Are you saying that having a file under C:\Windows\ called "mytotallycoolapplicationlog.txt" - and writing "It worked:)" everytime the process is successful and having "It failed:(" Everytime it doesn't constitute a good logging procedure?
Windows does have a system logging facility, as in it's provided by the operating system. I have no idea whether it's as functional, but otherwise it's comparable to the syslog facility provided by Unix and Unix-like systems. Maybe I'm being fanciful but this is what I imagined when I read Jimicus' post.
You thought wrong. This was most likely scaffolding (for himself) that he put up while looking for a bug, and that a he forgot to take out afterwards. Since he didn't take it out, that probably means he never found or fixed the bug he was looking for. BTW, the effort involved in putting up one of these messages is very low, it's much much lower than building a proper logging facility from scratch.
But why would you ever have to build a proper logging facility from scratch when there are several good, open, mature implementations ready for you to use? Oh, right, it was a Symantec app on Windows he was talking about. Nevermind.
In essence, all 10 items on the list say "Use Linux!"
Yeah, ok, thank you Captain Obvious, I mean CHIMIT:P
Not really. The same problems exist in Linux -- authentication, logging, putting files in random folders (/var,/etc).
The difference with Linux is that if you don't like it, you stand a decent chance of actually being able to do something about it.
Obviously that's sub-optimal. It would be better for vendors to soundly design their software in the first place. Still, open (in the sense of "transparent") systems make it much easier to actually mitigate such nuisances.
This seems to be pretty close to admitting that their senior execs have done things that would cause public outrage.
Seems like a smarter strategy would have been just to shut up completely about it until seeing what these leaks actually contain.
But, I suppose if you know beyond a doubt you will be proven guilty and held to account for something, you might as well prepare for it.
There is one prepatory step that will apparently never occur to them: admit they have done wrong, identify the people they have wronged, make it right by giving them full compensation, and document that they have done so.
And you're still a troll. And if you think that simply running Linux automagically protects you from any threat of malware, you're also an idiot.
The quality of discussion on this site is taking a nosedive lately. I think phony "debate" talkshows and the demagoguing occurring in politics does a lot of damage by repeatedly presenting invalid processes as though they were legitimate or useful. I'll spell it out right now, the dishonest tactics used on shows like that and commercials like that are designed for one purpose: so the host or politician can "win" and "be right" no matter how right or wrong he/she actually is. It's rhetoric, not debate.
I'll give a rough outline of how this most often plays out on Slashdot. My goal is to demonstrate how petty and useless it really is:
Read a statement made by another poster.
Decide whether you like or don't like that statement.
Assume that anything you don't like must be factually incorrect.
(Optional) Demonize people who say things you don't like by never admitting when they make a valid point. That would be like helping the enemy since you're either with us or against us! That's much more precious than honest debate, right?
Do not deal with the poster as an individual. Instead, pigeonhole them:
Decide what group (real or imagined) the poster vaguely sounds like.
Ascribe all attributes of that group to the poster.
Fail to notice that the poster actually made no such claims; instead, put words in their mouth.
Proceed to tear down the straw man you have just set up.
(Optional) call the poster names, use invective, use ad-hominems.
(Mandatory) forget that you just tore down a strawman that you set up, so your "victory" feels genuine and earned.
It boils down to what kind of man or woman you are. To some people, the truth is more important than winning and any winning that does happen is not legitimate if it is not rooted in truth. To many people, winning is more important than the truth and lying, distorting, misrepresenting, are all acceptable as long as you win and the other guy loses. The latter group will never know what it means to say "you know, that's a really good point, it made me think about this differently, you changed my mind about this -- thank you!" for that would mean losing face, or so they imagine.
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? I'll explain. For every 500 times I've seen someone say "if you think Linux automagically protects you from malware", I think I've seen maybe 1 time that anyone actually made that claim. This strawman has been beaten so severely it's reverted back to a small pile of hay. It's time to let it go, no matter how otherwise trollish somebody else has decided to be (and he was -- I don't dispute that, but this BS compounds that problem).
The GP said two things. He said he has run Debian and/or Ubuntu for the last 10 years. That's not absurd or beyond the realm of possibility. So ok, I believe him. He also says he has experienced no malware during those 10 years. That's strictly a matter of his competence as a Linux admin, skilled admins exist, and it doesn't take a particularly high level of skill to achieve that. So that's not absurd or infeasible either. Ok, I believe him on that one too.
Now hear this: he did not claim that Linux automagically did anything. I realize some people have said that -- if you want to do something about it, locate and deal with those people. What you're doing is assuming he must be just like them because he wears the same kind of tie. Until and unless he makes the same claims, he is not just like them. If he trolled a little, you said "oh yeah, watch THIS" and showed him how it's done.
Well, Xbox and Xbox live is their brand and it affects their brand image. Sure, it's censorship but it's not an open platform like the PC.
Maybe your intention was to summarize the issue, or maybe you're trying to downplay the problem. Either way you're presenting no new information here.
I'll use a (tired, old, please bear with me) car analogy.
Ford might not want you to use aftermarket (i.e. "not made by Ford") parts in your Ford vehicle. However, that vehicle is your property. You can replace its parts with non-Ford parts if you want.
Now, Ford might say that using non-Ford parts voids their warranty. That's unfortunate, but reasonable. Ford might also take the brand-recognition route and say that using their official parts for their vehicles is "highly recommended" etc. They can do things like this to encourage use of their parts in their vehicles.
This isn't a bad scenario at all. Of course Ford would like very much to have everyone buy replacement parts from them. They can do a lot to encourage Ford owners to do that, making them relatively happy. A Ford owner who really wants an aftermarket part can still get one on the open market and install it, without being a criminal or opening himself up to a lawsuit, making them relatively happy too.
What Ford can't do is use the force of law to put manufacturers of after-market parts out of business. For some reason we tolerate this with "intellectual property" but we don't tolerate this with real tangible property. It's more than censorship. It's also Microsoft dictating what you may or may not run on your XBoX360 after the sale has taken place and you have become its owner.
The only reason why it's not an open platform is because Microsoft retains this unreasonably high degree of control after the sale over a piece of hardware you now own. I'd have no problem if Microsoft said "anything we don't certify/support/approve of is not guaranteed to work and we will not provide support if it breaks". Though I wouldn't like it, I'd even have no problem if Microsoft said "we will not allow unapproved games on the XBoX Live Network".
