Does it mean that the police can track any criminal as long as his cell phone is turned on?? One more reason for not having a cell phone, or rather having one but no phone number
If you're resisting arrest, then yeah, you probably won't want to carry your cell-phone. But if you're an average day joe, does it really matter? They'll need a lot more evidence then you were in the area to get a conviction.
But what if Thunderbird has a master password? That would mean any cracker could read my e-mail, and I'd never know!!!! Is there any way we can make sure it doesn't? Oh the horror! The horror!
Yes, but I think the article was talking about passwords that CAN'T be changed. The impression I got from your post, was that the programs were issued with a changable default password, but the companies hadn't bothered changing it.
I mean, the implication is that there is a shortage of kids for adoption, but...yeah.
That's exactly what I was saying. AFAIK adopting a kid in Australia is a problem, because there's more people wanting to adopt then there are kids up for adoption.
My point, which you so clumsily avoided, is that it is not practical to enforce exact usage of such a ubiqutous tool. If you read the parent then you would see your rant, including use of password security, was completly irrelevant.....by 'enforce' above I mean 'police' - ie enforce by personally monitoring as opposed to technical restrictions.
I didn't see the OP say anything about personally supervising via eyeballs on your kids at all times (not your kids personally). I interpretted supervise as taking an interest in what your kid is doing with the internet. So if you meant that it is impossible to keep an eye on 3 kids at all times whenever they're online. I agree. But if you meant it's impossible AT ALL to monitor what they're doing with the internet without the aid of big brother, then I disagree completely and provided several points to demonstrate how it is possible in my original post.
It is if a business decides to buck the de-facto standard.
this really isn't any different than requiring stores to check IDs for customers purchasing alcohol or cigarettes or even *gasp* porno mags.
Except that only people who are 18 years or older should be able to get an internet connection. And even if kids could buy an internet connection, is there going to be any proof of age requirement? I didn't see mention of any.
They may have talked about implementing it, or they might have implemented something similar. But they haven't implemented it being compulsory for ISPs... well.. they might have... hang on..... Nope. It isn't compulsory for ISPs to do this.
You're fucking kidding me, right? Parents supervising kids is unworkable? If parents aren't able to raise their kids, without big brother, perhaps they should put their kids up for adoption (which in Australia is even more of an option, as there is a shortage of unwanted children).
Are we supposed to set up a dedicated computer room instead of their bedrooms
Well, actually, many families do have a dedicated computer room. But that really isn't important to this discussion.
make sure there is a full time watcher?
Actually, I do remember knowing someone who wasn't allowed on the computer without supervision (and this was pre-internet). But normally that isn't necessary. It's all a matter of trust. How much do you trust your kids? How much CAN you trust your kids? If you've raised them right, then yes, they won't do the wrong thing. But you have to encourage openness and be someone they can open up to.
But even if you haven't instilled trust in your kid, you can monitor the computer (there's all sorts of programs that allow you to have varying degrees of monitoring), from a simple net-nanny type program to knowing everything they type on their keyboard. Buy a decent net-nanny program that keeps a log of when it's enabled and disabled. The only thing the kid can do, is delete the log, which will tell you, they've done something they shouldn't have.
But the real question is, are you going to buy cable with adult channels and not place a lock on the adult channels? Of course you aren't. So why do people do it with the internet?
Kids over 13 or so can stay home alone. Do we lock up the computer room when the adults are out?
Are you being satirical? Or are you truly ignorant of the most basic password function on a computer?
Aaah, thankyou. I knew there were two versions of the Microsoft messenger program, I couldn't remember the correct name for the bundled one. That one is a real bitch to uninstall.
Not create programs that rely on a particular operating system, but instead create programs that can be run on any OS? Whether it be Windows XP, Windows N, Mac OSX or Mandrake Linux.
[sarcasm]No, no. You're right. Let's allow Microsoft to continue its ethically questionable and illegal activities. I'm sure it's for the best in the long run.[/sarcasm]
I wonder what these courts would do if Microsoft was to actually produce a version of Windows that contained absolutely no 'bundled' software that had a competitor in the market.
Celebrate?
Imagine an OEM having to supply alternatives to all of these things.
Oh the horror. There would actually be real competition for these products, better products and prices will crop up. It'll be the end of the world as we know it!
Yes, Microsoft's illegal business practices have created an expectation that people have come to rely on. But if they were truly forced to cease these operations, then people would adapt fairly quickly, and we'd have real competition once more in many of the areas that Microsoft currently dominates.
This is basically forcing a business to advertise for its competitors - it makes no logical sense!
Actually it does. Microsoft broke the law. As part of Microsoft's punishment, it has to undo some of the harm it's law-breaking caused. Which according to the South Korean government, is that competitors were unfairly competed with, so now Microsoft has to work to undo that damage, by helping them out.
It makes perfect sense, when you take into account Microsoft is being punished here. If you follow the law, you don't have to advertise for your competitors. You break the law, you suffer the consequences.
