"I think in this instance we are dealing with stolen goods."
It's not stolen unless it's completely left the hands of the person who originally had it. So if Win2K source was stolen, then Microsoft will be unable to distribute it because, by definition, they don't have it.
What're the odds they're trying to formulate something involving "no leaving the united states with the software" in it?
That would fit how NASA does things, would explain why none of the other licenses work, although it wouldn't be free software so could never get approved as such.
"And of course, downloading Mozilla for Linux takes mere seconds on a modem I suppose?"
Mozilla for Linux is not required for viewing my website. Your current browser is just fine. You can use any browser you like, and by the time you visit the front page, I know you already have the required software. No need to provide links to download mozilla, netscape, or anything else.
"To view a web page, you need a web browser". See, simple. Even people new to the internet can understand that. It's much easier to explain than "to view my web page, you need this web browser"
I'm glad other internet resources aren't like websites -- you'd get to an FTP site to discover that it only supports emacs, or join an IRC channel and get kicked until you come back with xchat. Imagine pinging somebody and getting back the response "this ping only supports WindowsNT or later, please buy a copy and come back later"
I'm guessing there's no moderation tag for "obvious, but something the flash-toting, internet-explorer optimising, never-left-windows-before 'webmasters' haven't figured out yet"
Please name one browser, aside from possibly an IE upgrade, that would require Windows to reboot one (or more) times
Well you said it, an IE upgrade.
and would take an entire day to install. Internet Explorer 6 for Windows: 25MB 5KB/s modem link: 1 hour 25 minutes Do your website visitors spend much more time than that each day on their computers?
Methinks you should actually try using Windows before spouting off misinformation.
Yep, why not skip over point of the comment, ignore anything you can't think of a response to, and just go straight to the personal insults.
Specifically, if someone is at your website, perhaps about to buy something, do you really want to send them off on a hunt for your preferred browser with a "your browser is not supported, please click here to download Internet Explorer 3" graphic on the front page?
"Best viewed with..." ads are evil, even if the browser you're supporting is great.
Do people imagine that their users are going to go off and download another browser (10MB or so), install it, reboot however many times Windows needs, and then remember to come back to your site?
Seems if they've spent their day installing a browser on the reccommendation of a website, the last thing on their mind will be whatever the website was?
"Hello, I already have a browser. See, if I didn't have one, I wouldn't be at your website. So why bother telling me to download another one?"
"All falied DDOS going to old domain names will end up taking those attacks."
Does that mean that when people remove the DNS entries for their website in anticipation of an attack (as SCO so recently did, and microsoft did with the windowsupdate.com domain), siteFinder will left responding to queries from an infinite number of virus-laden PCs?
Will their sponsors still pay to show advertising to these virus?
7. When you use Natilus in WindowMaker, it creates this big blue window in the background that fills the whole screen, contains some sort of Gnome desktop, and inhibits the WindowMaker menu when you right-click on what should be the background.
"Do you really think that more than 1% of the traffic on Kazaa comes from legitimate sharing?"
Acually I think that 10% of the traffic on Kazaa is legitimate
(*) It was reported on a news site renowned for its accurate research (*) The 10% figure was supplied by the RIAA, who have a vested interest in showing low figures (*) The figure was supplied to a court of law (*) The figure was supplied by someone willing to put their name to it (*) The judge hearing this case accepted that figure, and used it in further questions
"One academic study found that 90 percent of the content exchanged on file-sharing networks is copyrighted, [RIAA lawyer] Frackman noted.
"[Judge]Noonan pressed further, asking whether the authorized exchange of 10 percent of an estimated 750 million swapped files -- games, live recordings and public-domain works such as Shakespeare -- met the criteria the Supreme Court set forth in the Betamax case. 'That sounds like a lot of non-infringing use to me.'"
It's probably good to be suspicious of anyone who quotes a "99%" probability, or the even less-likely "99.999% of people..." that slashdotters insist of dragging up. If you're going to make up numbers, at least try to make them sound as if they're not a complete guess.