But no, they want absolute control and because of the madness and insanity that is "intellectual property" law, they have it. Of course I'm against that.
Isn't one of the problems with railguns that sometimes the projectile will weld itself to the rail? What happens if that occurs with a jet launcher on the rail, and a plane hooked to that?
As another poster pointed out, this technically isn't a railgun. It's a linear motor. This is more like a mag-lev train. The other big advantage is that in a real railgun, the rails need frequent replacement.
If you were expecting technical accuracy from our esteemed professional Slashdot editors, that day has not yet arrived. They're still trying to figure out how to work a spell-checker and how to use basic English grammar. As long as the ad revenues and the paid account revenues keep on flowing, I suppose they don't feel much pressure to get these things right.
Just like Microsoft isn't required to license whatever software is put in front of them.
I think the problem is that their licensing is important. They've managed to set up a scheme where that matters.
If I buy an AMD or an Intel processor, I don't need AMD or Intel to license Linux. I just install Linux on my system and I expect either processor to run it properly since there is no technical reason why they could not.
If I buy an Xbox360 I am unlikely to succesfully run any game that Microsoft does not license. That's the problem here.
What is more annoying is when people claim businesses are guilty of censorship. I'm not even sure you can even call it censorship if people, business or any privately controlled entity determines what they will endorse, sell, disclose, etc. That's just called using judgement, being responsible, marketing, making money, etc.
Instead, get annoyed when governments and media outlets censor.
Microsoft is free to choose not to produce games containing sex and/or nudity if they don't want to do that. That would be "judgment" and would be deciding "what they will endorse, sell, disclose, etc."
However, Microsoft is saying they don't want anybody else to produce games containing sex and/or nudity. That's beyond exercising their own discretion. That's more like saying "because we don't want to do this, no one else should do this either". Leveraging their ownership of a console to enforce this may be fully legal but that doesn't make it right or justifiable or anything other than censorship.
"Just rate the games and sell them dammit, let the market decide."
Isn't the market deciding already, by not selling AO games?
Seems to me the "market solution" would involve selling those games openly to the people who want them. If that's a niche market, then it won't be very large, but it would still exist.
Blatant censorship doesn't sound much like "let the market decide" to me. It sounds more to me like "if the market decided this, it might produce a result we don't like, so we won't let the market decide this one."
I remember way back when I bought PC Gamer there was a letter to the mag complaining about FEAR's frequent swearing. They agreed with him too. I guess sex and swearing is far more deplorable than the cannibalism, dismemberment and showers of blood in that game..
Which is completely ridiculous. These games and the ratings systems attached to them are designed for marketing to adults. Do you know any adults who have never before heard swearing?
It reminds me of that Janet Jackson incident during the Super Bowl. One breast was exposed. The FCC had to "crack down" by issuing stiff fines and penalties for the network(s) involved. That was for one breast. It was simple nudity and didn't involve any genitals. No sex was depicted there. The whole thing was a tremendous overreaction.
It's the kind of shit that makes the USA look like a bunch of unreasonable prudes before the rest of the world. This deal with video games isn't so different considering the amount of extreme violence (appropriate for a realistic war game, but quite violent all the same) that seems to be so acceptable.
You are allowed to do anything you want with your console. Microsoft isn't obligated to make it easy for you, however.
It's funny how their decision-making parallels American television censorship customs.
Want to show a hardcore war-themed game? Ok. Does it involve gruesome up-close violence? That's fine. Showing someone getting their head blown off at point-blank range with a shotgun? That's alright, just make sure it's realistic.
Want to show a pair of breasts? Not cool. Does it involve graphic depictions of sex between consentual adults? Not acceptable. That'd be obscene, and we will use licensing and any other means available to shut you down.
The message? Graphic violence is OK and normal and natural. Sex is obscene, uncommon, not a part of normal adult life, and must not be shown for any reason.
It does not necessarily follow that he actually has a developed sense of humor, merely that he happened upon enough catchphrases that the yokels would hyuk-hyuk to over and over again to make a career of it.
So it's exactly like when a Slashdot meme is repeated in a post that for the 90,000th time and still gets modded up to +5 Funny.
Cue the rude persons who can't believe that anyone would perceive something wrong with that. Really, changing "Funny" mods to -1 in your preferences might be the single best way to improve the signal-to-noise on this site. That's a shame, as I really appreciate humor and satire that's actually original and witty. It just happens that reading a meme for the Nth time doesn't fit this criteria.
I never liked Clinton, not just because I have philosophical disagreements with him but also because he is a masterful politician. He always gave me the impression of a master salesman who could talk you into buying things you don't need and cannot afford and make you think that doing it was your own idea. That's a skill that honest people don't need.
Really? So you can't see that being a worthwhile skill for a hostage negotiator? Or a diplomat having to prevent a war?
Because I am personally not that way, sometimes I forget how desperately some people need to point a finger and say "hah, you're wrong!" So I wrote "that's a skill that honest people don't need" instead of writing "that's a skill that honest people generally don't need." Yup, I left out a word that I should have included.
So ok, you got me. You win, I lose. Feel better? Good. Isn't nitpicking fun, productive, and useful?
Now that I've responded to your enlightening objection, if you feel like actually discussing the subject of "don't ask, don't tell" and helping me to understand why some people believe it is homophobic, that would be appreciated.
P.S. if you don't understand what I mean by a desperate need to find fault, I can elaborate a bit. You just read a post where I twice rejected a childish, either-or, black-and-white perception of the world. I rejected it once in terms of partisan politics. I rejected it a second time by demonstrating that I can be objective and say that I like something Clinton did even though I dislike the man himself. Yet you see me make one comment about honest people and what do you ask me? You ask me if I can't recognize exceptions to this statement.
You're not using the word federalism correctly. It doesn't mean "centralization of everything", it means "centralization of only certain well-defined things". It means "separation of powers".
I believe I used it correctly. You know the ever-growing and ever-more-powerful federal government that increasingly intrudes into intrastate affairs and the daily lives of citizens? Yeah, that's the opposite of how I would define federalism. Re-read my post please. I said that the increasing centralization of power is what constitutes the abandonment of federalism.
But, you're right, it hasn't worked. It hasn't worked for exactly the reasons spelled out in the Anti-Federalist Papers, that the central government would ignore any limits and grow without bound. That's the glaring flaw of federalism.
Two points there. One, the Founders intented the people, as in "We the People" to be the ultimate check on governmental power. We have the situation we face today precisely because we're a bunch of whimpering sheeple who just want our shiny new consumer toys and football games and have allowed politics to decay into the false dichotomy of "Left vs. Right".
