Literally EVERY MS story posted here for the last 15 years has been full of people bitching about MS. And yet if ONE person posts a pro-MS message then "OMG YOU'RE A SHILL SLASHDOT IS FULL OF SHILLS!"
It's not just about making positive posts about Microsoft that bring out the "shill" cries.
It's the:
1. New user with 10 posts 2. Vacuous pro-msft post - just content-free 3. Cheerleading 4. Rushed to the top of the page.
Having all these qualities in one posts guarantees that it's just a shill post. I caught one last week that was a first post.
Then there's the post that shows up in the top that is an obvious canned response that is so detailed and over-edited ahead of time, that it could not possibly be typed in by hand in the 30 seconds to beat the second post. Recoiledsnake was infamous for doing this, especially if it involved Metro. He hasn't done it since he was called out on this.
The theme that bonds these two types of posts together is their utter impersonality. They contain nothing of their authors' personalities. They are fake, the signature of the astroturf post.
Every single country on this list should introduce an initiative to encourage Free Software on every possible machine. This will guarantee "piracy" ends.
1. the GP assumes that only England is where English is the native tongue. 2. The GP assumes that anything spoken in England is English because of its location
"not been paid to specifically write their response to the Open Standards consultation but he is engaged to help them tease out the issues"
Wow, what a bunch of political weasel wording by Hopkirk. It all depends on how "specific" Hopkirk defines "specifically." That's not just mere conflict of interest. That's conflict of interest and then still lying about it.
But in the computer industry there is this HUGE factor of pride of being 100% right 100% of the time no matter the cost. Shit happens, cost go over, nothing is perfect, but for fuck sake at some point its time to kill the white elephant that consumes too much and only produces shit.
This is why Microsoft should have been broken up by the DOJ instead of overturning Jackson's ruling.
Microsoft, back then, had stump ponds full of management deadwood. They use their profitable departments to shore up their epic money losing departments. If the company had been broken up by major departments (OS from User Software, for example), we probably wouldn't see what we see today, that is OS and Office holding up every stupid money losing project ever in Microsoft. Stupid money losing projects should be spun off to sink or swim on their own or closed down.
But what we have today is not only just a few stump ponds, but entire swamps full of deadwood where investor money and profits go to rot, increasing the amount of gaseous emissions coming from Redmond to compete with the amount of hot air emanating from Ballmer's mouth.
>The point is that if it can be weaponized, we at least have to think twice about it before throwing the information out there.
But here's the thing.
The only people *capable* of weaponizing this are in the industry and academia. And these are the people who are going to get access *anyway.*
How does Joe "I set my undies alight and it hurt" Terrorist even comprehend the fucking abstract?
Your argument stems from the entire assumption that this is cheap and easy. It's not. It likely never will be, because even lab safety, when it comes to things like this, is not easy for Joe "my shoe has a fuse" Terrorist. That guy is likely to kill himself outright with a chemical he forgot to open under the fume hood.
The difficulty makes it so much easier and quicker (and more likely) that Joe "I've got a boxcutter" Terrorist is going to find someone who can get him a few bags of ammonium nitrate from a mining company instead.
It is your over-the-top arguments that politicians and TSA goons use to justify the abuse of 4 year old girls at checkpoints.
>didn't read a goddamned thing I wrote >put myself out of your misery
Get fucked. Don't like me? Login, set your foes setting to -6 and never see me again. It's that simple. It seems to me that your inability to perform this simple operation means that you are mentally deficient.
How about educating them for once? You own, according to some metrics, 90 percent of the desktop market. Your operating systems in retail boxes don't even come with quickstart guides to basic security. No, you just leave your users to flounder about without any guidance at all, and if they want it, they have to pay extra for it.
At least when I was paying for boxed sets of SuSE Linux, it came with two well-written manuals, a user's manual, and an administrator's manual. I suspect that boxed sets still include these. It was in the grand old tradition of "when you get this software, we'll give you the manual too" like what you got when you bought DOS or CP/M.
But these days, I guess that user education is viewed as "intimidating" to users, because *shock* *horror* computers might be revealed as the complicated, useful, and powerful devices they actually are and heaven forfend users get any ideas beyond clicking on the pretty pictures. Microsoft does its damnedest to not give the user *anything* that might resemble common sense lessons in security.
