From Intego, the company who first blogged about this malware (emphasis mine):
This threat may run on Leopard 10.5, but it has a tendency to crash. It does not run on the new Mountain Lion 10.8.
Also...
This threat has not yet been found in the wild, and so far there is no indication that this Trojan has infected users
You're right to imply that Mountain Lion users shouldn't get too cocky, but in this particular case, according to this antivirus vendor, the malware hasn't even been found in the wild—and even if it had, it doesn't run on Mountain Lion.
According to Engadget, Best Buy won't offer discounts in U.S. stores. However, HP is supposedly offering refunds to those who paid the full $400. From the Engadget piece:
Well, it looks like American Best Buys won't be enjoying the same liquidation sale as our neighbors to the north. A couple of tipsters have reported that the big box electronics retailer has pulled the webOS tablets from its shelves and is shipping them back to HP. The slates have also disappeared from Best Buy's website... Don't get upset if you already plunked down $400 for 10-inches of webOS goodness -- HP will refund you the difference. Call up the company or the retail partner you purchased it from, and ask. Just be prepared to sit on hold with all the rest of the folks trying to get their cash back.
Some people such as "Soulja Boy" (a recording artist) and "Violet Blue" (the author of the linked ZDNet article) get special treatment and have not been suspended for using their pseudonyms on Google+
That actually brings up another problem: people with real names that are unusual or creative who have to live in fear of Google employees mistakenly suspending their accounts!
* A guy who used a pseudonym on Google+ ("Thomas Monopoly") claims to have lost his entire account including "approximately 7 years of correspondence, over 4,800 photographs and videos, my Google Voice messages, over 500 articles saved to my Google Reader account for scholarship purposes all of my bookmarks, having used Google bookmarks my Docs account with shared documents and backups of inventory files my own personal calendar of doctors appointments, meetings, and various other dates collaborative calendars, of which I was the creator and of which several man hours were put into creating, community calendars my saved maps and travel history medical records and a variety of very important notes [and] My website, a blogger account for which I purchased the domain through Google and designed myself": http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/why-you-shouldnt-trust-google-or-any-cloud-service-with-your-data/13860
* Daynah (a Senior Editor at Beatweek Magazine and a blogger at Cali Lewis' GeekBeat.TV) was suspended from Google+ on Saturday, presumably because her Google+ name was "Daynah.net" (she never shares her last name online due to privacy and safety concerns). I believe it was just her Google+ account that got suspended, not her e-mail or access to other services. Her profile is still suspended as of when I'm posting this.
* I was suspended from Google+ on Friday, June 15th through Wednesday, June 20th, presumably because my Google+ name was "the JoshMeister" (which is how I'm known to almost all of my friends and followers online, on my podcasts which have been downloaded over a million times, including at my employment at MacTech Magazine as the Podcast Producer and Host). I tried changing my name to my first and last name with the JoshMeister in parenthesis after it, but that was also rejected, so ultimately I had to settle for using just my real first and last name. Unfortunately, my name is fairly common, and there are already several people with that name on Google+, making it significantly more difficult for people to find and recognize me or + mention me. I did not lose access to Google services other than Google+ and Google Buzz, although I did have to log in again to my e-mail and other services because Google claimed there had been "suspicious activity" (although I confirmed that nobody had accessed my account other than me). More of my story: https://plus.google.com/114936727752666468558/posts/5nHEHFsWCTx
Lists of suspensions:
* Robert Scoble (linking to Skud's link below) inadvertently began compiling a public list of suspended Google+ accounts here, along with some good discussion of the topic and links to other lists: https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/YnzXfbpe9Nj
* Skud is compiling a private list of suspended Google+ accounts here: http://is.gd/nonplussed (redirects to Google Docs form)
Examples of Google's double standard and inconsistency:
* Some people such as "Soulja Boy" (a recording artist) and "Violet Blue" (the author of the linked ZDNet article) get special treatment and have not been suspended for using their pseudonyms on Google+
* "Die Ennomane" (die means "the" in German) was suspended but then was allowed to keep the pseudonym after German media coverage
Although I'm familiar with Thawte, I hadn't heard of its "Web of Trust" prior to this article. However, there's a popular browser add-on with the same name, so I thought I should point that out to avoid any confusion, especially since both products are related to Internet security in some way.
Web of Trust is also the name of a Firefox and Internet Explorer plug-in from a company called WOT Services Ltd. (until recently known as Against Intuition Inc.). It helps protect users from harmful Web sites and puts safety rating badges in search results on Google, Bing, Yahoo!, and other search engines, similar to McAfee SiteAdvisor and Symantec's Norton Safe Web (although in my experience, WOT is much more effective). This completely unrelated Web of Trust is not being killed off.
It would appear that the parent poster has never heard of meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). Apparently, in 5 to 20 percent of all births, meconium passes into the amniotic fluid (meconium is the tar-like, sterile stool that an infant passes prior to passing feces). So neither the grandparent poster nor the parent poster were entirely correct; non-sterile feces doesn't float around in the womb for 3 months, but sterile meconium does often pass in utero and can be harmful to the infant if inhaled (or even fatal, in one case I'm aware of).