Two, it was the states which created the federal government and enough states could get together and hold a new Constitutional Convention to re-create it as well. You'll never see it on the mainstream news but several states have become so fed up (no pun intended) that they are beginning to declare their sovereignty and to refuse certain federal mandates. The only reason why so few have done it and it has not been such a major issue is that the states are too dependent on federal funding, and have little power for all of the reasons that the crackhead has little power over the drug pusher.
A third point could be made, though it's an ugly one. It was the opinion of the Founding Fathers, based on their understanding of history, that "the natural progression of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground" as Jefferson put it. To them, it is inevitable that even the most freedom-loving nations will eventually decay into tyrannies. It is like a form of entropy. In my opinion, they didn't view themselves as the very first group to halt this process and produce a nation of everlasting freedom. Instead, I think they viewed themselves as stacking the deck in favor of the people as much as possible.
So, to borrow a phrase, I'd say that federalism based on a representative republic is the worst form of government except for all the others we've tried. The Anti-Federalist Papers merely point out that it isn't perfect and cannot stop the inevitable progression of patterns that repeat throughout history. Still, it has worked where it has been tried and I think we can agree that usurping power away from the states and from the people is the opposite of trying it.
Yes, but now there is a real ability to protect Gays and Lesbian's and unless we make a huge step backwards, I doubt we will have another president who is homophobic like Reagan or Bush Sr. was.
"Don't ask, don't tell" is what's being repealed here. I'll mention that this policy came from the Clinton administration. If it is an inherently homophobic policy then Clinton would be the homophobe in question.
Now, there are a lot of childish people on this site. Childish people don't understand the concept that one can criticize a Democrat without also supporting a Republican. I think understanding that would be against their religion and they are quite devout. Anyway, in the hopes that they'll control their urge to knee-jerk, I'll roll my eyes and explain for their benefit that I'm no defender of Reagan and I am especially no defender of Bush.
Having said that, I'd like you to help me understand your viewpoint if you would. What is homophobic about "don't ask, don't tell"? Do you believe it is inherently homophobic and no amount of reform could fix that, or do you believe it is inherently neutral but has been implemented in a homophobic manner?
I never liked Clinton, not just because I have philosophical disagreements with him but also because he is a masterful politician. He always gave me the impression of a master salesman who could talk you into buying things you don't need and cannot afford and make you think that doing it was your own idea. That's a skill that honest people don't need. Yet I am thankful that I don't suffer from the popular need to demonize anything or anyone I don't like, so when I think something he did was a good idea I can say so.
It seemed to me that "don't ask, don't tell" was a way to reinforce the professionalism of the military. It made it easier for the soldiers to focus on their difficult and dangerous work instead of being distracted by concerns like what consenting adults do behind closed doors. I believe concerns like that have no place on the battlefield. I believe that's true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. If you believe I am wrong or misguided, can you tell me why?
I don't see any opinions, though I do fail to see how this falls under "stuff that matters". The world will keep turning just the same and we'll keep fighting pointless wars just the same, regardless of whether or not you can openly say "I'm gay" while being in the military.
Taking a long view, you might notice that non-issues like "flag-burning" and "gays in the military" and "embryonic stem cells" always come up whenever a distraction is needed. You can make any non-issue seem like a big deal worthy of national attention if you let the media run with it and repeat it ad nauseum.
Usually this happens when we're in the middle of the pointless wars that you mention. It doesn't usually happen in the beginning of the pointless war. In the beginning of those, the politicians and media beat the drums of patriotism and nationalism, for at that moment this is the party line. They pretend like they are accountable and need to justify the actions they're going to take anyway, that way the voters feel like they matter. The truth is they don't; the military-industrial complex is a hungry beast that demands to be fed. In the middle is where those justifications are found to be either total bullshit or questionable at best (WMDs in Iraq) and the given reason is suddenly changed (we wanted to liberate them all along!). At that point a distraction is needed to pacify the masses. It's a really sophisticated, polished, professional way of saying "shut up and look over here!"
With Bush Sr. the flag-burning issue came up close to the same time as Desert Storm and Desert Shield. With Clinton, gays in the military came up about when he sent all those cruise missiles to Afghanistan and the Sudan. Now that same issue comes up again during this latest pointless war, and coincidentally enough Clinton makes a reappearance with Obama.
It is possible that population growth has turned formerly manageable nations into unmanageable ones.
Population growth doesn't do that. The increasing centralization of power is what does that.
I am coming to the view that we would be better off globally with smaller countries and more power given to local authorities.
That's a good model for governance within a large nation as well. The Founding Fathers realized that a long time ago and they probably weren't the first. The USA has largely abandoned federalism when it comes to anything important. Even things like roads and schools that are well within the domain of states and local governments have many federal mandates attached to them.
There is one trick in particular that the feds love to use to undermine the power of states: they impose taxes on the citizens of the states and give them some of that money back only if the states follow the federal mandates. They could impose taxes only for issues that are legitimately the domain of the federal government and let the states work out what they need and how to fund it, but they'd get less power that way. This trick works so well that most of the states are deeply dependent on this federal funding and their budgets would break without it. The closest model you could use for comparison would be the drug pusher and the crackhead.
None of this happened because federalism had glaring flaws or wasn't working. It happened because politicians love power so much that they don't care about the long-term damage they do to the country while acquiring it, especially not when it is future generations who will have to live with it. Globalism in the economic sense is already here. Globalism in the one-world government sense is in the works, bit by bit, step by step, and you can imagine how much more fun that is going to be. Hypothetically, all it really needs is one gigantic international crisis, such as the financial collapse and insolvency of the USA, and it will be ushered in and presented as the golden solution to all problems. That's the way these things operate both within nations and among nations.
Consider this: if you live in one of the more nanny-state US states like Massachusetts you could move to another US state if you don't want that. If you think your country is becoming tyrannical you can move to another though it would be much more difficult. If a one-world government becomes tyrannical, what are you going to do, terraform Mars?
The way the submitted stories seem to overwhelmingly favor paywalls, and when I see that a thoughtful person usually finds and posts a relevant link with no such restrictions, I can't help but wonder if Slashdot has some kind of "kickback" arrangement with several paywall sites. I wonder the same thing when I see multiple submissions for a particular story and the one that makes it to the main page tends to be someone's ad-laden blog. I have no idea if that's all a coincidence or not and have seen no evidence either way. Yet, if it isn't a coincidence wouldn't it be more like journalistic integrity to include a one-line disclosure in the final submission?
