my physics teacher (an evolutionist) taught us that we were made of star dust. Well, to some extent, that is true. Some of the heavy metals that are required to make life possible are only created during the intense heat and pressure of a supernova event (i.e. anything heavier than lead) - and the explosion itself also conveniently spreads those resultant heavy metals across the galaxy.
So, basically, for us to be alive, it is necessarily true that our bodies contain the remnants of stars - i.e. stardust.
Don't get me wrong. All progress has a purpose, and often very humane uses. But it seems that with each step like this we get closer to the Terminator scenario, and yet we never seem to pause and ask ourselves, "is this a path we really want to tread?"
Perhaps it is. Perhaps the benefits are well worth some distant risk, especially if we take the time to understand and mitigate that risk... Which is all I'm asking for: us to have the wisdom to ensure that our technology is created and used with appropriate forethought.
The idea that a vendor was somehow not concentrating their detection efforts on these is ludicrous Ludicrous it is. False, it is not. Both AV companies I've worked for in the last 10 years have people who are responsible for ensuring the ItW list is covered - ostensibly for the sake of the customers, but that motivation is belied by the fact that there is a big push to add detection for ItW samples right before the VB100 tests begin.
so claiming that the "major vendors missed it" I think it's a bit disingenuous for you to misquote me like that... I said "other major vendors missed it", and I was referring to McAfee and Norman specifically - both of whom are major vendors.
You're spot on with how important it is to their reputation, but the fact is that the VB100 award had become something of a rubber stamp, due to the way it was being tested (ie. all the AV vendors knew in advance exactly what they were being tested against).
What is important about this particular round of VB100 tests is that this was the first round of tests after they changed the way the test was done (to make it more representative of what AV protection needs to actually be out in the wild, and hence more difficult to just coast through). This new testing methodology came unannounced, and caught everyone by surprise... which is why other major vendors missed it, including McAfee.
Well, the problem for MS becomes: how to distinguish legitimate CD writers from illegitimate programs, just using the pretext of CD writing to get admin access?
I can't see any way that is possible, short of supplying trusted digital certs to independent software authors (which smacks of enforced licensing)...
That's not true at all. I use AnyDVD (currently v6.0.8.2), and Nero (currently v7.5.7.0) all the time on Vista (RTM, Ultimate).
(don't forget, some things still need to have admin privileges to work properly...)
More to the point, do you seriously think MS would release such a major OS without first testing whether very popular software like that worked?
Is there anything whatsoever, any evidence in any scientific field, that, if discovered, could possibly convince you that that the story of creation in Genesis is not the literal truth? It's no surprise that going any further is pointless after this question, because you have essentially just segregated them into two groups: those who's belief is based on faith, and those who's belief is based on rationality... and a rational argument means nothing to a Faithy (and vice versa, of course).
Oh please. I was at that conference, and the only thing that decreased the level of technical content was the fact that the conference content is now spread across three or so areas, some of which are attended by a majority of non-technical business types.
If you think about it, Microsoft has good reason to keenly share the security details of Vista, etc. - with trusted industry people, of course. Not only do they want to crow about all the cool stuff they're building, but it can only help improve the image of Windows to decrease the quantity and quality of security threats out there.
My ATI 9800 Pro was nothing to it, barely ran, slowly, and very low framerate
Huh. That's odd. I'm running a stock 9800 (backed by an ordinary Athlon 2300+), and it runs quite fine at 1024x768. Sometimes - especially during fights - it can be a little choppy... but that is still much better than expected, considering the depth of field visible most of the time.
Then Robin Williams must be paraphrasing Bill Hicks... because the idea that Keith Richards and cockroaches would be the only survivers of a nuclear holocaust is straight out of one of Bill's skits about how drugs cannot be dangerous, because, see, Keith Richards is still alive.
Before the internet bad reviews got around on two legs.
Well, that's not quite true. There were other bad review distribution mechanisms back in the dark ages such as newspapers, radio and television, you know...
I just don't think they want to support multiple processor instruction sets.
Unfortunately, that argument just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. The simple fact that a patch exists that allows it to work on AMD chips means that the software does not need to have processor-specific instructions to support the full 10-way calling.
More to the point, there is so little difference in the instruction sets between the two architectures that it is exceptionally unlikely that any difference is beneficial, let alone necessary.
Their anti-virus is Kaspersky, because they bought that too. Kaspersky is the only antivirus besides Nod I would use, but Nod is faster I think and also still independently owned.
That's not correct. They bought the anti-virus arm of GeCAD, a Romanian company. Kaspersky, a Russian anti-virus company, is still entirely independant.
With no information at all, I'm going to have to call bullshit. There is just no way MS would risk beign sued black-and-blue over decreasing Google's revenue by a fraction of a percent...
Anyway, your point about the architecture of the 'net is well taken, but the reason I liken general net usage to a public activity is because (excepting email and IM) the vast majority of that usage is something virtually non-existant with phones: informal gatherings of strangers. Most websites - even members only ones - play host to many people who do not know each other, and could not recognise one another to save their lives. Because any one of those strangers could be considered a "leak" of some sort (police, journalist, etc), any conversation had there must be understood to be public.
Don't get me wrong, I think email and IM should be treated as inherently private - so much so that the usage of encryption seems wrong, insomuch as it implies that only encrypted email/IM should be covered by privacy laws.
So, while surfing and email/IM'ing use the same infrastructure, to me, they are very different activities, and privacy expectations should be applied accordingly.
So you don't think warrants are required for any phone taps?
