed.
No one wants someone who doesn't know how to handle a firearm to own one. No one wants violent felons to own guns. No one wants to see kids get dead because their parents didn't keep them safe. It's the mechanisms that are proposed obstensibly to prevent the above that we object to.
As to the more qualified part, the impression I got from the debates, where Bush kept accusing Gore of using "funny numbers" whenever he brought up what things would cost, was that Gore had a better idea of how to handle the budget
I agree that Gore was definitely more specific than Bush, and very possibly would have done a better job. OTOH, Bush is an MBA and one would expect an MBA to be able to handle budgeting. Of course, lots of MBAs run companies into the ground, too.:(
By the way, if you're ever in east TN, be sure to drop me a line. I know more than a couple of NRA certified instructors, and I bet you'd find their opinions to be fairly interesting.
No, YOU understand wrong. AMD no longer does any benchmarking against a Thunderbird. It's all a magic formula now that produces numbers that sound right.
Slashdot Mirror
what are you talking about? aol is part of one of the biggest corporations in the world, and provides access to millions of americans.
(ie., that's one tyrannical country with loads of internet access).
I'm not happy with the direction my country is moving, either, but if you think what currently exists in the US is "tyranny" you don't understand the meaning of the word.
They have no need to ever run a .com file, so if it comes up in the log, i can find out why, and deal with it.
:)
I'm curious if these machines have any sort of net access? If so, watching a keystroke logger for ".com" seems like it would produce more than a few flase positives...
work for an ISP, and they have a banned IP list from within their domains. When they get a complaint, these userser a put on the list and can't send mail anymore using our servers (or any other SMTP servers on port 25)... the problem with that practice, is that they can only ban people on static IPs, and most of their customers are on DHCP and dynamic IPs.
I wonder why they don't take this to the next level and use the information in PPP or DHCP logs to blacklist the ones with dynamic addresses?
The US is a democracy.
The US is a federal Republic.
FYI - POP3 access is only available for Yahoo! if you pay for.
The sad part is that the subject of your reply is "Re:Does it have Pay for POP3 access?"
On the bright side, you could probably get a job with the department of the redundancy department.
I can see this conversation is a waste of time, but I have to address this one:
No, they wouldn't. We are talking about clueless people here, not deliberately self-destructive ones. Clueless people wouldn't know how to su to root or build source code.
Come on, you've NEVER encountered a clueless "power user"/admin in the *IX world? I've seen MCSEs (who truly deserved the mocking title "Minesweeper Consultant") end up running multiple linux boxes, with fairly predictable results.
certainly many other OS's have the same problems.
Just about EVERY other OS has this problem. No system can survive an idiot with root access.
It seems to me that it is less likely that you will find the same equipment in both Alaska and Nevada. When you do, you generally fins that it needs a bit more care (=protection).
The F-15 flies out of both Elmendorf AFB, Alaska, and Nellis AFB, Nevada. Nothing I've ever heard suggests that maintenance requirements are that much different, but I'd be happy to read anything you'd care to cite to the contrary.
Let me try to explain it this way: I can give you a [Floppy/CDROM/Zip Disk/DVD/Keychain Drive/Papertape/Punchcard] containing the same file, and it will have the exact same results when you execute it. How, exactly, is this Outlook's (or even Windows'--except maybe for allowing untrusted code to execute with admin privs... but fixing that would require "trusted computing" which doesn't seem like a good idea to me) fault?
The same people who execute the above code, received via Outlook on Windows, would also execute it after having read the message in pine, saved the attachment, su'd to root (if they even ever logged in as an unprivledged user) and built the fucking thing from source on Linux, BSD, Solaris, or any other OS you'd care to name.
Allow me to reiterate: The particular problem I mentioned is not the fault of Outlook. If you can't see that, you're either being willfully obtuse or you've got such an axe to grind against MS that you're divorced from reality.
The operating system could tag the executable as "untrusted: downloaded-via-email", and therefore know to run it in a sandbox where it won't be able to bork up the system.
I'm curious why you think the above statement invalidates my suggestion that "outlook is t he least of our problems."
As you noted, something akin to the above would be reliant on the OS. How can you blame the email client for something that doesn't exist yet?
Ack, just a note that the grandparent didn't refer to password protected zip files, that was another poster. My comment still stands, however.
The problem only exists between the chair and the keyboard because the software allows it to exist -- there is nothing that says email software HAS to let the user execute viruses contained in incoming email
As the grandparent noted, you're talking about a password protected zip file containing malicious code. The user has to:
1) Save the attachment.
2) Open the saved file.
3) Type in the password(!!!!!!!)
4) Execute the malicious code.
You're not talking about vbscript being executed in a preview pane--in fact, other than being where the user initially encountered the offending code, the email platform has ZERO relation to the actual infection. You're talking about an idiot who will literally run anything. And if the statistics about the number of infected machines out there are true, OUTLOOK IS THE LEAST OF OUR PROBLEMS.
The other point is that Russia being extremely diverse for weather conditions means that one design has to cope with a lot.
What, you think the US doesn't have equally diverse weather conditions? From the Arctic Circle in the north, to the Tropic of Cancer in the south, I think you'll find the weather is just as extreme as Russia's.
The printout would need advanced and numerous forgery protection measures (like the ones in modern bank notes).
No it wouldn't.
Otherwise, what's to stop someone voting, getting their printout and then feeding a slip of paper of the same size back in so they can vote again without destroying their original.
Err, how about a barcode? You know, unique, random, generated when the ballot is printed, scanned and verified if the user wishes to destroy the ballot and start again...