Any chance of a bootable operating-system distro with Internet Explorer and RealPlayer installed? You're right, we all need to use these pieces of crap occasionally, even for supposedly noncommercial sites like the BBC. But there's no way we're installing RealPlayer on any computer we intend to continue using afterwards..
"Ummm...this article is on slashdot, do you think hackers will honestly look at a closed port computer and move on? It'll be like a quest to be the first guy to hack the port knock"
Yeah, but how do you know which is the server with the port-knocking, and which are the gazillion other office firewalls which look identical to a port scanner?
"I dind't say it wouldn't be secure, I said it would be irritating for me as the admin, when people tried to crack it."
It should give you less irritation as an admin, when portscans reveal that every port on your computer is closed, and they go find another target, wondering why you bothered buying a firewall if you seemingly haven't configured it to accept connections.
A recent nanog (was it nanog?) flamewar mentioned that people ran their servers on non-standard ports and they considered it really secure. Why? Because the viruses only scan one port, and choosing a different one gives you a lot of time to take stock when a vulnerability/virus pair is announced.
It's obscurity (as a first layer of defence), but it means that an "nmap * -p 22" won't find your server, and anyone running the full scan of 64K ports over the internet is making themselves a lot more visible, and a lot slower.
Slashdot Mirror
"I think in this instance we are dealing with stolen goods."
It's not stolen unless it's completely left the hands of the person who originally had it. So if Win2K source was stolen, then Microsoft will be unable to distribute it because, by definition, they don't have it.
What're the odds they're trying to formulate something involving "no leaving the united states with the software" in it?
That would fit how NASA does things, would explain why none of the other licenses work, although it wouldn't be free software so could never get approved as such.
A. Russell Jones: "Who's Watching the Watchers?"
Everyone else: "Is anyone watching Microsoft?"
"Now, if only there was a MyDoom uninstaller worm that didn't have another distructive payload..."
No need to make it a worm. Just send it yourself to any IP address which sends a virus email to your domain.
"And of course, downloading Mozilla for Linux takes mere seconds on a modem I suppose?"
Mozilla for Linux is not required for viewing my website. Your current browser is just fine. You can use any browser you like, and by the time you visit the front page, I know you already have the required software. No need to provide links to download mozilla, netscape, or anything else.
"To view a web page, you need a web browser". See, simple. Even people new to the internet can understand that. It's much easier to explain than "to view my web page, you need this web browser"
I'm glad other internet resources aren't like websites -- you'd get to an FTP site to discover that it only supports emacs, or join an IRC channel and get kicked until you come back with xchat. Imagine pinging somebody and getting back the response "this ping only supports WindowsNT or later, please buy a copy and come back later"
"host device equipped with means for starting a process in response to detecting insertion of a storage media"
So this patent covers coffee machines which start pouring coffee when you put the pot [storage device] in?
Insightful?
I'm guessing there's no moderation tag for "obvious, but something the flash-toting, internet-explorer optimising, never-left-windows-before 'webmasters' haven't figured out yet"
Please name one browser, aside from possibly an IE upgrade, that would require Windows to reboot one (or more) times
Well you said it, an IE upgrade.
and would take an entire day to install.
Internet Explorer 6 for Windows: 25MB
5KB/s modem link: 1 hour 25 minutes
Do your website visitors spend much more time than that each day on their computers?
Methinks you should actually try using Windows before spouting off misinformation.
Yep, why not skip over point of the comment, ignore anything you can't think of a response to, and just go straight to the personal insults.
Specifically, if someone is at your website, perhaps about to buy something, do you really want to send them off on a hunt for your preferred browser with a "your browser is not supported, please click here to download Internet Explorer 3" graphic on the front page?
"Best viewed with..." ads are evil, even if the browser you're supporting is great.
Do people imagine that their users are going to go off and download another browser (10MB or so), install it, reboot however many times Windows needs, and then remember to come back to your site?
Seems if they've spent their day installing a browser on the reccommendation of a website, the last thing on their mind will be whatever the website was?
"Hello, I already have a browser. See, if I didn't have one, I wouldn't be at your website. So why bother telling me to download another one?"
Was it Commander Keen with the coke cans?