Actually, that is a bit of a simplification. Wire taps are used to listen in to essentially private conversations between people who are expected to be friends/collegues/etc, hence the assumption of privacy.
On the other hand, wandering the public internet is akin to strolling in the park or mall, where one would not expect privacy to be guaranteed... and the officers of the Ministry of Love happily exploit that expectation.
Slashdot Mirror
So, basically, for us to be alive, it is necessarily true that our bodies contain the remnants of stars - i.e. stardust.
Don't get me wrong. All progress has a purpose, and often very humane uses. But it seems that with each step like this we get closer to the Terminator scenario, and yet we never seem to pause and ask ourselves, "is this a path we really want to tread?"
Perhaps it is. Perhaps the benefits are well worth some distant risk, especially if we take the time to understand and mitigate that risk... Which is all I'm asking for: us to have the wisdom to ensure that our technology is created and used with appropriate forethought.
No kidding. Am I the only one who saw the first steps towards the opening of Terminator 2 in that video?
Not to sound like a Luddite, but doesn't this kind of heedless progress scare anyone else?
Not to mention what is probably the most common commercial usage of assembly language: Anti-Virus research.
Hahaha... that's hilarious. You did know that MS and Symantec are direct competitors in the security space, right?
If there is anything conspiratorial going on, it'd be because Symantec products mostly run on Windows, so they don't want people to stop using it.
Not quite.
It's 99.99% of a very limited test set. Against all know malware, most of those products get something like 70-95%...
You're spot on with how important it is to their reputation, but the fact is that the VB100 award had become something of a rubber stamp, due to the way it was being tested (ie. all the AV vendors knew in advance exactly what they were being tested against).
What is important about this particular round of VB100 tests is that this was the first round of tests after they changed the way the test was done (to make it more representative of what AV protection needs to actually be out in the wild, and hence more difficult to just coast through). This new testing methodology came unannounced, and caught everyone by surprise... which is why other major vendors missed it, including McAfee.
Well, the problem for MS becomes: how to distinguish legitimate CD writers from illegitimate programs, just using the pretext of CD writing to get admin access?
I can't see any way that is possible, short of supplying trusted digital certs to independent software authors (which smacks of enforced licensing)...
That's not true at all. I use AnyDVD (currently v6.0.8.2), and Nero (currently v7.5.7.0) all the time on Vista (RTM, Ultimate). (don't forget, some things still need to have admin privileges to work properly...)
More to the point, do you seriously think MS would release such a major OS without first testing whether very popular software like that worked?
The real problem with this is that standard users will not know a) that they should do this, or b) how to do it.
And it is their opinion that MS cares about at this point.
Oh please. I was at that conference, and the only thing that decreased the level of technical content was the fact that the conference content is now spread across three or so areas, some of which are attended by a majority of non-technical business types.
If you think about it, Microsoft has good reason to keenly share the security details of Vista, etc. - with trusted industry people, of course. Not only do they want to crow about all the cool stuff they're building, but it can only help improve the image of Windows to decrease the quantity and quality of security threats out there.
Sorry, but that is simply not true. Peoples' habit of using one search engine instead of another is quite a large barrier indeed ...
My ATI 9800 Pro was nothing to it, barely ran, slowly, and very low framerate
Huh. That's odd. I'm running a stock 9800 (backed by an ordinary Athlon 2300+), and it runs quite fine at 1024x768. Sometimes - especially during fights - it can be a little choppy... but that is still much better than expected, considering the depth of field visible most of the time.
Then Robin Williams must be paraphrasing Bill Hicks... because the idea that Keith Richards and cockroaches would be the only survivers of a nuclear holocaust is straight out of one of Bill's skits about how drugs cannot be dangerous, because, see, Keith Richards is still alive.
More to the point, there is so little difference in the instruction sets between the two architectures that it is exceptionally unlikely that any difference is beneficial, let alone necessary.
(Score:5, Funny) just isn't high enough for that comment/quote.
You should be awarded something special: (Score:6, Hernia-Inducing Laughter Ahead)!
Heh. I wish I had mod points... that's the funniest thing I've read all day. :)
With no information at all, I'm going to have to call bullshit. There is just no way MS would risk beign sued black-and-blue over decreasing Google's revenue by a fraction of a percent...
Well, not really giant. The FP refers to a 600lb monster of the same species... more than 7 times the size of that one!
You're right; that's not a Troll. :)
Anyway, your point about the architecture of the 'net is well taken, but the reason I liken general net usage to a public activity is because (excepting email and IM) the vast majority of that usage is something virtually non-existant with phones: informal gatherings of strangers. Most websites - even members only ones - play host to many people who do not know each other, and could not recognise one another to save their lives. Because any one of those strangers could be considered a "leak" of some sort (police, journalist, etc), any conversation had there must be understood to be public.
Don't get me wrong, I think email and IM should be treated as inherently private - so much so that the usage of encryption seems wrong, insomuch as it implies that only encrypted email/IM should be covered by privacy laws.
So, while surfing and email/IM'ing use the same infrastructure, to me, they are very different activities, and privacy expectations should be applied accordingly.
So you don't think warrants are required for any phone taps? Actually, that is a bit of a simplification. Wire taps are used to listen in to essentially private conversations between people who are expected to be friends/collegues/etc, hence the assumption of privacy.
On the other hand, wandering the public internet is akin to strolling in the park or mall, where one would not expect privacy to be guaranteed... and the officers of the Ministry of Love happily exploit that expectation.