Thanks for the grammar lesson, but in this case your argument is moot. Munging has reference to the word mung while mungeing has reference to the very different word munge.
See the correct usage at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munge and, if you wish, take a look at the article's history and note that the usage portion was written a long time before this Slashdot article.
There are several TWiT podcasts, and some of them only partially meet the criteria of the person who submitted the question. Let's review the criteria: "entertaining, informative, and, most importantly, thorough," not dumbed down, "dive deep into projects and discussions instead of simply skimming the surface."
The two TWiT podcasts that meet all the criteria that come immediately to mind are Security Now and the (unfortunately now defunct) MacBreak Tech. Security Now is very technical and educational, and it doesn't dumb things down, but instead it manages to explain very technical topics in ways that make them easy to comprehend. It's mostly about computer and information security (naturally) but it also gets into networking and other related topics as well. MacBreak Tech was mainly focused on Macs as the name implies, but I learned a lot of things from the podcast that don't just apply to Macs specifically. I think all the old episodes are still available, so browse through the titles and descriptions and download anything that looks remotely interesting.
Other TWiT podcasts that the asker might enjoy: This Week in Law and FLOSS Weekly. This Week in Law gets in depth about the legal aspects of computer technology and the computer industry. FLOSS Weekly is all about Free (Libre) Open Source Software and consists largely of interviews with lead developers of major open source software projects.
Another decent computer security podcast is Security Bites from CNET. Security Bites is not nearly as in-depth as Security Now as the episodes are very short and more focused, but the show is worth listening to as well.
If you don't mind the shameless self-promotion, I'm one of the hosts of MacMod Live, which deals with Mac modding and peripherally-related topics. MacMod Live doesn't always get super technical, but MacMod.com has a lot of interesting stuff too if you're interested in computer modding.
All of the above are audio shows (sorry if you're looking for video content specifically). Occasionally we do videos on MacMod Live, and those get posted in the same podcast feed as our audio shows.
I had been using OpenDNS. I stopped when I realized they were monitoring my traffic. When I go to Google, they were returning their own Google-like page, to which my browser would submit the query, and then redirect me to Google.
I stopped using them after that discovery.
Your claim that OpenDNS is "monitoring your traffic" is misleading.
If you ping www.google.com it pings google.navigation.opendns.com (208.67.219.231). You still get the standard Google homepage and search results when you go to http://www.google.com/ however. The odd DNS resolution for www.google.com is apparently because some software such as the Google Toolbar bypasses DNS requests, which breaks some of OpenDNS's features. (More on this below.) One apparent advantage of OpenDNS doing this is that it help users avoid Dell affiliate adware so that affected Dell systems will get actual search results instead of a page full of Dell's affiliate ads.
But guess what? It's trivial to turn this feature off if you don't like it. Just go to https://www.opendns.com/dashboard/settings/ and sign in if necessary. Click on Advanced Settings. Scroll down and uncheck Enable OpenDNS proxy, then click Apply. Wait a few minutes, or try running "ipconfig/flushdns" from the command line if you're using Windows, or restart your computer, and then your settings should take effect. The downside to disabling the proxy is that it will break some of OpenDNS's features.
Is OpenDNS running a proxy? Yes. Some software, including your (and our) beloved Google Toolbar, intercepts requests made via the address bar so that DNS requests never occur. This creates some usability issues, including making shortcuts - which require DNS requests to be made from the address bar - unreliable. We've designed a simple proxy that ensures the best of Google and OpenDNS work without causing problems.
When enabled, we route certain requests to a simple proxy which checks for the origin of the request. Shortcut-related traffic gets handled (and redirected) while all other traffic goes to the intended destination untouched. We are not storing or mining any of the data that passes through the proxy. The proxy does nothing malicious - it's designed to make your shortcuts work seamlessly with the Google Toolbar and similar services, giving you the best of both worlds.
Like all OpenDNS services, the proxy is respectful of your privacy. We do not track any of the searches made through the proxy. In fact, since so many people use Google we automatically rotate and delete the logs frequently. We do not store any of those logs, nor do we perform any non-operational-related analysis of the traffic sent through the proxy at any time. Protecting your privacy and delivering a fantastic navigational experience will always be two of our main goals at OpenDNS. We believe that this solution provides just that, and continues our tradition of innovative services that make your Internet experience with OpenDNS faster, safer and more reliable.
Ultimately, this proxy serves to enhance the OpenDNS experience and we recommend you leave it enabled.
Also, from the OpenDNS FAQ regarding the workaround for Dell adware:
Will this make Google slower? No. We are doing this URL redirection on all of our servers in all of our locations. Loading Google should take no longer than it took before we made this change. Also, all of Google's other domains like like gmail.com and even subdomains like reader.google.com still work as they did before. We don't re-route any of those.
