Two things your company could do. First use Firefox not IE. Second, don't use Outlook (I bet your company uses Outlook for mail and calendering). I have to admit that Outlook is the best mail program for integrating with Microsoft products but it is also a primary vector for malware. If you move your office apps off of Microsoft products, your malware problems will go away. You heard it here first.
It's interesting you should mention this. Lately, I get this feeling of dread every time I let my computer check for updates (it's on manual update, something else I always recommend). It always crosses my mind that the computer may not start back up after installing the latest Microsoft patches. Doesn't that make you feel gooooood all over....
I see we are like-minded:). I have (literally) tried for years to get my wireless card working in Linux on my old laptop that just died and never succeeded and so never switched it to Linux (because having a laptop that can't do wireless seems like an affront to nature to me). If you look back at some of my older Slashdot posts, you'll see a few rants and raves about it. Forced to replace my laptop, I was also forced to buy the "OS" Microsoft calls Vista; however, this time I made sure to get hardware that will run Linux and in a few short weeks (when I can find the time) I'll be switching the new laptop to Ubuntu as well. Woohoo.
The thing is, I have a good set of plugins installed in Firefox that checks a lot of things with web sites. For example, I run NoScript, which checks quite a few things about a web site these days. And I use AdBlock Plus. And so on. And I have a private email account, not a free one from Yahoo or anyone else. Not to say I don't use Yahoo every now and then but it is always a throw-away account and it is rare that I do that.
I use Avast free home edition anti-virus program and that's it. No firewall (and I turn off the "firewall" that comes with XP) and no anti-spyware programs. And in more than 3 years I have had zero malware of any sort on my computers running XP.
The secret of my success is that I also don't use Internet Explorer (except for the Windows Update website, cause Microsoft makes me). That one step protects me from >95% of the malware. The other 5% is handled by Avast and Firefox. And I don't download and install "free" programs and games.
Boycott Internet Explorer (and all of the loss of security, privacy, and control of your own computer that goes with it), use Firefox and a good anti-virus program, and don't do stupid things on the net and you're golden.
The draconian DRM debacle that is called Vista is sounding more and more like the who's-to-blame catch-22 we've all experienced in the past: Your high definition video won't play in HD mode. Microsoft-it's the hardware's fault, PC maker-it's the content provider's fault, Content Provider-it's Vista's fault. Anyone else want to dance?
What we need is not an ad blocker but an ad load faker. We need a plugin that will load the ad into a hidden web page with no sound or motion. Once the ad is loaded then the plugin dumps the ad to free up memory. Or something like that. That way the web site gets their traffic and we get to browse what we want instead of what someone else wants.
And I do not know all of the details about how you successfully arm and fire a nuclear cruise missile either. However, I do know that you cannot successfully launch one unless everything is in place, including codes, a target programmed into the missile guidance systems, etc., etc. All I am saying is that the plane's electronics controls the arming and had they launched they would have been live.
Still, your point that they would have had to have the codes to launch is valid. There are suppose to be processes in place where no one person can manage to gain access to the weapons and the arming codes at the same time (BTW, the weapons are not armed by some manual entry on a flashing light panel like you see in the movies, they are armed by the plane's electronics). However, I can also say that the aircrews who fly on alert carry with them all they need to launch their weapons. It doesn't sound like these guys were flying on alert so they probably didn't have the necessary codes.
Another point: I have heard that it takes 8 or more hours to program a cruise missile for a target. If so, I would bet these missiles were not targeted. However, I don't know what would happen if a missile is fired, or even can be fired, without targeting information so that may or may not be significant.
Personal question: Did you pull some submarine duty on one of the missile boats?
Nuclear warheads are not mated to missile boosters and then mounted on bombers for transport to be decommissioned. If they were going to be transported for decommissioning then they would have been disassembled and packed.
Actually, that is an interesting question. The warheads are not armed per se, that's true. But if they were properly loaded then the B52 would have controlled the arming, i.e. they would have gone live had they been fired. On the other hand, an "anonymous source" says that pilots didn't know the warheads were real. That is also a mystery because the only way the plane's systems would not know they had real warheads on the missiles is if the missiles were not properly connected into the plane's systems. I can also say that warheads destined for decommissioning are NOT transported mounted on missile boosters. They are very carefully packed in specialized shipping containers and transported on cargo planes (or special trucks or trains but usually cargo planes). In addition, the little bit of news we have isn't entirely clear if it was the warheads being decommissioned or the missile motors. I assume the warheads, so there are a lot of unanswered questions at this point.
