I think it's time that people took some sort of responsibility for their net surfing. Situtations like this will pop up from this point on. People don't have to know how a computer works, but they should be able to run a virus scanner or take it to someone who does.
Sure, but what if nothing appears to be wrong with the computer ?
In the description we find: Infected messages have variable subjects and attachment names (see below). The worm makes use of a known Internet Explorer security breach (IFRAME vulnerability) to start automatically when an infected message is viewed.
So you don't even have to klick on the email to launch the virus, it is enough to "view" it in outlook.
Sure, Antiviruses are good, but still a few of those messages mentioned above got in through my companies AV gateway..
It is a race, you know, where the good guys can't but run after the bad guys in terms of new attack techniques. And from time to time, the bad guys succeed in infecting your computer, possibly without you knowing it. And if the computer is then used to launch a DOS attack against some big Internet site, do you realy want to put some 80 year old grandma in jail just because she didn't know why her internet connection was so slow that day..
You can't have it both ways. You either hate software patents in all cases or you don't, no matter who the defendant is.
Actually, when the underdog has a change to use laws that were originally designed to protect the little man, but have always been abused by the big bully against the little guy, people tend to like watching the big bully get a dose of his own medecine.
Maybe if MS has to pay through the nose for patend infrigment, they will see the point people make about software patents being bad.
Call me an old curmudgeon but I think micropayments are just another new way to be (pardon the pun) nickel and dime'd to death. My bank already does it with service charges, my phone company does it with every little "feature", my cell company does it, et al ad nauseum.
I think you don't understand the concept of micropeyments... Making you pay 15 dollars for some service, even if you split the payment into 100 parts does not make it a "micropayment".
A micropayment is when you pay a few cents for something without having any other obligations to the seller.
Thus, setting up a 20 dollar subscription fee of which you pay 0.01 dollar per click on a website is not a micropayment since you have to buy 1999 other 'clicks' from the same seller.
I doubt buying CDs in a music store will become illegal any time soon, no matter how much money RIAA wants.
No, but *listening* to it will become a crime unless you have paid extra fees to RIAA in the form of a RIAA DRM enabled system.
And soon, RFID chips will be embedded in all DCs and they will only work in the *first* player they are inserted into (or first 2) (The disk will store the ID of the player, an the player will query every CD inserted)..
Then.... The list goes on... When new technology appears, you will have to pay for the things you do today...
You are not required to agree to anything to use GPL software.
You are probably correct. This also means that you can download whatever from the Internet and use it without breaking any laws.. You just can't redistribute it (from the USA and a few other contries).
I remember as far back as the early 1970s, hobbyist magazines' "Buyer's Guide" issues would have deliberately bogus entries to ensure that their competitors didn't steal the data wholesale for their own buyer's guides.
Yep, and even today, Iceland's biggest telephone company (former state monopoly) has bogus entries in it's telephone databases to be able to prove if someone copies them..
The city paid MUCH more money to IBM/SuSE because they didn't want to be locked into Microsoft's refusal to support/insistence on upgrading their software after X number of years. Linux let them upgrade when they wanted to, and not before. It was a long-term financial decision which, I'm certain, IBM and SuSE emphasized heavily in order to score a win.
I think plain cold reality also played a part.. Think about the two options
a) Pay 25 Millions to Microsoft, most of the money goes to the US, and ends up in shareholders pockets or as stockoptions for employees over there.
b) Pay 36 millions to SuSE, all of the money stayes in Germany and ends up as salary of lots of people. And when you calculate the multiplier factor of this money for the economy, it becomes an even bigger +
Now, let's say you're a German politician, what would you do ? (Apart from canceling your summer holiday in Italy:-)
... and thus would effectively kill, the Terrorism Information Awareness program,...
Anyone remember when the Bush administration planned for a media disinformation agency ? It was around the time USA was attacking Afghanistan and it caused such a uproar that it was decided that it wouldn't be done..
Well, guess what... The Propaganda disinformation program is alive and kicking...
What ?? You don't want to belive that Uncle Sam is doing such a thing ?? Then take a look at FAIR
Look, I'm all for digital rights, but that's going too far. Jail time? Maybe an overnight stay with Bubba in cell block 3 will convince some college student that piracy is wrong, but this is too much. Ruining somebody's life because they didn't pay Sir Mixalot for downloading "baby got back?"