Are you tracking or keeping a log of my searches? No way. Absolutely not. We don't keep cop
I was able to get Opera Mini 4.1 working a little better on my Treo 680 using these instructions, but even then it still locks up the device, forcing me to have to remove the battery. You can try bumping up the memory to 8 MB instead of 4 like the TypePad article suggests. I haven't tried it at 8 long enough to know if it makes much of a difference. Hope that helps!
Be sure to post again here with instructions on making it more stable if you come across any good tips.
Opera Mini works great... when it isn't crashing
on
Web Browser Wars Go Mobile
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Opera Mini is the only way to go for mobile devices. [...] Opera mini is a much more pleasant experience. Try it!
Ugh, I've had a terrible experience with this browser on my Treo 680 (and before that on my Treo 650). I've tried various versions of Opera Mini starting with version 3, then 4, now 4.1, and each time it's been a pain to try to figure out how to keep it from crashing. I was able to get 4.1 working a little better using these instructions, but even then Opera Mini 4.1 still frequently locks up the device, forcing me to have to remove the battery. With earlier versions of Opera Mini 4 I've even reset my Treo to factory defaults and reinstalled everything, and that didn't fix the problem.
Your mileage may vary, but Opera Mini has been extremely crash-prone and disappointing for me.
Win2k8 is going to be cost prohibitive as a desktop os for the vast majority of people.
Is that so?
(Note: I posted this in another thread, but I'm reposting it here because it's relevant.)
You can apparently buy an HP OEM copy of Windows Web Server 2008 for U.S. $140.91, supposedly $157.76 after shipping (to California). I'd never heard of the seller, pcRUSH.com, but it looks pretty legit based on the Shopzilla customer rating page); this is the best price I could find, but it seems rather low so I'm somewhat skeptical.
Anyway, these prices are not really that much higher than what Vista costs. Amazon lists Vista Home Premium for $94.99 and Ultimate for $277.49 (note that the latter is just $85 more than Amazon's price for Windows Web Server 2008). Assuming pcRUSH's price for Windows Web Server 2008 is accurate, you can actually get it cheaper than Vista Ultimate!
Buy Windows Web Server 2008 - apparently U.S. $140.91 ($157.76 after shipping according to shopzilla.com) from pcRUSH.com (I'd never heard of this company, but here's their Shopzilla customer rating page); this is the best price I could find, but it seems rather low so I'm somewhat skeptical.
Buy Windows Web Server 2008 - U.S. $362.49 with free shipping on Amazon.com; this is the second best price I could find, and looks a bit less fishy considering the price is closer to retail and the seller (Amazon) is well-known.
Feel free to search for better prices. I tried shopzilla.com and pricegrabber.com and the prices above were the best that came up.
In case you're wondering, the reason why I singled out Windows Web Server (as opposed to another edition of Windows Server) is that if you're not going to actually use the OS for the server features, it doesn't make sense to buy a more expensive edition. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If malware based on this "attack code" got into the wild, it sounds like one of the attack vectors would be malicious Web sites (which is nothing new). As many security researchers have been recommending for years, turning off JavaScript and other active content by default will greatly reduce the potential for infection, even from many kinds of as-yet undiscovered exploits. A good way to do this with Firefox (without ruining compatibility with trustworthy sites) is to install NoScript, which allows you to whitelist trusted sites while allowing you to block scripts, Java, Flash, Silverlight, other plug-ins, etc. on every other site by default.
Of course, if the flaw lies in the microprocessor, then there are certainly other potential attack vectors than just malicious Web sites.
Someone pointed out that Intel processors are BIOS-upgradeable. What about computers based on EFI instead of BIOS, such as all the Intel-based Macs?
Also, as someone else pointed out, the headline is extremely misleading. The security researcher Kris Kaspersky is not affiliated with Kaspersky Lab or Eugene Kaspersky, but he's apparently the author of a number of books on programming and other computer subjects.
The freakin' article indicates that the $2 increase is only for dial-up customers. It says nothing about broadband AOL users receiving a monthly fee increase. I can't find any clear numbers stating how many of its 8.7 million subscribers are dial-up users vs. broadband customers.
Plurk has been gaining popularity in the past 24 hours, and it's handling scalability rather well so far (after having been mentioned by Leo Laporte, Robert Scoble, TechCrunch, and others). I'm very curious to see how well it would hold up if it had the same number of users as Twitter, though.
ThreatFire doesn't appear to detect cookies. From a press release on the company's Web site:
ABOUT THREATFIRE
ThreatFire uses advanced patent pending technology to detect signs of malicious behavior commonly used by malware threats. ThreatFire is unlike traditional anti-virus products that rely on signature technology and require updating every time a new threat occurs. ThreatFire's ActiveDefence Technology is able to identify and paralyze threats that are too new or too sophisticated to be recognized by traditional security software. ThreatFire is designed to only alert end users of truly malicious behavior.
If it doesn't use signatures, I can't see how it would be able to identify which sites' cookies were set by potential privacy violators.
Well, you lose on that one as Einstein was not religious and he personally refuted anyone who tries to assert his religiousness in an argument. This leads me to believe you are only parroting those things you have been told without verifying their factual accuracy.