# Bill Gates - Altair BASIC, Apple II BASIC, founded Microsoft
"Doomjuice is also set to perform a DDOS against www.microsoft.com."
So by the reasoning of the popular media, this one must have been written by the US Justice Department, because it attacks microsoft?
"60 to 90 days to patch every network utility out there to work around the DNS breakage. ROFL."
Who will pay for it? Verisign?
I see a physical DDoS of invoices arriving at Verisign HQ...
"All falied DDOS going to old domain names will end up taking those attacks."
Does that mean that when people remove the DNS entries for their website in anticipation of an attack (as SCO so recently did, and microsoft did with the windowsupdate.com domain), siteFinder will left responding to queries from an infinite number of virus-laden PCs?
Will their sponsors still pay to show advertising to these virus?
AuthName "description .yourdomain.com
AuthType Basic
<Limit GET POST>
order deny,allow
deny from all
allow from
</Limit>
Or alternatively:
User-agent: googlebot
Disallow: *
Or alternatively:
<meta name="robots" content="noindex">
"But Slashdot would be awkward when called "66.35.250.150, news for nerds, stuff that matters" instead..."
It would also not work, as all the links point back to the slashdot.org domain, so it requires a DNS lookup to follow any link
"Imagine your boss having to choose between hiring you and someone else who may only be slightly less qualified."
In their dreams...
"Indonesia would be tempting if it was a bit more stable politically."
Maybe if their people paid as much tax as the americans, they could spend a bit more on police and courts and defense to make it a more stable place.
But then if people were paid enough to spend that money, surely it wouldn't be as good an option for outsourcing anymore?
"Hi, we're a corporation. We want something for nothing"
The solution is to launch nautilus as 'nautilus --no-desktop' when you're not using GNOME.
Many thanks.
7. When you use Natilus in WindowMaker, it creates this big blue window in the background that fills the whole screen, contains some sort of Gnome desktop, and inhibits the WindowMaker menu when you right-click on what should be the background.
Acually I think that 10% of the traffic on Kazaa is legitimate
(*) It was reported on a news site renowned for its accurate research
(*) The 10% figure was supplied by the RIAA, who have a vested interest in showing low figures
(*) The figure was supplied to a court of law
(*) The figure was supplied by someone willing to put their name to it
(*) The judge hearing this case accepted that figure, and used it in further questions
It's probably good to be suspicious of anyone who quotes a "99%" probability, or the even less-likely "99.999% of people..." that slashdotters insist of dragging up. If you're going to make up numbers, at least try to make them sound as if they're not a complete guess.
Any chance of a bootable operating-system distro with Internet Explorer and RealPlayer installed? You're right, we all need to use these pieces of crap occasionally, even for supposedly noncommercial sites like the BBC. But there's no way we're installing RealPlayer on any computer we intend to continue using afterwards..
"I just don't get all you privacy freaks. Really, it doesn't take that much effort to lie to a few simple questions. Grow up"
You lie to protect your privacy, yet verbally abuse those who take their own privacy seriously and dislike lying?
"Ummm...this article is on slashdot, do you think hackers will honestly look at a closed port computer and move on? It'll be like a quest to be the first guy to hack the port knock"
Yeah, but how do you know which is the server with the port-knocking, and which are the gazillion other office firewalls which look identical to a port scanner?
Of course, if any name sounds like it was made-up on the spot, Lamar Smith is it...
"I dind't say it wouldn't be secure, I said it would be irritating for me as the admin, when people tried to crack it."
It should give you less irritation as an admin, when portscans reveal that every port on your computer is closed, and they go find another target, wondering why you bothered buying a firewall if you seemingly haven't configured it to accept connections.
A recent nanog (was it nanog?) flamewar mentioned that people ran their servers on non-standard ports and they considered it really secure. Why? Because the viruses only scan one port, and choosing a different one gives you a lot of time to take stock when a vulnerability/virus pair is announced.
It's obscurity (as a first layer of defence), but it means that an "nmap * -p 22" won't find your server, and anyone running the full scan of 64K ports over the internet is making themselves a lot more visible, and a lot slower.