Sure, lots of times the unrestricted links are some kind of "printable" version that gets around the paywall instead of finding an alternate site. I understand that Slashdot probably wouldn't be allowed to post such a circumvention. Still, it's a rare event that one news outlet has a total monopoly on a given story. I'm betting that exceedingly few news items and press releases have no freely-accessible alternatives at all.
So you would rather trust yourself over an organisation that has entire teams dedicated to browser based malware who command vast resources?
Yes. The reason is very simple: no one is in a better position to secure my own equipment than I am. If I didn't know how to do that, then you might have a point.
If Google wanted to send skilled technicians and/or security researchers to my physical premises to harden my systems for me, then you might have a point. I could pick their brains and probably learn a thing or two. Google has made no such offer. Meanwhile, a "take it or leave it" blacklist has no such advantage.
All browsers suffer from zero day vulnerabilities and just running NoScript and AdBlock will not stop all of them. I'm betting you don't scan the contents of every URL before you open it and even if you did you only use one scanner which is only as good as the last update. Google has the advantage of being able to see potential vulnerabilities pop up on multiple sites, particularly ones it knows are disreputable or have served malware in the past. Most AV companies seem to see web based malware blocking as secondary to detection and removal after the fact but for Google it is their main function.
For just this reason I don't rely on updates alone. I also use a combination of the least-privilege principle, non-executable pages, address space randomization, SSP, and other techniques to make it quite difficult to successfully exploit even a zero-day vulnerability. If you're interested, I arrange this by using Gentoo Hardened. These measures, plus staying up-to-date, plus commonsense best practices are the foundation of how I run my systems.
If you are unfamiliar with those techniques please research them before falsely pronouncing a third-party blacklist as the superior choice. I don't need Big Daddy Google looking over my shoulder to make sure I stay safe and I'm capable of making an informed decision about this.
I'm not saying Google are perfect but they are pretty damn good and you would be nuts to ignore their free advice.
That's a nice appeal to authority you have there. I agree that Google's blacklist is better than nothing. I said in an earlier post that it's a good thing overall. However there are vastly more effective ways to secure a host. By comparison, this blacklist is a convenience at best. Anyone could investigate and implement those ways, but the vast majority of users don't want to. They are the target audience. They are the ones who stand to benefit from this blacklist. If I ever said that nobody should ever use this blacklist for any reason then the way you've been responding to me would make a lot more sense.
I don't believe you appreciate the nearly religious nature of your objection. I have determined that any benefit I would derive from Google's blacklist is negligible for me. I am not stopping anyone else from using it if they believe it is of value to them. I am not advocating that Google be made to stop maintaining this blacklist. I am not saying this blacklist has no value, only that it has no value to me so I use alternatives that better meet my needs.
For some reason you seem determined to convince me that that it's not appropriate for me to make this determination for myself. You think I'm "nuts" or must be in error because some guy on Slashdot can't easily talk me out of what my own research and experience has taught me. We will have to part ways at this point, as I don't believe I can help you with that.
At the root of this, I don't know if self-determination and personal responsibility offend you, if you're far too impressed by large organizations, or if you're just one of those who must win a convert because you feel affronted by someone who adheres to a different philosophy.
I'd rather secure my own machine than rely on the goodwill of corporations to protect me from malicious sites.
A common fallacy about security. Extra layer of security is always an extra layer of security. Not to mention, with software, you're always at the mercy of others, such as operating system maintainers and software developers. You depend on them not creating exploitable bugs, and promptly fixing discovered ones, since some are generated anyway.
With respect, I think two similar-sounding yet fundamentally different issues are being conflated here.
I do depend on the maintainers of operating systems and userland software to fix bugs, particularly security-related bugs. Yet some of them have a much better track record and have demonstrated a far greater understanding of security than others. I can and do choose among those. For example, I don't use BIND for my DNS server and I don't use Sendmail for my e-mail server. Having made my choices, the way I decide to configure those systems also has a tremendous impact on the level of security achieved. That's where I do the research and learn both the right and wrong ways of doing things.
The quality of software used is one separate issue.
All of this involves taking an active role. It means taking responsibility for my experience. I make my choices about what tools I will use and how I will use them and then I accept the consequences. What I neither want nor need is for some third party to create a list of "approved" software for me to use. That's a degree of coddling I personally find undesirable in the extreme, even though it may be a welcome service to others who do not wish to learn about computer security.
Google's malware detector is not security. It is damage control. They are effectively creating a list of "approved" sites by blacklisting those known to contain malware. The goal is to limit the damage that those malicious sites can do. For their target audience, the non-technically inclined, this is a service. Anyone else is capable of coming to a simple conclusion: the problem is not that there are malicious sites; the problem is that malicious sites can successfully compromise vulnerable browsers.
The effort to prevent insecure or low-quality software from coming into contact with sites that will exploit its flaws is another separate issue. It's a band-aid at best. It's far better than nothing, but the only real solution is to not use shoddy software that is so easily exploitable and/or so poorly designed and maintained.
Yes, good security is done in layers. A blacklist, however, is a lesser substitute for good security that is done in layers. Good security that is done in layers wouldn't need a blacklist to keep it safe. That was my point.
This is the only way Google's malware detection can work (which I've triggered dozens of times). Disable JavaScript and Google does no more redirections.
Sorry to say it bluntly but just like Google Instant, the malware detection is one of those features geared towards the ignorant (trying to use a "neutral" word there). I'd rather secure my own machine than rely on the goodwill of corporations to protect me from malicious sites. The latter option would only appeal to me if I didn't know how to secure my own systems and didn't care to learn. I suppose it works out its own balance though. The ignorant who don't understand what JavaScript is and are unlikely to use something like NoScript that's all about taking control of their own experience are the most likely people to benefit from malware warnings.
The reality is if technical proficiency and knowledge of computer security were possessed by every single Internet user, malware would all but disappear tomorrow. Sure there would still be determined, skilled human adversaries who successfully break into other people's computers, but the era of "write a piece of malware once, infect millions of computers automatically" would grind to a halt. The amount of damage a single attacker could do would be vastly limited if the low-hanging fruit of systems vulnerable to automated self-propagating malware were eliminated.