I concede on Einstein. Feel free to follow the links in my original post if you have doubts about the other 5 individuals that I mentioned (Newton, Knuth, Mendel, Faraday, Eyring), not to mention the 100 or so ingenious scientists in the Wikipedia article I referenced. If you really think that every one of those people is "weak and stupid" because of his or her belief in the existence of a supreme being, I submit that that's an extremely ignorant opinion, but you're certainly entitled to believe whatever you want to believe.
The second is the spontaneous watch nonsense. Standing on one end of a random occurrence or the result of untold random occurrences, or in the case of evolution, untold random occurrences with the feedback of Darwinian survival of the fittest, it is easy to say "someone must have created this."
In citing "untold random occurrences," you've just highlighted the whole point I was making. =) You claim that a practically infinite number of completely random events all lined up perfectly to bring us to where we are today. To me, that notion is utterly preposterous. It ignores a virtually infinite number of necessities for the existence of humankind, not just in biology where you can claim Darwinian survival of the fittest, but even in the makeup of the galaxy. For example, if Earth was a few percentage points closer to our sun it would be too hot to sustain human life, and if it was a mere 1% farther from our sun it would be an uninhabitable, frozen wasteland.* There are an infinite number of such facts, but if you're so inclined you can read about a few of them here (all facts in the article cite the original sources). However, if you want to ignore the plethora of scientific facts that make humankind possible and use your intellectual-sounding crutch of atheism to justify your beliefs, you're entitled to your opinion.;o)
But god is an unnecessary component and manufactured by ignorance.
Ah, I see. And I suppose you have evidence to back up your theory?;o) See, that's the irony of atheism. You can claim all day long that God is fiction, but at the end of the day you can't "prove" the inexistence of God any more than a believer can "prove" to you the existence of God in any way that you would find acceptable. (But that doesn't stop you from asking religious people for what they consider to be proof, as you did in your original post.)
* Source: Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny (New York: The Free Press, 1998), 127-131.
I'll bite. I have nothing to lose but Slashdot karma.
I know I'll get marked as a troll for this, but that is not my intent, so please try to be open minded.:-)
Likewise, I hope that you will respect my opinion and read this post with an open mind.
When someone can prove to me why one god is any more real than any other god, I'll believe.
You're not the first person to say something to that effect. There is documented history showing that people have been making similar statements for millennia. For example, I would refer you to the story of Elijah vs. the 450 priests of Baal as recorded in 1 Kings 18, except you would probably scoff and say that it's a religious text and not a historical document, although I would contend that it's both.
Until that point in time, I regard religion as a silly obsession for the weak and stupid.
What an unfortunately hasty statement. Do you really believe that the likes of Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, renowned computer scientist Don Knuth, "the father of genetics" Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday (a major contributor to the scientific field of electromagnetism), Henry Eyring (who is credited for one of the most important developments of 20th-century chemistry), and a host of other brilliant scientists are all "weak and stupid"?
(Incidentally, Eyring is a Mormon, and he has humorously but insightfully posed "Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men.")
Leaking out a behind the scenes handbook thins the wall between Shepard and the flock, and may allow the sheep to think out side their assigned position in life, thus weakening the control the church has over its followers.
As other commenters here have stated, this issue seems to be much more about copyright infringement than suppressing "secret" information.
Free thinking and free access to information corrupts belief in god because, "as you know, reality has a liberal bias." (Colbert.)
Nice. You quoted Stephen Colbert in order to get a karma boost. Congratulations.
Setting aside the irrelevant Colbert quote, I strongly disagree with your claim that "free thinking and free access to information corrupts belief in god." As previously noted, some of the most brilliant scientists in the world would disagree with that assessment. Beyond that, there are whole organizations with very intelligent scholars who dedicate much of their time to in-depth research on religious topics (The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, formerly known as FARMS, comes immediately to mind, but I'm sure other readers can think of similar organizations).
There is no proof of god and there is no universal truth, any belief system that relies on such a fiction crumbles in the light of critical thinking and knowledge.
As another poster has wisely assessed, "Logically, then... your own statement cannot be universally true."
Is there proof of the existence of a supreme being? Any statistician should be able to tell you that the odds are in favor of the existence of a god.
Consider, if you will, that you're walking along a beach and happen upon a beautiful Swiss watch lying in the sand near the surf. You pick it up an examine it, and it's in perfect working condition. The time is even set correctly, to the
I went to Charter's contact page and selected the option to chat live with a Customer Care Representative:
You have been connected to TTD Jomar. Me: I just read an article stating that Charter has begun sending letters to its customers informing them that, in the name of an "enhanced user experience," it will begin spying on their traffic and inserting targeted ads. Is there any truth to this? TTD Jomar : Thank you for contacting Charter High Speed Internet Technical Support. My name is Jomar. How may I assist you today? TTD Jomar : I'm so sorry, but this is already beyond our scope of support. Please call 1-888-438-2427 for further assistance. Me: Thank you. TTD Jomar : Again I apologize for the inconvenience you've experienced, but if there is anything further I can help you with please, let me know.