This also sounds suspicious. The plane's systems know when a real warhead is on the missile verses a dummy warhead. The only way that the electronics on the plane would not know that a real warhead was on the missile is if the missile was not properly connected to the plane. Something doesn't add up.
What is amazing is that the weapons made it all the way to Texas without Minot AFB missing them. Without going into details, I can say from experience that the US nuclear warheads are very closely tracked. Before this, I would have said it would be impossible for the base to lose track of them for even a few minutes, much less three and a half hours, and then have to be told by Barksdale that they were on the B52 when it arrived. The thing about the munitions crew being decertified until the investigation is finished is a miss direction. The airmen who load the planes don't make the decisions. And (unless things have changed significantly since I was in the USAF) they would not be able to get the warheads to load without a great deal of security and authorization. You don't just go and pick those things up when you want to. More likely, someone got plane ids or missile serial numbers mixed up on the wok orders. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what went wrong.
At least in one case, it was rather a split decision. In GEICO vs. Google, the judge ruled that Google could legally sell the trademark as an adword to a competitor but "may be guilty of trademark infringement" when using it in the resulting sponsored links. Google's requirement giving them carte blanch to use your published content would probably eliminate the possibility of being guilty of trademark infringement (no doubt one of Google's CTA goals). I can't imagine any company would ever normally agree to that kind of thing, especially with a non-partner.
Hmmm. Actually, there are active or just recently finished court cases which have sued for damages as well as sued to force Google, Yahoo, et al to stop such practices for exactly this (adwords, trademarks, etc. being sold to competitors, then capturing and redirecting searches to a competitor's web site). So for a business to use Google's Services, it sounds like they have to give up the ability to stop the search hijacking. Yet Google's Services (especially the Word and Excel replacements) are, despite Google's statements, an attempt to replace Microsoft Office and make money for Google (e.g. promote their business through increased traffic to Google's search database and therefore more advertising money). Sounds like a one sided affair to me. Small businesses interested in using Google to lower their IT cost yet they can't complain if Google hijacks their published content to the advantage of Google's parters? Maybe Google is also looking to tie small business (and large business?) into a Google advantaged partner arrangement? No matter how you spin it, the requirement to let Google do what they want with your content just because you use their services is an unknown risk to business. It may prove to be an unacceptably high risk. We'll just have to wait and see how this develops.
[...]about the worst Google can do to you is not show it.
I would say maybe not. If Google can do anything they want with the content to promote their business then they could use your content to drive their sales (for example). So, if you publicize all of your whiz bang stuff and people search for it using Google and Google redirects those search results to your competitors (Google's partners) then you can be seriously harmed. Seems like that could be a problem (just for one example).
If you make your content available to the public via Google Services then Google can use your content anyway they see fit to promote their business.
Interesting. Does this include promoting Google's partners? (sounds like it does) What if you are in direct competition with a Google partner? What if your business is Internet search or online advertising? What if your content criticizes Google? What if Google expands their business to new areas after you publish your content (e.g. you publish content and then they change their business and you WOULD NOT HAVE published your content had they been in that business at the time of publication)? Sounds like we're seriously entering the golden age of lawyering...
In the first place, the Internet didn't create the ability to waste time at work. These "studies" never quantify the amount of time wasted at work today to that which was wasted before the Internet. Without comparing before vs. after, one cannot reach any absolute conclusions.
In the second place, I work practically everywhere these days because of the Internet. I work at home, in the airport, in restaurants, in the car, etc. So counting all these other working locations, my productivity is significantly better than it was 20 years ago.
In the third place, people aren't machines. People are more productive, and more creative, if they take a mental break now and then. And people make better business decisions if they stay current with social trends and events. It's not a time waster, it's a cost of doing business.
Nuff said. Now quit bothering me, I really need to get back to work before my boss comes in.
Is this suppose to be a flame? Assuming not, you would only have to contribute your code IF you distribute Linux yourself. It doesn't sound like you plan to.
And as to this statement: Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any
products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to
its source code released. that's just plain BS. You company needs to hire better lawyers.
Exactly my point on EEStor...as you say IfEEstor's difficult-to-imagine technology does work with the stats they've gave us...I for one am hoping it does. Actually, I'd say that their secretiveness is a more positive sign than not, since most companies that overhype their new tech are loud and repetitive.
Slashdot Mirror
Two things your company could do. First use Firefox not IE. Second, don't use Outlook (I bet your company uses Outlook for mail and calendering). I have to admit that Outlook is the best mail program for integrating with Microsoft products but it is also a primary vector for malware. If you move your office apps off of Microsoft products, your malware problems will go away. You heard it here first.
no windows patches
It's interesting you should mention this. Lately, I get this feeling of dread every time I let my computer check for updates (it's on manual update, something else I always recommend). It always crosses my mind that the computer may not start back up after installing the latest Microsoft patches. Doesn't that make you feel gooooood all over....