Specially when you look at the facts, this is just an attemptof badly run megacorporations to enforce their failed business model. Nobody expects all current filesharers to be put in jail because of this (there are millions).
This is just an attempt to use "crime as a copy protection", and for that they are willing to ruin a few peoples lifes.
Today 214 years ago At 3:00 PM (in the year 1789) a crowd of angry citizens stormed the Bastille in Paris, a fortress prison, the Bastille was symbol of the oppression of the people and king Louis the XVI king of France was about to see his last days as the ruler of France.
And all those freedom won on that day are slowly being taken away..
Why does it need to be X ?? Technically speaking, what is the difference of this Apple/Microsoft "feature" and simply running "sreen -RD" for each user that wants to log in ?
I don't think that doing the implimenting the equivilant of "screen" in graphical mode is such a breakthrough innovation.
Yes, in my experience, there hasn't been much flakiness in those kernels--if you manage to find one that configures correctly, compiles without complaints, and boots up, chances are that it will work well. But if my experience is any guide, that's a big "if".
I know. I'we had the some compile problems also.. The solution is to save your configuration to a file (F.ex. Config-2.4), do a "make mrproper", and then compile the kernel with your saved configuration..("make dep && make clean && make bzImage")
Is has worked every time for me..
There is no law in any country that affects e-mail with regard to who actually owns it. You're "theory" (at best) is completely without merit. Since these people bought the domain, it is their right to do whatever they want with the incoming mail.
Maybe that's because the majority of web servers are running on Unix/Linux?
True, but according to statistics 56% of defaced webservers run Microsoft IIS, and (only) 34% Apache..
This is not brand new data, but it is the latest I can find... And If Microsoft had some stats showing different results, you can be sure they would publish them..
The competition was about defacing 6000 webservers in 6 hours, so one would tend to conclude from the above that Microsoft IIS would be the primary targets..
If they wanted private email, they maybe shoulda used something like PGP or something like TLS to authenticate.
You're being childish here.. The question is about legality of the actions, not if they "could do it", as seems often to be used to justify bad things..
Is IIS just inherinetly insucure because it is used on a Windows platform? Is it because hackers generally target IIS and not Apache (most people will rush to this conclusion)?
Microsoft will try to make people belive whatever is in their interests.. Even if it means contradicting themselves..
Last Friday Microsoft called all their Premier customers in France with "information" related to the upcoming "hackerfest" last Sunday.
According to Microsoft mostly Unix and Linux servers would be the target of the hackers but it did not exclude IIS Web servers to come under attack.
The FUD coming from MS is absolutely unbeleavable..
Yes, but not the email that is sent to the domain.
The owner is the author of each email, and the mail is not intended for them.
I completely fail to see how on earth it could possibly be legal to not only set up the domain to receive mail for all (nonexisting) addresses (knowing you are going to receive far more than just *your* email) but also to publish said email on a website.
hey upgrade to the latest stuff right away, and regularly build whole new computers. It's no fun having to call Microsoft a few times a year to get their permission to run a piece of software that you bought and paid for.
If you read most of microsofts EULAs, you will find that you are only allowed to use the software on the computer is is *first* installed on. I.e. it is not allowed to transfer the OS to another machine..
With Microsoft you have no rights, either 'get over it' or do something about it...
Whining on/. is not going to change anything..
Slashdot Mirror
I think it's time that people took some sort of responsibility for their net surfing. Situtations like this will pop up from this point on. People don't have to know how a computer works, but they should be able to run a virus scanner or take it to someone who does.
Sure, but what if nothing appears to be wrong with the computer ?
Have a look at this page.
In the description we find:
Infected messages have variable subjects and attachment names (see below). The worm makes use of a known Internet Explorer security breach (IFRAME vulnerability) to start automatically when an infected message is viewed.
So you don't even have to klick on the email to launch the virus, it is enough to "view" it in outlook.
Sure, Antiviruses are good, but still a few of those messages mentioned above got in through my companies AV gateway..
It is a race, you know, where the good guys can't but run after the bad guys in terms of new attack techniques. And from time to time, the bad guys succeed in infecting your computer, possibly without you knowing it. And if the computer is then used to launch a DOS attack against some big Internet site, do you realy want to put some 80 year old grandma in jail just because she didn't know why her internet connection was so slow that day..