Oh I don't think it's completely pointless. After all, the South Korean government just got $32 million US. Nothing to sneeze at.
The reason this isn't having any effect is because there's no real alternative to Windows. You've got Mac OS, which comes bundled with expensive hardware. And you have Linux, which hasn't reached a worthy position in the desktop market to take on anyone. No matter how many times someone reports that the current year is the year of Linux, there's no indication that it will be the year of Linux. And there's no indication that Linux will gain a strong position in the desktop marketplace anytime soon.
So no matter how many lawsuits are brought against Microsoft, there's no real alternative for your average Joe.
No but every music player or messenging program on Windows is increased by whatever crap Windows comes installed with (I've tried uninstalling msn messenger, not an easy task for the non-geek). Or the person can just use the default, which chances are, they will. In some places using one virtual monopoly to further other programs in a manner that is unfair is illegal.
But if they're in the right (which they believe they are) it shouldn't be opt-out, but opt-in. Having said that, they aren't in the right. They just think (or are at least claiming) they are in the right.
Oh, heh. I misread. It wasn't Microsoft that recommended people use another browser, but instead the person who discovered the flaw. And here I was thinking Microsoft was being real honest for once.
I believe the bug only ocurred when using IE to access a page, while Google Desktop was running. So if you didn't run Google Desktop all the time, you were safe. Or if you used Firefox, you were safe. Microsoft in fact encouraged people to use another browser until it fixed the issue.
Re:If they can fix stuff at their end... that's co
on
Google Fixes IE Bug
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You do realise no matter how much testing a company does, there will be bugs in their software and vulnerabilities?
You think governments are a bunch of selfless public servants only looking out for our good.
You know who the government is? You! And the second you stop caring about what your government is up to, is the second you stop being part of the government. I'm seeing people complain about lots of different things. None of them really have that much to do with monitoring where your car is, and more to do with lots of other bad issues. Instead of attacking this one particular issue, why not address what your real problem is. Why don't you want to be monitored? Because of crooked cops? Then your problem is with the crooked cops, not with being monitored. Because your government might send you to guantanamo bay? What are you doing to protect your fellow citizens from getting sent there?
Slashdot Mirror
Does it mean that the police can track any criminal as long as his cell phone is turned on?? One more reason for not having a cell phone, or rather having one but no phone number
If you're resisting arrest, then yeah, you probably won't want to carry your cell-phone. But if you're an average day joe, does it really matter? They'll need a lot more evidence then you were in the area to get a conviction.
But what if Thunderbird has a master password? That would mean any cracker could read my e-mail, and I'd never know!!!! Is there any way we can make sure it doesn't? Oh the horror! The horror!
Yes, but I think the article was talking about passwords that CAN'T be changed. The impression I got from your post, was that the programs were issued with a changable default password, but the companies hadn't bothered changing it.
No but it does come with free spyware.
I mean, the implication is that there is a shortage of kids for adoption, but...yeah.
That's exactly what I was saying. AFAIK adopting a kid in Australia is a problem, because there's more people wanting to adopt then there are kids up for adoption.
Are you asking me personally?
No it was more in the general you.
My point, which you so clumsily avoided, is that it is not practical to enforce exact usage of such a ubiqutous tool. If you read the parent then you would see your rant, including use of password security, was completly irrelevant.....by 'enforce' above I mean 'police' - ie enforce by personally monitoring as opposed to technical restrictions.
I didn't see the OP say anything about personally supervising via eyeballs on your kids at all times (not your kids personally). I interpretted supervise as taking an interest in what your kid is doing with the internet. So if you meant that it is impossible to keep an eye on 3 kids at all times whenever they're online. I agree. But if you meant it's impossible AT ALL to monitor what they're doing with the internet without the aid of big brother, then I disagree completely and provided several points to demonstrate how it is possible in my original post.
That's not a difference.
It is if a business decides to buck the de-facto standard.
this really isn't any different than requiring stores to check IDs for customers purchasing alcohol or cigarettes or even *gasp* porno mags.
Except that only people who are 18 years or older should be able to get an internet connection. And even if kids could buy an internet connection, is there going to be any proof of age requirement? I didn't see mention of any.
They implemented this rubbish years ago.
They may have talked about implementing it, or they might have implemented something similar. But they haven't implemented it being compulsory for ISPs... well.. they might have... hang on..... Nope. It isn't compulsory for ISPs to do this.
Of course there's a difference. Any hotel that doesn't want to block the channels, is free to in one situation. In another they have no choice.
Completly unworkable.
You're fucking kidding me, right? Parents supervising kids is unworkable? If parents aren't able to raise their kids, without big brother, perhaps they should put their kids up for adoption (which in Australia is even more of an option, as there is a shortage of unwanted children).
Are we supposed to set up a dedicated computer room instead of their bedrooms
Well, actually, many families do have a dedicated computer room. But that really isn't important to this discussion.
make sure there is a full time watcher?