I see we are like-minded :). I have (literally) tried for years to get my wireless card working in Linux on my old laptop that just died and never succeeded and so never switched it to Linux (because having a laptop that can't do wireless seems like an affront to nature to me). If you look back at some of my older Slashdot posts, you'll see a few rants and raves about it. Forced to replace my laptop, I was also forced to buy the "OS" Microsoft calls Vista; however, this time I made sure to get hardware that will run Linux and in a few short weeks (when I can find the time) I'll be switching the new laptop to Ubuntu as well. Woohoo.
The thing is, I have a good set of plugins installed in Firefox that checks a lot of things with web sites. For example, I run NoScript, which checks quite a few things about a web site these days. And I use AdBlock Plus. And so on. And I have a private email account, not a free one from Yahoo or anyone else. Not to say I don't use Yahoo every now and then but it is always a throw-away account and it is rare that I do that.
I periodically monitor traffic on my home network and all the traffic I see is explained.
I use Avast free home edition anti-virus program and that's it. No firewall (and I turn off the "firewall" that comes with XP) and no anti-spyware programs. And in more than 3 years I have had zero malware of any sort on my computers running XP.
The secret of my success is that I also don't use Internet Explorer (except for the Windows Update website, cause Microsoft makes me). That one step protects me from >95% of the malware. The other 5% is handled by Avast and Firefox. And I don't download and install "free" programs and games.
Boycott Internet Explorer (and all of the loss of security, privacy, and control of your own computer that goes with it), use Firefox and a good anti-virus program, and don't do stupid things on the net and you're golden.
Heh. You're assuming the DRM in Vista actually works as planned, with no bugs, "features", etc. A big assumption...
The draconian DRM debacle that is called Vista is sounding more and more like the who's-to-blame catch-22 we've all experienced in the past: Your high definition video won't play in HD mode. Microsoft-it's the hardware's fault, PC maker-it's the content provider's fault, Content Provider-it's Vista's fault. Anyone else want to dance?
What we need is not an ad blocker but an ad load faker. We need a plugin that will load the ad into a hidden web page with no sound or motion. Once the ad is loaded then the plugin dumps the ad to free up memory. Or something like that. That way the web site gets their traffic and we get to browse what we want instead of what someone else wants.
And I do not know all of the details about how you successfully arm and fire a nuclear cruise missile either. However, I do know that you cannot successfully launch one unless everything is in place, including codes, a target programmed into the missile guidance systems, etc., etc. All I am saying is that the plane's electronics controls the arming and had they launched they would have been live.
Still, your point that they would have had to have the codes to launch is valid. There are suppose to be processes in place where no one person can manage to gain access to the weapons and the arming codes at the same time (BTW, the weapons are not armed by some manual entry on a flashing light panel like you see in the movies, they are armed by the plane's electronics). However, I can also say that the aircrews who fly on alert carry with them all they need to launch their weapons. It doesn't sound like these guys were flying on alert so they probably didn't have the necessary codes.
Another point: I have heard that it takes 8 or more hours to program a cruise missile for a target. If so, I would bet these missiles were not targeted. However, I don't know what would happen if a missile is fired, or even can be fired, without targeting information so that may or may not be significant.
Personal question: Did you pull some submarine duty on one of the missile boats?
Don't kid yourself, the electronics on the B52 ARE state of the art, at least enough to manage the weapons that it can carry.
Nuclear warheads are not mated to missile boosters and then mounted on bombers for transport to be decommissioned. If they were going to be transported for decommissioning then they would have been disassembled and packed.
If it were deliberate, Barksdale wouldn't have reported it to Minot, they would have expected it.
Actually, that is an interesting question. The warheads are not armed per se, that's true. But if they were properly loaded then the B52 would have controlled the arming, i.e. they would have gone live had they been fired. On the other hand, an "anonymous source" says that pilots didn't know the warheads were real. That is also a mystery because the only way the plane's systems would not know they had real warheads on the missiles is if the missiles were not properly connected into the plane's systems. I can also say that warheads destined for decommissioning are NOT transported mounted on missile boosters. They are very carefully packed in specialized shipping containers and transported on cargo planes (or special trucks or trains but usually cargo planes). In addition, the little bit of news we have isn't entirely clear if it was the warheads being decommissioned or the missile motors. I assume the warheads, so there are a lot of unanswered questions at this point.