That kind of response doesn't sound like "Customer Care" to me.
Anyway, I called the number and spoke to someone who didn't have a clue what I was talking about. He transferred me to someone else.
The second phone rep said she hadn't heard about the new "enhanced user experience" feature, so she put me on hold to ask someone else. After she came back on the line, she said that she wasn't able to find out anything about it, so said to go to charter.net to stay informed about new features and services.
Naturally, there doesn't appear to be anything on Charter's site about the new "enhanced user experience."
Since I had never heard of EDS, I figure a lot of other Slashdot readers probably haven't, either. Here are some interesting tidbits about the company, courtesy of Wikipedia:
* EDS is short for Electronic Data Systems
* EDS defined the outsourcing business when it was established in 1962 by Ross Perot
* EDS catalogs its services into three service portfolios which are Infrastructure, Applications and Business Process Outsourcing
* Infrastructure services includes maintaining the operation of part or all of a client's computer and communications infrastructure, such as networks, mainframes, "midrange" and Web servers, desktops and laptops, and printers
* Applications services involves the developing, integrating, and/or maintaining of applications software for clients
* Business process outsourcing includes performing a business function for a client, like payroll, call centers, insurance claims processing, and so forth
* Most of EDS's clients are very large companies and governments that need services from a company of EDS's scale. EDS's largest clients include General Motors, Bank Of America, KarstadtQuelle, Kraft, United States Navy, the UK Ministry of Defence and the Royal Dutch Shell
Slashdot Mirror
This threat may run on Leopard 10.5, but it has a tendency to crash. It does not run on the new Mountain Lion 10.8.
Also...
This threat has not yet been found in the wild, and so far there is no indication that this Trojan has infected users
You're right to imply that Mountain Lion users shouldn't get too cocky, but in this particular case, according to this antivirus vendor, the malware hasn't even been found in the wild—and even if it had, it doesn't run on Mountain Lion.
According to Engadget, Best Buy won't offer discounts in U.S. stores. However, HP is supposedly offering refunds to those who paid the full $400. From the Engadget piece:
Well, it looks like American Best Buys won't be enjoying the same liquidation sale as our neighbors to the north. A couple of tipsters have reported that the big box electronics retailer has pulled the webOS tablets from its shelves and is shipping them back to HP. The slates have also disappeared from Best Buy's website...
Don't get upset if you already plunked down $400 for 10-inches of webOS goodness -- HP will refund you the difference. Call up the company or the retail partner you purchased it from, and ask. Just be prepared to sit on hold with all the rest of the folks trying to get their cash back.
Some people such as "Soulja Boy" (a recording artist) and "Violet Blue" (the author of the linked ZDNet article) get special treatment and have not been suspended for using their pseudonyms on Google+
It turns out that Violet Blue is her real name (my mistake; sorry, Violet!). Reference: https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/YnzXfbpe9Nj
That actually brings up another problem: people with real names that are unusual or creative who have to live in fear of Google employees mistakenly suspending their accounts!
So much for Google's blog post in February, "The freedom to be who you want to be..." which extolled the "great benefits" of pseudonymity. http://googlepublicpolicy.blogspot.com/2011/02/freedom-to-be-who-you-want-to-be.html
Other recent suspensions:
Lists of suspensions:
Examples of Google's double standard and inconsistency:
Darn. I was hoping this was a LOST Star Wars scene... that is, Hurley's 1977 remake (before George Lucas' original) of The Empire Strikes Back.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b9Dk4H8lHa8
Although I'm familiar with Thawte, I hadn't heard of its "Web of Trust" prior to this article. However, there's a popular browser add-on with the same name, so I thought I should point that out to avoid any confusion, especially since both products are related to Internet security in some way.
Web of Trust is also the name of a Firefox and Internet Explorer plug-in from a company called WOT Services Ltd. (until recently known as Against Intuition Inc.). It helps protect users from harmful Web sites and puts safety rating badges in search results on Google, Bing, Yahoo!, and other search engines, similar to McAfee SiteAdvisor and Symantec's Norton Safe Web (although in my experience, WOT is much more effective). This completely unrelated Web of Trust is not being killed off.
I hope that clears up any potential confusion.
Tabs should be down the side. [...] I don't understand how this basic mistake can have stayed with us for what, 10 years+ of tabbed browsing...
OmniWeb has been doing preview tabs on the side since 2004. Unfortunately, it's a Mac-only browser and has never really caught on.
It would appear that the parent poster has never heard of meconium aspiration syndrome (MAS). Apparently, in 5 to 20 percent of all births, meconium passes into the amniotic fluid (meconium is the tar-like, sterile stool that an infant passes prior to passing feces). So neither the grandparent poster nor the parent poster were entirely correct; non-sterile feces doesn't float around in the womb for 3 months, but sterile meconium does often pass in utero and can be harmful to the infant if inhaled (or even fatal, in one case I'm aware of).
And now back to my usual role of computer geek.
Thanks for the grammar lesson, but in this case your argument is moot. Munging has reference to the word mung while mungeing has reference to the very different word munge.