Actually, I do remember knowing someone who wasn't allowed on the computer without supervision (and this was pre-internet). But normally that isn't necessary. It's all a matter of trust. How much do you trust your kids? How much CAN you trust your kids? If you've raised them right, then yes, they won't do the wrong thing. But you have to encourage openness and be someone they can open up to.
But even if you haven't instilled trust in your kid, you can monitor the computer (there's all sorts of programs that allow you to have varying degrees of monitoring), from a simple net-nanny type program to knowing everything they type on their keyboard. Buy a decent net-nanny program that keeps a log of when it's enabled and disabled. The only thing the kid can do, is delete the log, which will tell you, they've done something they shouldn't have.
But the real question is, are you going to buy cable with adult channels and not place a lock on the adult channels? Of course you aren't. So why do people do it with the internet?
Kids over 13 or so can stay home alone. Do we lock up the computer room when the adults are out?
Are you being satirical? Or are you truly ignorant of the most basic password function on a computer?
Is this any different from hotels or cable companies blocking adult channels by default?
Are they required to do so by law? Or do they choose to?
Aaah, thankyou. I knew there were two versions of the Microsoft messenger program, I couldn't remember the correct name for the bundled one. That one is a real bitch to uninstall.
what's a developer to do?
Not create programs that rely on a particular operating system, but instead create programs that can be run on any OS? Whether it be Windows XP, Windows N, Mac OSX or Mandrake Linux.
[sarcasm]No, no. You're right. Let's allow Microsoft to continue its ethically questionable and illegal activities. I'm sure it's for the best in the long run.[/sarcasm]
I wonder what these courts would do if Microsoft was to actually produce a version of Windows that contained absolutely no 'bundled' software that had a competitor in the market.
Celebrate?
Imagine an OEM having to supply alternatives to all of these things.
Oh the horror. There would actually be real competition for these products, better products and prices will crop up. It'll be the end of the world as we know it!
Yes, Microsoft's illegal business practices have created an expectation that people have come to rely on. But if they were truly forced to cease these operations, then people would adapt fairly quickly, and we'd have real competition once more in many of the areas that Microsoft currently dominates.
This is basically forcing a business to advertise for its competitors - it makes no logical sense!
Actually it does. Microsoft broke the law. As part of Microsoft's punishment, it has to undo some of the harm it's law-breaking caused. Which according to the South Korean government, is that competitors were unfairly competed with, so now Microsoft has to work to undo that damage, by helping them out.
It makes perfect sense, when you take into account Microsoft is being punished here. If you follow the law, you don't have to advertise for your competitors. You break the law, you suffer the consequences.
Apple isn't a real alternative to Windows, because you have to buy their hardware (which many complain is too expensive).
Oh I don't think it's completely pointless. After all, the South Korean government just got $32 million US. Nothing to sneeze at.
The reason this isn't having any effect is because there's no real alternative to Windows. You've got Mac OS, which comes bundled with expensive hardware. And you have Linux, which hasn't reached a worthy position in the desktop market to take on anyone. No matter how many times someone reports that the current year is the year of Linux, there's no indication that it will be the year of Linux. And there's no indication that Linux will gain a strong position in the desktop marketplace anytime soon.
So no matter how many lawsuits are brought against Microsoft, there's no real alternative for your average Joe.
No but every music player or messenging program on Windows is increased by whatever crap Windows comes installed with (I've tried uninstalling msn messenger, not an easy task for the non-geek). Or the person can just use the default, which chances are, they will. In some places using one virtual monopoly to further other programs in a manner that is unfair is illegal.
I don't buy that. You don't opt into anything someone can do with your content, merely by distributing your content.
Having said that, don't mis-read what I'm saying. Google is fine to do what they do.
But if they're in the right (which they believe they are) it shouldn't be opt-out, but opt-in. Having said that, they aren't in the right. They just think (or are at least claiming) they are in the right.
Oh, heh. I misread. It wasn't Microsoft that recommended people use another browser, but instead the person who discovered the flaw. And here I was thinking Microsoft was being real honest for once.
I believe the bug only ocurred when using IE to access a page, while Google Desktop was running. So if you didn't run Google Desktop all the time, you were safe. Or if you used Firefox, you were safe. Microsoft in fact encouraged people to use another browser until it fixed the issue.
You do realise no matter how much testing a company does, there will be bugs in their software and vulnerabilities?
I can't help but wonder, how many more people would have RTFA had it not been encumbered by an account system.
You think governments are a bunch of selfless public servants only looking out for our good.
You know who the government is? You! And the second you stop caring about what your government is up to, is the second you stop being part of the government. I'm seeing people complain about lots of different things. None of them really have that much to do with monitoring where your car is, and more to do with lots of other bad issues. Instead of attacking this one particular issue, why not address what your real problem is. Why don't you want to be monitored? Because of crooked cops? Then your problem is with the crooked cops, not with being monitored. Because your government might send you to guantanamo bay? What are you doing to protect your fellow citizens from getting sent there?