Don't get me wrong now, every single malware infection Google manages to prevent is a plus. That means one less compromised machine, one less member of a botnet, one less spam-factory, one less participant in some lame DDoS attack, etc. This is a good thing. It's just that trying to blacklist every possible malware site is simply not possible. It can never solve the malware problem. It is only damage control. It's the same reason why A/V software hasn't been a final ultimate solution for (Windows) host security.
Your points are all very correct, of course. I am just screaming to an apathetic universe.
Point taken. In fact the biggest single reason why I am concerned about the long-term well-being of the USA is that most of its "adults" are petty, indulgent, overgrown children with short memories. In that spirit I can see why you had good reason to choose that word as you did.
I maintain that the more adult thing to do is to overcome such events by learning their lesson, rather than indulging in the "blame game" and making it into a 5-minute hate. Not only is that the constructive solution, it also limits the damage of this intrusion to computer systems only. The anger and hatred merely serves the intruder(s) by extending the damage into the personal realm of your own well-being.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you saying that having a file under C:\Windows\ called "mytotallycoolapplicationlog.txt" - and writing "It worked :)" everytime the process is successful and having "It failed :(" Everytime it doesn't constitute a good logging procedure?
Windows does have a system logging facility, as in it's provided by the operating system. I have no idea whether it's as functional, but otherwise it's comparable to the syslog facility provided by Unix and Unix-like systems. Maybe I'm being fanciful but this is what I imagined when I read Jimicus' post.
You thought wrong. This was most likely scaffolding (for himself) that he put up while looking for a bug, and that a he forgot to take out afterwards. Since he didn't take it out, that probably means he never found or fixed the bug he was looking for. BTW, the effort involved in putting up one of these messages is very low, it's much much lower than building a proper logging facility from scratch.
But why would you ever have to build a proper logging facility from scratch when there are several good, open, mature implementations ready for you to use? Oh, right, it was a Symantec app on Windows he was talking about. Nevermind.
In essence, all 10 items on the list say "Use Linux!"
Yeah, ok, thank you Captain Obvious, I mean CHIMIT :P
Not really. The same problems exist in Linux -- authentication, logging, putting files in random folders (/var, /etc).
The difference with Linux is that if you don't like it, you stand a decent chance of actually being able to do something about it.
Obviously that's sub-optimal. It would be better for vendors to soundly design their software in the first place. Still, open (in the sense of "transparent") systems make it much easier to actually mitigate such nuisances.
Sure. They're just like our politicians: the best that money can buy.
This seems to be pretty close to admitting that their senior execs have done things that would cause public outrage. Seems like a smarter strategy would have been just to shut up completely about it until seeing what these leaks actually contain. But, I suppose if you know beyond a doubt you will be proven guilty and held to account for something, you might as well prepare for it.
There is one prepatory step that will apparently never occur to them: admit they have done wrong, identify the people they have wronged, make it right by giving them full compensation, and document that they have done so.
And you're still a troll. And if you think that simply running Linux automagically protects you from any threat of malware, you're also an idiot.
The quality of discussion on this site is taking a nosedive lately. I think phony "debate" talkshows and the demagoguing occurring in politics does a lot of damage by repeatedly presenting invalid processes as though they were legitimate or useful. I'll spell it out right now, the dishonest tactics used on shows like that and commercials like that are designed for one purpose: so the host or politician can "win" and "be right" no matter how right or wrong he/she actually is. It's rhetoric, not debate.
I'll give a rough outline of how this most often plays out on Slashdot. My goal is to demonstrate how petty and useless it really is:
It boils down to what kind of man or woman you are. To some people, the truth is more important than winning and any winning that does happen is not legitimate if it is not rooted in truth. To many people, winning is more important than the truth and lying, distorting, misrepresenting, are all acceptable as long as you win and the other guy loses. The latter group will never know what it means to say "you know, that's a really good point, it made me think about this differently, you changed my mind about this -- thank you!" for that would mean losing face, or so they imagine.
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? I'll explain. For every 500 times I've seen someone say "if you think Linux automagically protects you from malware", I think I've seen maybe 1 time that anyone actually made that claim. This strawman has been beaten so severely it's reverted back to a small pile of hay. It's time to let it go, no matter how otherwise trollish somebody else has decided to be (and he was -- I don't dispute that, but this BS compounds that problem).
The GP said two things. He said he has run Debian and/or Ubuntu for the last 10 years. That's not absurd or beyond the realm of possibility. So ok, I believe him. He also says he has experienced no malware during those 10 years. That's strictly a matter of his competence as a Linux admin, skilled admins exist, and it doesn't take a particularly high level of skill to achieve that. So that's not absurd or infeasible either. Ok, I believe him on that one too.
Now hear this: he did not claim that Linux automagically did anything. I realize some people have said that -- if you want to do something about it, locate and deal with those people. What you're doing is assuming he must be just like them because he wears the same kind of tie. Until and unless he makes the same claims, he is not just like them. If he trolled a little, you said "oh yeah, watch THIS" and showed him how it's done.
Well, Xbox and Xbox live is their brand and it affects their brand image. Sure, it's censorship but it's not an open platform like the PC.
Maybe your intention was to summarize the issue, or maybe you're trying to downplay the problem. Either way you're presenting no new information here.
I'll use a (tired, old, please bear with me) car analogy.
Ford might not want you to use aftermarket (i.e. "not made by Ford") parts in your Ford vehicle. However, that vehicle is your property. You can replace its parts with non-Ford parts if you want.
Now, Ford might say that using non-Ford parts voids their warranty. That's unfortunate, but reasonable. Ford might also take the brand-recognition route and say that using their official parts for their vehicles is "highly recommended" etc. They can do things like this to encourage use of their parts in their vehicles.
This isn't a bad scenario at all. Of course Ford would like very much to have everyone buy replacement parts from them. They can do a lot to encourage Ford owners to do that, making them relatively happy. A Ford owner who really wants an aftermarket part can still get one on the open market and install it, without being a criminal or opening himself up to a lawsuit, making them relatively happy too.
What Ford can't do is use the force of law to put manufacturers of after-market parts out of business. For some reason we tolerate this with "intellectual property" but we don't tolerate this with real tangible property. It's more than censorship. It's also Microsoft dictating what you may or may not run on your XBoX360 after the sale has taken place and you have become its owner.
The only reason why it's not an open platform is because Microsoft retains this unreasonably high degree of control after the sale over a piece of hardware you now own. I'd have no problem if Microsoft said "anything we don't certify/support/approve of is not guaranteed to work and we will not provide support if it breaks". Though I wouldn't like it, I'd even have no problem if Microsoft said "we will not allow unapproved games on the XBoX Live Network".