See the correct usage at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munge and, if you wish, take a look at the article's history and note that the usage portion was written a long time before this Slashdot article.
There are several TWiT podcasts, and some of them only partially meet the criteria of the person who submitted the question. Let's review the criteria: "entertaining, informative, and, most importantly, thorough," not dumbed down, "dive deep into projects and discussions instead of simply skimming the surface."
The two TWiT podcasts that meet all the criteria that come immediately to mind are Security Now and the (unfortunately now defunct) MacBreak Tech. Security Now is very technical and educational, and it doesn't dumb things down, but instead it manages to explain very technical topics in ways that make them easy to comprehend. It's mostly about computer and information security (naturally) but it also gets into networking and other related topics as well. MacBreak Tech was mainly focused on Macs as the name implies, but I learned a lot of things from the podcast that don't just apply to Macs specifically. I think all the old episodes are still available, so browse through the titles and descriptions and download anything that looks remotely interesting.
Other TWiT podcasts that the asker might enjoy: This Week in Law and FLOSS Weekly. This Week in Law gets in depth about the legal aspects of computer technology and the computer industry. FLOSS Weekly is all about Free (Libre) Open Source Software and consists largely of interviews with lead developers of major open source software projects.
Another decent computer security podcast is Security Bites from CNET. Security Bites is not nearly as in-depth as Security Now as the episodes are very short and more focused, but the show is worth listening to as well.
If you don't mind the shameless self-promotion, I'm one of the hosts of MacMod Live, which deals with Mac modding and peripherally-related topics. MacMod Live doesn't always get super technical, but MacMod.com has a lot of interesting stuff too if you're interested in computer modding.
All of the above are audio shows (sorry if you're looking for video content specifically). Occasionally we do videos on MacMod Live, and those get posted in the same podcast feed as our audio shows.
Since nobody (including TFA) has thusfar linked to the official information page on Microsoft's site...
http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/presskits/antipiracy/default.mspx
Microsoft has a 6-minute video you can watch in "Zune-quality" WMV or "Broadcast-quality" MPEG.
Thanks to MarketWatch for actually linking to the original source.
I had been using OpenDNS. I stopped when I realized they were monitoring my traffic. When I go to Google, they were returning their own Google-like page, to which my browser would submit the query, and then redirect me to Google.
I stopped using them after that discovery.
Your claim that OpenDNS is "monitoring your traffic" is misleading.
If you ping www.google.com it pings google.navigation.opendns.com (208.67.219.231). You still get the standard Google homepage and search results when you go to http://www.google.com/ however. The odd DNS resolution for www.google.com is apparently because some software such as the Google Toolbar bypasses DNS requests, which breaks some of OpenDNS's features. (More on this below.) One apparent advantage of OpenDNS doing this is that it help users avoid Dell affiliate adware so that affected Dell systems will get actual search results instead of a page full of Dell's affiliate ads.
But guess what? It's trivial to turn this feature off if you don't like it. Just go to https://www.opendns.com/dashboard/settings/ and sign in if necessary. Click on Advanced Settings. Scroll down and uncheck Enable OpenDNS proxy, then click Apply. Wait a few minutes, or try running "ipconfig /flushdns" from the command line if you're using Windows, or restart your computer, and then your settings should take effect. The downside to disabling the proxy is that it will break some of OpenDNS's features.
From an OpenDNS support article:
Also, from the OpenDNS FAQ regarding the workaround for Dell adware:
I was able to get Opera Mini 4.1 working a little better on my Treo 680 using these instructions, but even then it still locks up the device, forcing me to have to remove the battery. You can try bumping up the memory to 8 MB instead of 4 like the TypePad article suggests. I haven't tried it at 8 long enough to know if it makes much of a difference. Hope that helps!
Be sure to post again here with instructions on making it more stable if you come across any good tips.
Opera Mini is the only way to go for mobile devices. [...] Opera mini is a much more pleasant experience. Try it!
Ugh, I've had a terrible experience with this browser on my Treo 680 (and before that on my Treo 650). I've tried various versions of Opera Mini starting with version 3, then 4, now 4.1, and each time it's been a pain to try to figure out how to keep it from crashing. I was able to get 4.1 working a little better using these instructions, but even then Opera Mini 4.1 still frequently locks up the device, forcing me to have to remove the battery. With earlier versions of Opera Mini 4 I've even reset my Treo to factory defaults and reinstalled everything, and that didn't fix the problem.
Your mileage may vary, but Opera Mini has been extremely crash-prone and disappointing for me.
Win2k8 is going to be cost prohibitive as a desktop os for the vast majority of people.
Is that so?
(Note: I posted this in another thread, but I'm reposting it here because it's relevant.)
You can apparently buy an HP OEM copy of Windows Web Server 2008 for U.S. $140.91, supposedly $157.76 after shipping (to California). I'd never heard of the seller, pcRUSH.com, but it looks pretty legit based on the Shopzilla customer rating page); this is the best price I could find, but it seems rather low so I'm somewhat skeptical.