There is a lot of energy pointed at the education of developers, but none that I can see at day-to-day users from Microsoft.
I just dealt with a user who has become so paranoid, she considers technet.microsof.com "foreign" because she's been so abused by the utter lack of guidance in the past with computers that she can no longer tell what's legitimate or not, wrt software. I was merely pointing out a sysinternals tool. This makes me a sad panda, and I don't blame her. I can't. Because I've seen it too many times to think it's just "dumb users" anymore.
Microsoft's blaming of the user is utter bollocks. It is entirely their fault now.
>Researching how this happens will tell us how to create vaccines or drugs in the future that can treat this.
Burying this information because "the bad guys might do something" will only *guarantee* that when Momnature actually devises a "kill everyone virus" we will *not* have anything in the toolkit to battle it. So everybody dies.
Slashdot Mirror
There is supposed to be a less-than sign before the 10 in #1 up there, but Slashdot eated it.
--
BMO
It's not just about making positive posts about Microsoft that bring out the "shill" cries.
It's the:
1. New user with 10 posts
2. Vacuous pro-msft post - just content-free
3. Cheerleading
4. Rushed to the top of the page.
Having all these qualities in one posts guarantees that it's just a shill post. I caught one last week that was a first post.
Then there's the post that shows up in the top that is an obvious canned response that is so detailed and over-edited ahead of time, that it could not possibly be typed in by hand in the 30 seconds to beat the second post. Recoiledsnake was infamous for doing this, especially if it involved Metro. He hasn't done it since he was called out on this.
The theme that bonds these two types of posts together is their utter impersonality. They contain nothing of their authors' personalities. They are fake, the signature of the astroturf post.
--
BMO
You freepers are hilarious.
--
BMO
>In case you haven't heard one of Obama's admins was selling guns to drug dealers in Mexico,
In 2006.
When Obama was secretly President.
God damn him and his time machine.
--
BMO
So, fine, blame Guatemala.
Every single country on this list should introduce an initiative to encourage Free Software on every possible machine. This will guarantee "piracy" ends.
--
BMO http://goodbye-microsoft.com/
>Their only export these days seems to be terrorism.
And the only thing you seem to post is moronic generalisations.
Go look at the tag on some of your shirts or something. Obviously the goals of the "terrorists" has been to take over textiles.
--
BMO
1. the GP assumes that only England is where English is the native tongue.
2. The GP assumes that anything spoken in England is English because of its location
To which I reply to you and him:
Cockney Rhyming Slang
--
BMO
>I take it don't you don't live in England where English is spoken natively.
People say "irregardless" too. It doesn't mean it's correct English.
Things like "disorientated" and "irregardless" are simply dumb.
--
BMO
The quote doesn't say *whose* blood.
--
BMO
Then there's all the spelling out. "That's J-O-C-K-F..." How annoying will that be?
You think that's bad...
Wait, wait until they add internationalization by allowing UTF-32 characters in TLDs.
Because the TLD space needs to be monetized more.
--
BMO - Monetize the Eschaton!
>This statement is so provocatively absurd, that it can only be the product of self-deception.
I think you nailed it.
--
BMO
"not been paid to specifically write their response to the Open Standards consultation but he is engaged to help them tease out the issues"
Wow, what a bunch of political weasel wording by Hopkirk. It all depends on how "specific" Hopkirk defines "specifically." That's not just mere conflict of interest. That's conflict of interest and then still lying about it.
--
BMO
The entire field of Biotech essentially grew (heh) out of beer brewing if you think about it for a second.
--
BMO
>So the DOJ did the right thing by accident then?
No. Read.
Judge Jackson wrote a ruling that Microsoft should be broken up. Microsoft appealed, won, and Microsoft was not broken up.
--
BMO
This is why Microsoft should have been broken up by the DOJ instead of overturning Jackson's ruling.
Microsoft, back then, had stump ponds full of management deadwood. They use their profitable departments to shore up their epic money losing departments. If the company had been broken up by major departments (OS from User Software, for example), we probably wouldn't see what we see today, that is OS and Office holding up every stupid money losing project ever in Microsoft. Stupid money losing projects should be spun off to sink or swim on their own or closed down.