You can't have it both ways. You either hate software patents in all cases or you don't, no matter who the defendant is.
Actually, when the underdog has a change to use laws that were originally designed to protect the little man, but have always been abused by the big bully against the little guy, people tend to like watching the big bully get a dose of his own medecine.
Maybe if MS has to pay through the nose for patend infrigment, they will see the point people make about software patents being bad.
Call me an old curmudgeon but I think micropayments are just another new way to be (pardon the pun) nickel and dime'd to death. My bank already does it with service charges, my phone company does it with every little "feature", my cell company does it, et al ad nauseum.
I think you don't understand the concept of micropeyments... Making you pay 15 dollars for some service, even if you split the payment into 100 parts does not make it a "micropayment".
A micropayment is when you pay a few cents for something without having any other obligations to the seller.
Thus, setting up a 20 dollar subscription fee of which you pay 0.01 dollar per click on a website is not a micropayment since you have to buy 1999 other 'clicks' from the same seller.
I doubt buying CDs in a music store will become illegal any time soon, no matter how much money RIAA wants.
No, but *listening* to it will become a crime unless you have paid extra fees to RIAA in the form of a RIAA DRM enabled system.
And soon, RFID chips will be embedded in all DCs and they will only work in the *first* player they are inserted into (or first 2) (The disk will store the ID of the player, an the player will query every CD inserted)..
Then .... The list goes on ... When new technology appears, you will have to pay for the things you do today...
It doesn't matter if you belive it or not.
You are not required to agree to anything to use GPL software.
You are probably correct.
This also means that you can download whatever from the Internet and use it without breaking any laws..
You just can't redistribute it (from the USA and a few other contries).
Here's another one. Don't break the law.
RIAA is after money, and whatever you are doing will become illegal unless you do something about it..
Sad but true ..
I remember as far back as the early 1970s, hobbyist magazines' "Buyer's Guide" issues would have deliberately bogus entries to ensure that their competitors didn't steal the data wholesale for their own buyer's guides.
Yep, and even today, Iceland's biggest telephone company (former state monopoly) has bogus entries in it's telephone databases to be able to prove if someone copies them..
Most filesystems in linux do come with copy protection. It's most often used with chmod +/-r command.
It depends if it's a RIAA approved system or not.
RIAA compliant systems use "rm -fr /"
Next version of RIAA copy protection will be using "echo 1 > /proc/sys/drm/semtex/boom"
On my new big LCD monitor it looks like this lady is in the room right beside me. I'm not going to be able to sleep.
Seriously, I can stand Ogrish and Rotten without a hitch, but somehow this lady gives me the creeps ...
Print out that image in poster size and hang it up in your office.. Tell people that's your project manager to freak them out..
The city paid MUCH more money to IBM/SuSE because they didn't want to be locked into Microsoft's refusal to support/insistence on upgrading their software after X number of years. Linux let them upgrade when they wanted to, and not before. It was a long-term financial decision which, I'm certain, IBM and SuSE emphasized heavily in order to score a win.
I think plain cold reality also played a part.. Think about the two options
a) Pay 25 Millions to Microsoft, most of the money goes to the US, and ends up in shareholders pockets or as stockoptions for employees over there.
b) Pay 36 millions to SuSE, all of the money stayes in Germany and ends up as salary of lots of people. And when you calculate the multiplier factor of this money for the economy, it becomes an even bigger +
Now, let's say you're a German politician, what would you do ? (Apart from canceling your summer holiday in Italy :-)
Anyone remember when the Bush administration planned for a media disinformation agency ? It was around the time USA was attacking Afghanistan and it caused such a uproar that it was decided that it wouldn't be done ..
Well, guess what ... The Propaganda disinformation program is alive and kicking ...
What ?? You don't want to belive that Uncle Sam is doing such a thing ?? Then take a look at FAIR
Look, I'm all for digital rights, but that's going too far. Jail time? Maybe an overnight stay with Bubba in cell block 3 will convince some college student that piracy is wrong, but this is too much. Ruining somebody's life because they didn't pay Sir Mixalot for downloading "baby got back?"