But no, they want absolute control and because of the madness and insanity that is "intellectual property" law, they have it. Of course I'm against that.
Isn't one of the problems with railguns that sometimes the projectile will weld itself to the rail? What happens if that occurs with a jet launcher on the rail, and a plane hooked to that?
As another poster pointed out, this technically isn't a railgun. It's a linear motor. This is more like a mag-lev train. The other big advantage is that in a real railgun, the rails need frequent replacement.
If you were expecting technical accuracy from our esteemed professional Slashdot editors, that day has not yet arrived. They're still trying to figure out how to work a spell-checker and how to use basic English grammar. As long as the ad revenues and the paid account revenues keep on flowing, I suppose they don't feel much pressure to get these things right.
Since when did marketers ever care about whether you actually need whatever product they're hawking?
Windows has already trained most of the public to perceive virus scanners as essential system tools.
Just like Microsoft isn't required to license whatever software is put in front of them.
I think the problem is that their licensing is important. They've managed to set up a scheme where that matters.
If I buy an AMD or an Intel processor, I don't need AMD or Intel to license Linux. I just install Linux on my system and I expect either processor to run it properly since there is no technical reason why they could not.
If I buy an Xbox360 I am unlikely to succesfully run any game that Microsoft does not license. That's the problem here.
What is more annoying is when people claim businesses are guilty of censorship. I'm not even sure you can even call it censorship if people, business or any privately controlled entity determines what they will endorse, sell, disclose, etc. That's just called using judgement, being responsible, marketing, making money, etc. Instead, get annoyed when governments and media outlets censor.
Microsoft is free to choose not to produce games containing sex and/or nudity if they don't want to do that. That would be "judgment" and would be deciding "what they will endorse, sell, disclose, etc."
However, Microsoft is saying they don't want anybody else to produce games containing sex and/or nudity. That's beyond exercising their own discretion. That's more like saying "because we don't want to do this, no one else should do this either". Leveraging their ownership of a console to enforce this may be fully legal but that doesn't make it right or justifiable or anything other than censorship.
"Just rate the games and sell them dammit, let the market decide."
Isn't the market deciding already, by not selling AO games?
Seems to me the "market solution" would involve selling those games openly to the people who want them. If that's a niche market, then it won't be very large, but it would still exist.
Blatant censorship doesn't sound much like "let the market decide" to me. It sounds more to me like "if the market decided this, it might produce a result we don't like, so we won't let the market decide this one."
I remember way back when I bought PC Gamer there was a letter to the mag complaining about FEAR's frequent swearing. They agreed with him too. I guess sex and swearing is far more deplorable than the cannibalism, dismemberment and showers of blood in that game..
Which is completely ridiculous. These games and the ratings systems attached to them are designed for marketing to adults. Do you know any adults who have never before heard swearing?
It reminds me of that Janet Jackson incident during the Super Bowl. One breast was exposed. The FCC had to "crack down" by issuing stiff fines and penalties for the network(s) involved. That was for one breast. It was simple nudity and didn't involve any genitals. No sex was depicted there. The whole thing was a tremendous overreaction.
It's the kind of shit that makes the USA look like a bunch of unreasonable prudes before the rest of the world. This deal with video games isn't so different considering the amount of extreme violence (appropriate for a realistic war game, but quite violent all the same) that seems to be so acceptable.
You are allowed to do anything you want with your console. Microsoft isn't obligated to make it easy for you, however.
It's funny how their decision-making parallels American television censorship customs.
Want to show a hardcore war-themed game? Ok. Does it involve gruesome up-close violence? That's fine. Showing someone getting their head blown off at point-blank range with a shotgun? That's alright, just make sure it's realistic.
Want to show a pair of breasts? Not cool. Does it involve graphic depictions of sex between consentual adults? Not acceptable. That'd be obscene, and we will use licensing and any other means available to shut you down.
The message? Graphic violence is OK and normal and natural. Sex is obscene, uncommon, not a part of normal adult life, and must not be shown for any reason.
Anybody else think maybe we have this backwards?
So it's exactly like when a Slashdot meme is repeated in a post that for the 90,000th time and still gets modded up to +5 Funny.
Cue the rude persons who can't believe that anyone would perceive something wrong with that. Really, changing "Funny" mods to -1 in your preferences might be the single best way to improve the signal-to-noise on this site. That's a shame, as I really appreciate humor and satire that's actually original and witty. It just happens that reading a meme for the Nth time doesn't fit this criteria.
I never liked Clinton, not just because I have philosophical disagreements with him but also because he is a masterful politician. He always gave me the impression of a master salesman who could talk you into buying things you don't need and cannot afford and make you think that doing it was your own idea. That's a skill that honest people don't need. Really? So you can't see that being a worthwhile skill for a hostage negotiator? Or a diplomat having to prevent a war?
Because I am personally not that way, sometimes I forget how desperately some people need to point a finger and say "hah, you're wrong!" So I wrote "that's a skill that honest people don't need" instead of writing "that's a skill that honest people generally don't need." Yup, I left out a word that I should have included.
So ok, you got me. You win, I lose. Feel better? Good. Isn't nitpicking fun, productive, and useful?
Now that I've responded to your enlightening objection, if you feel like actually discussing the subject of "don't ask, don't tell" and helping me to understand why some people believe it is homophobic, that would be appreciated.
P.S. if you don't understand what I mean by a desperate need to find fault, I can elaborate a bit. You just read a post where I twice rejected a childish, either-or, black-and-white perception of the world. I rejected it once in terms of partisan politics. I rejected it a second time by demonstrating that I can be objective and say that I like something Clinton did even though I dislike the man himself. Yet you see me make one comment about honest people and what do you ask me? You ask me if I can't recognize exceptions to this statement.
I believe I used it correctly. You know the ever-growing and ever-more-powerful federal government that increasingly intrudes into intrastate affairs and the daily lives of citizens? Yeah, that's the opposite of how I would define federalism. Re-read my post please. I said that the increasing centralization of power is what constitutes the abandonment of federalism.
Two points there. One, the Founders intented the people, as in "We the People" to be the ultimate check on governmental power. We have the situation we face today precisely because we're a bunch of whimpering sheeple who just want our shiny new consumer toys and football games and have allowed politics to decay into the false dichotomy of "Left vs. Right".