Or you can buy Buy Windows Web Server 2008 for U.S. $362.49 with free shipping on Amazon.com; this is the second best price I could find, and looks a bit less fishy considering the price is closer to retail and the seller (Amazon) is well-known.
I searched shopzilla.com and pricegrabber.com and the prices above were the best that came up.
Anyway, these prices are not really that much higher than what Vista costs. Amazon lists Vista Home Premium for $94.99 and Ultimate for $277.49 (note that the latter is just $85 more than Amazon's price for Windows Web Server 2008). Assuming pcRUSH's price for Windows Web Server 2008 is accurate, you can actually get it cheaper than Vista Ultimate!
I'll provide links since you didn't. =)
Download Windows Web Server 2008 trial (or if you prefer, you can get a trial of a different version of Windows Server)
Buy Windows Web Server 2008 - apparently U.S. $140.91 ($157.76 after shipping according to shopzilla.com) from pcRUSH.com (I'd never heard of this company, but here's their Shopzilla customer rating page); this is the best price I could find, but it seems rather low so I'm somewhat skeptical.
Buy Windows Web Server 2008 - U.S. $362.49 with free shipping on Amazon.com; this is the second best price I could find, and looks a bit less fishy considering the price is closer to retail and the seller (Amazon) is well-known.
Feel free to search for better prices. I tried shopzilla.com and pricegrabber.com and the prices above were the best that came up.
In case you're wondering, the reason why I singled out Windows Web Server (as opposed to another edition of Windows Server) is that if you're not going to actually use the OS for the server features, it doesn't make sense to buy a more expensive edition. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If malware based on this "attack code" got into the wild, it sounds like one of the attack vectors would be malicious Web sites (which is nothing new). As many security researchers have been recommending for years, turning off JavaScript and other active content by default will greatly reduce the potential for infection, even from many kinds of as-yet undiscovered exploits. A good way to do this with Firefox (without ruining compatibility with trustworthy sites) is to install NoScript, which allows you to whitelist trusted sites while allowing you to block scripts, Java, Flash, Silverlight, other plug-ins, etc. on every other site by default.
Of course, if the flaw lies in the microprocessor, then there are certainly other potential attack vectors than just malicious Web sites.
Someone pointed out that Intel processors are BIOS-upgradeable. What about computers based on EFI instead of BIOS, such as all the Intel-based Macs?
Also, as someone else pointed out, the headline is extremely misleading. The security researcher Kris Kaspersky is not affiliated with Kaspersky Lab or Eugene Kaspersky, but he's apparently the author of a number of books on programming and other computer subjects.
If Vista is any measure, Windows 7 should not include marketing driven development.
You're absolutely right. Unfortunately, it's already too late for that [video demo of multi-touch features].
The freakin' article indicates that the $2 increase is only for dial-up customers. It says nothing about broadband AOL users receiving a monthly fee increase. I can't find any clear numbers stating how many of its 8.7 million subscribers are dial-up users vs. broadband customers.
Also, for what it's worth, CNET shares a different take on this issue in its article AOL rate increase maybe not as dumb as it looks.
Plurk has been gaining popularity in the past 24 hours, and it's handling scalability rather well so far (after having been mentioned by Leo Laporte, Robert Scoble, TechCrunch, and others). I'm very curious to see how well it would hold up if it had the same number of users as Twitter, though.
ThreatFire doesn't appear to detect cookies. From a press release on the company's Web site:
ABOUT THREATFIREThreatFire uses advanced patent pending technology to detect signs of malicious behavior commonly used by malware threats. ThreatFire is unlike traditional anti-virus products that rely on signature technology and require updating every time a new threat occurs. ThreatFire's ActiveDefence Technology is able to identify and paralyze threats that are too new or too sophisticated to be recognized by traditional security software. ThreatFire is designed to only alert end users of truly malicious behavior.
If it doesn't use signatures, I can't see how it would be able to identify which sites' cookies were set by potential privacy violators.
Also, from the site's product overview page:
Protects against both known and zero-day viruses, worms, trojans, buffer overflows, rootkits and even some spyware.Cookies are not specifically mentioned as something detected by ThreatFire.
If anyone knows better, please correct me if I'm wrong.
I concede on Einstein. Feel free to follow the links in my original post if you have doubts about the other 5 individuals that I mentioned (Newton, Knuth, Mendel, Faraday, Eyring), not to mention the 100 or so ingenious scientists in the Wikipedia article I referenced. If you really think that every one of those people is "weak and stupid" because of his or her belief in the existence of a supreme being, I submit that that's an extremely ignorant opinion, but you're certainly entitled to believe whatever you want to believe.