Optical scanning by a computer sounds like e-voting to me. OK, it's not the full-on Diebold 'touch the screen and trust us' kind of democracy, but it's not far off.
This is Scantron technology that has been around for a VERY long time (remember when you used to take tests in school using #2 pencil?) and is pretty much the most reliable voting mechanism out there right now--it's accuracy is second only to hand counting.
It isn't E-voting.
No, it could still be the Enterprise during one of the many times they wound up in the 20th century.
:)
Except that it's currently the 21st century.
Microsoft can then sell a "Plus" pack, which I would go so far as to make them put each application on a separate CD (browser, media player, etc), but which CANNOT be sold in the same box or in conjunction with the OS itself (ie retailers have to invoice them as two separate items). On the "Plus - browser edition" all the competing browsers can then ask to be put on. Same for media players etc.
Will you also require Apple and the Linux distros to strip out Apache, OpenOffice, Sendmail, etc, from their boxed product?
Also, do you realize you second suggestion above essentally requires MS to bear most of the cost and effort of marketting their competitors' products? I'm all for breaking up MS into an OS company and an app company, and making them compete fairly in that way. What you suggest, on the other hand, bears absolutely zero resemblance to a "fair market" and instead is a welfare market with MS paying the bills.
The whole point seems a bit moot anyway as the vast majority of Windows users just use the copy installed by their OEM. With hard drive sizes what they are, the OEM could easily ship several competing media players or office suites and let the user decide.
If the OEM WANTS to do this, that's cool--and MS should be bared from using coercion to force the OEM to do things their way.
OTOH, forcing MS to do what you and the original poster suggest (offer everything under the sun as part of a windows install--including forcing it to promote competitors products!) is just as bad, if not worse than anything MS has ever done.
So basically what you're saying is that Windows should come on like 10 CDs and include just about every alternative to any piece of software Microsoft makes (I like your suggestion that the several hundred MB OpenOffice replace the 20kb notepad, btw--very smart) and MS develop tools to make a windows install even more complex?
Look, I'm a big fan of Linux and Open Source, but if you're wondering why so many people believe the SCO line about the mentality of FOSS types, you need look no further than your own damn words.
Killed in a car accident, head of a company that was trying to push for a different system with a paper trail of votes.
Suspicious?
And, in other news, stock prices of Alcoa and other large aluminium concerns were up today.
It was passed after the girl who bought the guns for the Columbine massacre testified that she deliberately sought out someone who would sell her guns without doing a background check
It's worth noting that the girl who bought the guns for the Columbine shootings would have passed the background check. I can't see how it's possible to hold up Columbine as the reason we need these laws, when they wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference.
Also, I've got a question for you: As you noted, dealers are required to conduct background checks (no matter if they sell the weapon at their store, or at a gun show) while private parties are exempt. Why should this be any different at a gun show? What purpose does it really serve? Why wouldn't the two parties attempting to avoid the background check leave the gun show, and conduct the sale in the parking lot?
One would need to require background checks on ALL sales (which, by the way, is an idea most gun owners would be open to, given the proper frame) in order to have any real impact. So why even bother with gun shows?
If you're interested, read the talk.politics.guns newsgroup
I've been there, and can't say I like it very much--it's too much of a flame fest (on both sides.)
Well, here's my idea of reasonable gun control. In order to own guns, you must:
:(
a) Know how to handle a gun correctly
b) Not have any convictions for violent felonies
In addition, if you have small children and don't lock up your guns so they can't get them, I would make you liable for anything that happens as a result of that.
I'm sure the NRA would consider these to be totally unreasonable. What's your idea of reasonable gun control?
If you believe the NRA would consider the above unreasonable, you don't know much about the NRA. Most people who support gun control see the NRA as a giant political machine--which (sadly) it is these days--but that's a relatively recent development, dating back to the 1970s. The NRA's core mission (which it has been doing for over 130 years) is education in firearms safety and marksmanship. It takes both of these tasks very seriously, and there's no organization in the world better at doing it.
What you suggest really is "common sense," and a law offered that aimed to accomplish that (without unduly imposing on the law abiding) would probably earn the SUPPORT of the NRA, unless it were proposed by someone like Dianne Feinstein, or was written in such as way as to be more than what it claimed.
No one wants someone who doesn't know how to handle a firearm to own one. No one wants violent felons to own guns. No one wants to see kids get dead because their parents didn't keep them safe. It's the mechanisms that are proposed obstensibly to prevent the above that we object to.
As to the more qualified part, the impression I got from the debates, where Bush kept accusing Gore of using "funny numbers" whenever he brought up what things would cost, was that Gore had a better idea of how to handle the budget
I agree that Gore was definitely more specific than Bush, and very possibly would have done a better job. OTOH, Bush is an MBA and one would expect an MBA to be able to handle budgeting. Of course, lots of MBAs run companies into the ground, too.
By the way, if you're ever in east TN, be sure to drop me a line. I know more than a couple of NRA certified instructors, and I bet you'd find their opinions to be fairly interesting.
Try as you might, you will never find any AMD benchmarks that backup the 1GHz Thunderbird myth.
I stand--err, rather, sit--corrected.
Anyone know if Wil Weaton got the part?
Judging by his page on imdb I'd say no...
No, YOU understand wrong. AMD no longer does any benchmarking against a Thunderbird. It's all a magic formula now that produces numbers that sound right.
:)
Do you have a link to back this up?
That said, it STILL isn't compared to P4.