Two, it was the states which created the federal government and enough states could get together and hold a new Constitutional Convention to re-create it as well. You'll never see it on the mainstream news but several states have become so fed up (no pun intended) that they are beginning to declare their sovereignty and to refuse certain federal mandates. The only reason why so few have done it and it has not been such a major issue is that the states are too dependent on federal funding, and have little power for all of the reasons that the crackhead has little power over the drug pusher.
A third point could be made, though it's an ugly one. It was the opinion of the Founding Fathers, based on their understanding of history, that "the natural progression of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground" as Jefferson put it. To them, it is inevitable that even the most freedom-loving nations will eventually decay into tyrannies. It is like a form of entropy. In my opinion, they didn't view themselves as the very first group to halt this process and produce a nation of everlasting freedom. Instead, I think they viewed themselves as stacking the deck in favor of the people as much as possible.
So, to borrow a phrase, I'd say that federalism based on a representative republic is the worst form of government except for all the others we've tried. The Anti-Federalist Papers merely point out that it isn't perfect and cannot stop the inevitable progression of patterns that repeat throughout history. Still, it has worked where it has been tried and I think we can agree that usurping power away from the states and from the people is the opposite of trying it.
Yes, but now there is a real ability to protect Gays and Lesbian's and unless we make a huge step backwards, I doubt we will have another president who is homophobic like Reagan or Bush Sr. was.
"Don't ask, don't tell" is what's being repealed here. I'll mention that this policy came from the Clinton administration. If it is an inherently homophobic policy then Clinton would be the homophobe in question.
Now, there are a lot of childish people on this site. Childish people don't understand the concept that one can criticize a Democrat without also supporting a Republican. I think understanding that would be against their religion and they are quite devout. Anyway, in the hopes that they'll control their urge to knee-jerk, I'll roll my eyes and explain for their benefit that I'm no defender of Reagan and I am especially no defender of Bush.
Having said that, I'd like you to help me understand your viewpoint if you would. What is homophobic about "don't ask, don't tell"? Do you believe it is inherently homophobic and no amount of reform could fix that, or do you believe it is inherently neutral but has been implemented in a homophobic manner?
I never liked Clinton, not just because I have philosophical disagreements with him but also because he is a masterful politician. He always gave me the impression of a master salesman who could talk you into buying things you don't need and cannot afford and make you think that doing it was your own idea. That's a skill that honest people don't need. Yet I am thankful that I don't suffer from the popular need to demonize anything or anyone I don't like, so when I think something he did was a good idea I can say so.
It seemed to me that "don't ask, don't tell" was a way to reinforce the professionalism of the military. It made it easier for the soldiers to focus on their difficult and dangerous work instead of being distracted by concerns like what consenting adults do behind closed doors. I believe concerns like that have no place on the battlefield. I believe that's true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. If you believe I am wrong or misguided, can you tell me why?
I don't see any opinions, though I do fail to see how this falls under "stuff that matters". The world will keep turning just the same and we'll keep fighting pointless wars just the same, regardless of whether or not you can openly say "I'm gay" while being in the military.
Taking a long view, you might notice that non-issues like "flag-burning" and "gays in the military" and "embryonic stem cells" always come up whenever a distraction is needed. You can make any non-issue seem like a big deal worthy of national attention if you let the media run with it and repeat it ad nauseum.
Usually this happens when we're in the middle of the pointless wars that you mention. It doesn't usually happen in the beginning of the pointless war. In the beginning of those, the politicians and media beat the drums of patriotism and nationalism, for at that moment this is the party line. They pretend like they are accountable and need to justify the actions they're going to take anyway, that way the voters feel like they matter. The truth is they don't; the military-industrial complex is a hungry beast that demands to be fed. In the middle is where those justifications are found to be either total bullshit or questionable at best (WMDs in Iraq) and the given reason is suddenly changed (we wanted to liberate them all along!). At that point a distraction is needed to pacify the masses. It's a really sophisticated, polished, professional way of saying "shut up and look over here!"
With Bush Sr. the flag-burning issue came up close to the same time as Desert Storm and Desert Shield. With Clinton, gays in the military came up about when he sent all those cruise missiles to Afghanistan and the Sudan. Now that same issue comes up again during this latest pointless war, and coincidentally enough Clinton makes a reappearance with Obama.
Population growth doesn't do that. The increasing centralization of power is what does that.
That's a good model for governance within a large nation as well. The Founding Fathers realized that a long time ago and they probably weren't the first. The USA has largely abandoned federalism when it comes to anything important. Even things like roads and schools that are well within the domain of states and local governments have many federal mandates attached to them.
There is one trick in particular that the feds love to use to undermine the power of states: they impose taxes on the citizens of the states and give them some of that money back only if the states follow the federal mandates. They could impose taxes only for issues that are legitimately the domain of the federal government and let the states work out what they need and how to fund it, but they'd get less power that way. This trick works so well that most of the states are deeply dependent on this federal funding and their budgets would break without it. The closest model you could use for comparison would be the drug pusher and the crackhead.
None of this happened because federalism had glaring flaws or wasn't working. It happened because politicians love power so much that they don't care about the long-term damage they do to the country while acquiring it, especially not when it is future generations who will have to live with it. Globalism in the economic sense is already here. Globalism in the one-world government sense is in the works, bit by bit, step by step, and you can imagine how much more fun that is going to be. Hypothetically, all it really needs is one gigantic international crisis, such as the financial collapse and insolvency of the USA, and it will be ushered in and presented as the golden solution to all problems. That's the way these things operate both within nations and among nations.
Consider this: if you live in one of the more nanny-state US states like Massachusetts you could move to another US state if you don't want that. If you think your country is becoming tyrannical you can move to another though it would be much more difficult. If a one-world government becomes tyrannical, what are you going to do, terraform Mars?
It's behind a paywall, but here is the actual paper that wasn't identified in the link.
The way the submitted stories seem to overwhelmingly favor paywalls, and when I see that a thoughtful person usually finds and posts a relevant link with no such restrictions, I can't help but wonder if Slashdot has some kind of "kickback" arrangement with several paywall sites. I wonder the same thing when I see multiple submissions for a particular story and the one that makes it to the main page tends to be someone's ad-laden blog. I have no idea if that's all a coincidence or not and have seen no evidence either way. Yet, if it isn't a coincidence wouldn't it be more like journalistic integrity to include a one-line disclosure in the final submission?