The second is the spontaneous watch nonsense. Standing on one end of a random occurrence or the result of untold random occurrences, or in the case of evolution, untold random occurrences with the feedback of Darwinian survival of the fittest, it is easy to say "someone must have created this."In citing "untold random occurrences," you've just highlighted the whole point I was making. =) You claim that a practically infinite number of completely random events all lined up perfectly to bring us to where we are today. To me, that notion is utterly preposterous. It ignores a virtually infinite number of necessities for the existence of humankind, not just in biology where you can claim Darwinian survival of the fittest, but even in the makeup of the galaxy. For example, if Earth was a few percentage points closer to our sun it would be too hot to sustain human life, and if it was a mere 1% farther from our sun it would be an uninhabitable, frozen wasteland.* There are an infinite number of such facts, but if you're so inclined you can read about a few of them here (all facts in the article cite the original sources). However, if you want to ignore the plethora of scientific facts that make humankind possible and use your intellectual-sounding crutch of atheism to justify your beliefs, you're entitled to your opinion. ;o)
But god is an unnecessary component and manufactured by ignorance.Ah, I see. And I suppose you have evidence to back up your theory? ;o) See, that's the irony of atheism. You can claim all day long that God is fiction, but at the end of the day you can't "prove" the inexistence of God any more than a believer can "prove" to you the existence of God in any way that you would find acceptable. (But that doesn't stop you from asking religious people for what they consider to be proof, as you did in your original post.)
* Source: Michael Denton, Nature's Destiny (New York: The Free Press, 1998), 127-131.
I'll bite. I have nothing to lose but Slashdot karma.
I know I'll get marked as a troll for this, but that is not my intent, so please try to be open minded. :-)
Likewise, I hope that you will respect my opinion and read this post with an open mind.
When someone can prove to me why one god is any more real than any other god, I'll believe.
You're not the first person to say something to that effect. There is documented history showing that people have been making similar statements for millennia. For example, I would refer you to the story of Elijah vs. the 450 priests of Baal as recorded in 1 Kings 18, except you would probably scoff and say that it's a religious text and not a historical document, although I would contend that it's both.
Until that point in time, I regard religion as a silly obsession for the weak and stupid.
What an unfortunately hasty statement. Do you really believe that the likes of Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, renowned computer scientist Don Knuth, "the father of genetics" Gregor Mendel, Michael Faraday (a major contributor to the scientific field of electromagnetism), Henry Eyring (who is credited for one of the most important developments of 20th-century chemistry), and a host of other brilliant scientists are all "weak and stupid"?
(Incidentally, Eyring is a Mormon, and he has humorously but insightfully posed "Is there any conflict between science and religion? There is no conflict in the mind of God, but often there is conflict in the minds of men.")
Leaking out a behind the scenes handbook thins the wall between Shepard and the flock, and may allow the sheep to think out side their assigned position in life, thus weakening the control the church has over its followers.
As other commenters here have stated, this issue seems to be much more about copyright infringement than suppressing "secret" information.
Free thinking and free access to information corrupts belief in god because, "as you know, reality has a liberal bias." (Colbert.)
Nice. You quoted Stephen Colbert in order to get a karma boost. Congratulations.
Setting aside the irrelevant Colbert quote, I strongly disagree with your claim that "free thinking and free access to information corrupts belief in god." As previously noted, some of the most brilliant scientists in the world would disagree with that assessment. Beyond that, there are whole organizations with very intelligent scholars who dedicate much of their time to in-depth research on religious topics (The Neal A. Maxwell Institute for Religious Scholarship, formerly known as FARMS, comes immediately to mind, but I'm sure other readers can think of similar organizations).
There is no proof of god and there is no universal truth, any belief system that relies on such a fiction crumbles in the light of critical thinking and knowledge.
As another poster has wisely assessed, "Logically, then... your own statement cannot be universally true."
Is there proof of the existence of a supreme being? Any statistician should be able to tell you that the odds are in favor of the existence of a god.
Consider, if you will, that you're walking along a beach and happen upon a beautiful Swiss watch lying in the sand near the surf. You pick it up an examine it, and it's in perfect working condition. The time is even set correctly, to the
I went to Charter's contact page and selected the option to chat live with a Customer Care Representative:
You have been connected to TTD JomarMe: I just read an article stating that Charter has begun sending letters to its customers informing them that, in the name of an "enhanced user experience," it will begin spying on their traffic and inserting targeted ads. Is there any truth to this?
TTD Jomar : Thank you for contacting Charter High Speed Internet Technical Support. My name is Jomar. How may I assist you today?
TTD Jomar : I'm so sorry, but this is already beyond our scope of support. Please call 1-888-438-2427 for further assistance.
Me: Thank you.
TTD Jomar : Again I apologize for the inconvenience you've experienced, but if there is anything further I can help you with please, let me know.
That kind of response doesn't sound like "Customer Care" to me.
Anyway, I called the number and spoke to someone who didn't have a clue what I was talking about. He transferred me to someone else.
The second phone rep said she hadn't heard about the new "enhanced user experience" feature, so she put me on hold to ask someone else. After she came back on the line, she said that she wasn't able to find out anything about it, so said to go to charter.net to stay informed about new features and services.
Naturally, there doesn't appear to be anything on Charter's site about the new "enhanced user experience."
Since I had never heard of EDS, I figure a lot of other Slashdot readers probably haven't, either. Here are some interesting tidbits about the company, courtesy of Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Data_Systems