This also sounds suspicious. The plane's systems know when a real warhead is on the missile verses a dummy warhead. The only way that the electronics on the plane would not know that a real warhead was on the missile is if the missile was not properly connected to the plane. Something doesn't add up.
What is amazing is that the weapons made it all the way to Texas without Minot AFB missing them. Without going into details, I can say from experience that the US nuclear warheads are very closely tracked. Before this, I would have said it would be impossible for the base to lose track of them for even a few minutes, much less three and a half hours, and then have to be told by Barksdale that they were on the B52 when it arrived. The thing about the munitions crew being decertified until the investigation is finished is a miss direction. The airmen who load the planes don't make the decisions. And (unless things have changed significantly since I was in the USAF) they would not be able to get the warheads to load without a great deal of security and authorization. You don't just go and pick those things up when you want to. More likely, someone got plane ids or missile serial numbers mixed up on the wok orders. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what went wrong.
At least in one case, it was rather a split decision. In GEICO vs. Google, the judge ruled that Google could legally sell the trademark as an adword to a competitor but "may be guilty of trademark infringement" when using it in the resulting sponsored links. Google's requirement giving them carte blanch to use your published content would probably eliminate the possibility of being guilty of trademark infringement (no doubt one of Google's CTA goals). I can't imagine any company would ever normally agree to that kind of thing, especially with a non-partner.
Hmmm. Actually, there are active or just recently finished court cases which have sued for damages as well as sued to force Google, Yahoo, et al to stop such practices for exactly this (adwords, trademarks, etc. being sold to competitors, then capturing and redirecting searches to a competitor's web site). So for a business to use Google's Services, it sounds like they have to give up the ability to stop the search hijacking. Yet Google's Services (especially the Word and Excel replacements) are, despite Google's statements, an attempt to replace Microsoft Office and make money for Google (e.g. promote their business through increased traffic to Google's search database and therefore more advertising money). Sounds like a one sided affair to me. Small businesses interested in using Google to lower their IT cost yet they can't complain if Google hijacks their published content to the advantage of Google's parters? Maybe Google is also looking to tie small business (and large business?) into a Google advantaged partner arrangement? No matter how you spin it, the requirement to let Google do what they want with your content just because you use their services is an unknown risk to business. It may prove to be an unacceptably high risk. We'll just have to wait and see how this develops.
[...]about the worst Google can do to you is not show it.
I would say maybe not. If Google can do anything they want with the content to promote their business then they could use your content to drive their sales (for example). So, if you publicize all of your whiz bang stuff and people search for it using Google and Google redirects those search results to your competitors (Google's partners) then you can be seriously harmed. Seems like that could be a problem (just for one example).
If you make your content available to the public via Google Services then Google can use your content anyway they see fit to promote their business.
Interesting. Does this include promoting Google's partners? (sounds like it does) What if you are in direct competition with a Google partner? What if your business is Internet search or online advertising? What if your content criticizes Google? What if Google expands their business to new areas after you publish your content (e.g. you publish content and then they change their business and you WOULD NOT HAVE published your content had they been in that business at the time of publication)? Sounds like we're seriously entering the golden age of lawyering...
In the first place, the Internet didn't create the ability to waste time at work. These "studies" never quantify the amount of time wasted at work today to that which was wasted before the Internet. Without comparing before vs. after, one cannot reach any absolute conclusions.
In the second place, I work practically everywhere these days because of the Internet. I work at home, in the airport, in restaurants, in the car, etc. So counting all these other working locations, my productivity is significantly better than it was 20 years ago.
In the third place, people aren't machines. People are more productive, and more creative, if they take a mental break now and then. And people make better business decisions if they stay current with social trends and events. It's not a time waster, it's a cost of doing business.
Nuff said. Now quit bothering me, I really need to get back to work before my boss comes in.
[...]and the falling price of residential broadband as reasons for the talks collapsing.
Would like to see where prices go over the next couple of years now that a competitor has been eliminated...
Is this suppose to be a flame? Assuming not, you would only have to contribute your code IF you distribute Linux yourself. It doesn't sound like you plan to.
And as to this statement: Furthermore, after reviewing this GPL our lawyers advised us that any products compiled with GPL'ed tools - such as gcc - would also have to its source code released. that's just plain BS. You company needs to hire better lawyers.
Exactly my point on EEStor...as you say If EEstor's difficult-to-imagine technology does work with the stats they've gave us...I for one am hoping it does. Actually, I'd say that their secretiveness is a more positive sign than not, since most companies that overhype their new tech are loud and repetitive.
Yes, EEStor has potential. Now if we can just get an update on their progress. I just hope they don't turn out to be the next Segway.