But what we have today is not only just a few stump ponds, but entire swamps full of deadwood where investor money and profits go to rot, increasing the amount of gaseous emissions coming from Redmond to compete with the amount of hot air emanating from Ballmer's mouth.
--
BMO
Zombo.com is entirely more useful than Bing.
At Bing, you can't do anything.
At Zombo, you can do anything, anything at all, the only limit is yourself!
--
BMO - Welcome!
Well, it wasnt Ug, because he was busy sending out "make pointy sticks fast" cave-messages.
--
BMO
To say some line of research is dangerous is merely saying you think there are uses you consider bad.
It's like the people who find sexual images in the advertising of crackers by connecting the dots in the crackers in the ad.
If you have an evil mind, you will find evil.
--
BMO
All forms of scientific inquiry have "dual use"
You may as well try to go back in time and stop Og or Urgh from figuring out how to make fire.
Fuck this shit.
--
BMO
>The point is that if it can be weaponized, we at least have to think twice about it before throwing the information out there.
But here's the thing.
The only people *capable* of weaponizing this are in the industry and academia. And these are the people who are going to get access *anyway.*
How does Joe "I set my undies alight and it hurt" Terrorist even comprehend the fucking abstract?
Your argument stems from the entire assumption that this is cheap and easy. It's not. It likely never will be, because even lab safety, when it comes to things like this, is not easy for Joe "my shoe has a fuse" Terrorist. That guy is likely to kill himself outright with a chemical he forgot to open under the fume hood.
The difficulty makes it so much easier and quicker (and more likely) that Joe "I've got a boxcutter" Terrorist is going to find someone who can get him a few bags of ammonium nitrate from a mining company instead.
It is your over-the-top arguments that politicians and TSA goons use to justify the abuse of 4 year old girls at checkpoints.
--
BMO
You sound... ... unemployed.
--
BMO
>didn't read a goddamned thing I wrote
>put myself out of your misery
Get fucked. Don't like me? Login, set your foes setting to -6 and never see me again. It's that simple. It seems to me that your inability to perform this simple operation means that you are mentally deficient.
--
BMO
i made a typo and you're a fuckwad.
Have a nice day.
--
BMO
Sure, sure, blame the users again, Microsoft.
How about educating them for once? You own, according to some metrics, 90 percent of the desktop market. Your operating systems in retail boxes don't even come with quickstart guides to basic security. No, you just leave your users to flounder about without any guidance at all, and if they want it, they have to pay extra for it.
At least when I was paying for boxed sets of SuSE Linux, it came with two well-written manuals, a user's manual, and an administrator's manual. I suspect that boxed sets still include these. It was in the grand old tradition of "when you get this software, we'll give you the manual too" like what you got when you bought DOS or CP/M.
But these days, I guess that user education is viewed as "intimidating" to users, because *shock* *horror* computers might be revealed as the complicated, useful, and powerful devices they actually are and heaven forfend users get any ideas beyond clicking on the pretty pictures. Microsoft does its damnedest to not give the user *anything* that might resemble common sense lessons in security.
There is a lot of energy pointed at the education of developers, but none that I can see at day-to-day users from Microsoft.
I just dealt with a user who has become so paranoid, she considers technet.microsof.com "foreign" because she's been so abused by the utter lack of guidance in the past with computers that she can no longer tell what's legitimate or not, wrt software. I was merely pointing out a sysinternals tool. This makes me a sad panda, and I don't blame her. I can't. Because I've seen it too many times to think it's just "dumb users" anymore.
Microsoft's blaming of the user is utter bollocks. It is entirely their fault now.
Yes, this makes me mad. Deal with it.
--
BMO
Following up to myself, I said this:
>Researching how this happens will tell us how to create vaccines or drugs in the future that can treat this.
Burying this information because "the bad guys might do something" will only *guarantee* that when Momnature actually devises a "kill everyone virus" we will *not* have anything in the toolkit to battle it. So everybody dies.
That's what's so galling.
--
BMO