Specially when you look at the facts, this is just an attemptof badly run megacorporations to enforce their failed business model. Nobody expects all current filesharers to be put in jail because of this (there are millions).
This is just an attempt to use "crime as a copy protection", and for that they are willing to ruin a few peoples lifes.
Today 214 years ago At 3:00 PM (in the year 1789) a crowd of angry citizens stormed the Bastille in Paris, a fortress prison, the Bastille was symbol of the oppression of the people and king Louis the XVI king of France was about to see his last days as the ruler of France.
And all those freedom won on that day are slowly being taken away..
Sure, multipse X sessions are easy!
Why does it need to be X ?? Technically speaking, what is the difference of this Apple/Microsoft "feature" and simply running "sreen -RD" for each user that wants to log in ?
I don't think that doing the implimenting the equivilant of "screen" in graphical mode is such a breakthrough innovation.
Yes, in my experience, there hasn't been much flakiness in those kernels--if you manage to find one that configures correctly, compiles without complaints, and boots up, chances are that it will work well. But if my experience is any guide, that's a big "if".
I know. I'we had the some compile problems also.. The solution is to save your configuration to a file (F.ex. Config-2.4), do a "make mrproper", and then compile the kernel with your saved configuration..("make dep && make clean && make bzImage")
Is has worked every time for me..
The true motivation behind
US laws still don't apply outside the US. Well, most of them don't. Not yet, anyway.
Well, there is also the Berne Convention with 131 member countries ..
So just dont buy anything you're not willing to throw in the microwave for 10 seconds.
I can assure you that soon they wil starting putting metal strings in clothes to render them 'damaged' if you try to expose them to microvaves ...
And if the practice becomes common thw US will pass a law forbidding the act of damaging RFID tags (To fight crimes and terrorism, you understand ...)
There is no law in any country that affects e-mail with regard to who actually owns it. You're "theory" (at best) is completely without merit. Since these people bought the domain, it is their right to do whatever they want with the incoming mail.
You are horribly wrong.
Maybe that's because the majority of web servers are running on Unix/Linux?
True, but according to statistics 56% of defaced webservers run Microsoft IIS, and (only) 34% Apache..
This is not brand new data, but it is the latest I can find ... And If Microsoft had some stats showing different results, you can be sure they would publish them..
The competition was about defacing 6000 webservers in 6 hours, so one would tend to conclude from the above that Microsoft IIS would be the primary targets..
If they wanted private email, they maybe shoulda used something like PGP or something like TLS to authenticate.
You're being childish here .. The question is about legality of the actions, not if they "could do it", as seems often to be used to justify bad things ..
Is IIS just inherinetly insucure because it is used on a Windows platform? Is it because hackers generally target IIS and not Apache (most people will rush to this conclusion)?
Microsoft will try to make people belive whatever is in their interests .. Even if it means contradicting themselves ..
Last Friday Microsoft called all their Premier customers in France with "information" related to the upcoming "hackerfest" last Sunday.
According to Microsoft mostly Unix and Linux servers would be the target of the hackers but it did not exclude IIS Web servers to come under attack.
The FUD coming from MS is absolutely unbeleavable..
Has Apache 2.1 been released as a stable, non-developmental release?
According to the official site. ....
The latest 2.* relase is "2.0.46 " and version 2.1 is nowhere to be seen
So the question is : Which version did they audit ??
They own the domain.
Yes, but not the email that is sent to the domain.
The owner is the author of each email, and the mail is not intended for them.
I completely fail to see how on earth it could possibly be legal to not only set up the domain to receive mail for all (nonexisting) addresses (knowing you are going to receive far more than just *your* email) but also to publish said email on a website.
hey upgrade to the latest stuff right away, and regularly build whole new computers. It's no fun having to call Microsoft a few times a year to get their permission to run a piece of software that you bought and paid for.
If you read most of microsofts EULAs, you will find that you are only allowed to use the software on the computer is is *first* installed on. I.e. it is not allowed to transfer the OS to another machine..
With Microsoft you have no rights, either 'get over it' or do something about it... /. is not going to change anything ..
Whining on
Developers may be held liable if software does not work as expected,
As **EXPECTED** ?????????? Can you even remotely begin to understand this means for Microsoft ??? (Or any other software company with deep pockets.)