Sure, lots of times the unrestricted links are some kind of "printable" version that gets around the paywall instead of finding an alternate site. I understand that Slashdot probably wouldn't be allowed to post such a circumvention. Still, it's a rare event that one news outlet has a total monopoly on a given story. I'm betting that exceedingly few news items and press releases have no freely-accessible alternatives at all.
Yes. The reason is very simple: no one is in a better position to secure my own equipment than I am. If I didn't know how to do that, then you might have a point.
If Google wanted to send skilled technicians and/or security researchers to my physical premises to harden my systems for me, then you might have a point. I could pick their brains and probably learn a thing or two. Google has made no such offer. Meanwhile, a "take it or leave it" blacklist has no such advantage.
For just this reason I don't rely on updates alone. I also use a combination of the least-privilege principle, non-executable pages, address space randomization, SSP, and other techniques to make it quite difficult to successfully exploit even a zero-day vulnerability. If you're interested, I arrange this by using Gentoo Hardened. These measures, plus staying up-to-date, plus commonsense best practices are the foundation of how I run my systems.
If you are unfamiliar with those techniques please research them before falsely pronouncing a third-party blacklist as the superior choice. I don't need Big Daddy Google looking over my shoulder to make sure I stay safe and I'm capable of making an informed decision about this.
That's a nice appeal to authority you have there. I agree that Google's blacklist is better than nothing. I said in an earlier post that it's a good thing overall. However there are vastly more effective ways to secure a host. By comparison, this blacklist is a convenience at best. Anyone could investigate and implement those ways, but the vast majority of users don't want to. They are the target audience. They are the ones who stand to benefit from this blacklist. If I ever said that nobody should ever use this blacklist for any reason then the way you've been responding to me would make a lot more sense.
I don't believe you appreciate the nearly religious nature of your objection. I have determined that any benefit I would derive from Google's blacklist is negligible for me. I am not stopping anyone else from using it if they believe it is of value to them. I am not advocating that Google be made to stop maintaining this blacklist. I am not saying this blacklist has no value, only that it has no value to me so I use alternatives that better meet my needs.
For some reason you seem determined to convince me that that it's not appropriate for me to make this determination for myself. You think I'm "nuts" or must be in error because some guy on Slashdot can't easily talk me out of what my own research and experience has taught me. We will have to part ways at this point, as I don't believe I can help you with that.
At the root of this, I don't know if self-determination and personal responsibility offend you, if you're far too impressed by large organizations, or if you're just one of those who must win a convert because you feel affronted by someone who adheres to a different philosophy.
I'd rather secure my own machine than rely on the goodwill of corporations to protect me from malicious sites.
A common fallacy about security. Extra layer of security is always an extra layer of security. Not to mention, with software, you're always at the mercy of others, such as operating system maintainers and software developers. You depend on them not creating exploitable bugs, and promptly fixing discovered ones, since some are generated anyway.
With respect, I think two similar-sounding yet fundamentally different issues are being conflated here.
I do depend on the maintainers of operating systems and userland software to fix bugs, particularly security-related bugs. Yet some of them have a much better track record and have demonstrated a far greater understanding of security than others. I can and do choose among those. For example, I don't use BIND for my DNS server and I don't use Sendmail for my e-mail server. Having made my choices, the way I decide to configure those systems also has a tremendous impact on the level of security achieved. That's where I do the research and learn both the right and wrong ways of doing things.
The quality of software used is one separate issue.
All of this involves taking an active role. It means taking responsibility for my experience. I make my choices about what tools I will use and how I will use them and then I accept the consequences. What I neither want nor need is for some third party to create a list of "approved" software for me to use. That's a degree of coddling I personally find undesirable in the extreme, even though it may be a welcome service to others who do not wish to learn about computer security.
Google's malware detector is not security. It is damage control. They are effectively creating a list of "approved" sites by blacklisting those known to contain malware. The goal is to limit the damage that those malicious sites can do. For their target audience, the non-technically inclined, this is a service. Anyone else is capable of coming to a simple conclusion: the problem is not that there are malicious sites; the problem is that malicious sites can successfully compromise vulnerable browsers.
The effort to prevent insecure or low-quality software from coming into contact with sites that will exploit its flaws is another separate issue. It's a band-aid at best. It's far better than nothing, but the only real solution is to not use shoddy software that is so easily exploitable and/or so poorly designed and maintained.
Yes, good security is done in layers. A blacklist, however, is a lesser substitute for good security that is done in layers. Good security that is done in layers wouldn't need a blacklist to keep it safe. That was my point.
This is the only way Google's malware detection can work (which I've triggered dozens of times). Disable JavaScript and Google does no more redirections.
Sorry to say it bluntly but just like Google Instant, the malware detection is one of those features geared towards the ignorant (trying to use a "neutral" word there). I'd rather secure my own machine than rely on the goodwill of corporations to protect me from malicious sites. The latter option would only appeal to me if I didn't know how to secure my own systems and didn't care to learn. I suppose it works out its own balance though. The ignorant who don't understand what JavaScript is and are unlikely to use something like NoScript that's all about taking control of their own experience are the most likely people to benefit from malware warnings.
The reality is if technical proficiency and knowledge of computer security were possessed by every single Internet user, malware would all but disappear tomorrow. Sure there would still be determined, skilled human adversaries who successfully break into other people's computers, but the era of "write a piece of malware once, infect millions of computers automatically" would grind to a halt. The amount of damage a single attacker could do would be vastly limited if the low-hanging fruit of systems vulnerable to automated self-propagating malware were eliminated.
Don't get me wrong now, every single malware infection Google manages to prevent is a plus. That means one less compromised machine, one less member of a botnet, one less spam-factory, one less participant in some lame DDoS attack, etc. This is a good thing. It's just that trying to blacklist every possible malware site is simply not possible. It can never solve the malware problem. It is only damage control. It's the same reason why A/V software hasn't been a final ultimate solution for (Windows) host security.
I didn't say minors. I said "children."
I chose that word carefully.
Your points are all very correct, of course. I am just screaming to an apathetic universe.
Point taken. In fact the biggest single reason why I am concerned about the long-term well-being of the USA is that most of its "adults" are petty, indulgent, overgrown children with short memories. In that spirit I can see why you had good reason to choose that word as you did.
I maintain that the more adult thing to do is to overcome such events by learning their lesson, rather than indulging in the "blame game" and making it into a 5-minute hate. Not only is that the constructive solution, it also limits the damage of this intrusion to computer systems only. The anger and hatred merely serves the intruder(s) by extending the damage into the personal realm of your own well-being.