First, VBS files aren't the only viruses, they're only the examples I used. Additionally, email isn't the only way people get viruses, it's just the example I used.
As to yoursuggestion, in a large corporation that would be a *lot* of email for some admin to read, a full time job at least. Does a corporation really want some guy to read email to the CEO, CFO, COO and CTO?
Anyway, I'm not arguing that you can't prevent viruses. I'm arguing that THEY COST MONEY, prevention costs money and the occasional mistake costs a LOT of money. The article said they don't really see why viruses cost money and I was giving them the reasons why they do.
Over the last several weeks I've seen many of these problems. I'm not bitching, I'm just giving several examples of the variety of problems I've had.
I've gotten permission denied when trying to load comments.pl.
I've got a page that was blank except for 'this is test content' at http://slashdot.org/.
For a long time several people I know couldn't post because of some invalid formkey error.
I've got 'internal server errors' from the perl scripts that run slashdot while just trying to navigate.
Just now when I tried to reply to your post I had to go back and hit reply again because I couldn't connect to the webserver. In fact just about every other web-request I'm sending to slashdot is failing right now. I just had to try to load a page four times. And I'm relatively sure it's not my net connection. My net connection is behaving very nicely right now.
What I'm saying is that I agree with reverand, just a note that says 'yes we know there was a problem and we've addressed it'.
Or even better..how about a slashdot status slashbox? Even if stuff is broken we'll have the satisfaction of knowing it's being addressed.
Wait, I've got a perfect solution. Instead of Andover giving hardware to k5, perhaps Andover should give more hardware to rob & co so they can *test* code before running it live on the server.
Or if they already have that hardware, they should use it.
While I am against draconian drug legislation you're making a horrible mistake.
Addiction is a disease. It is an largely undetectable until it rears it's ugly head.
Any, I repeate any drug can set it off. Saying that marijuana is 100% harmless is not only wrong but irresponsible.
There's a reason why there's Marijuana Anonymous, just like Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Cocaine Anonymous, etc.
It's not a matter of if a particular drug will set it off but how soon.
I agree that banning substances is not the solution, and I oppose the War On (some) Drugs that our government is waging. And I agree that banning substances is not the answer.
The answer is education.
Eventually I hope we are able to detect diseases like addiction early and save people a lot of pain.
An example of someone doing it right is dancesafe who preach harm reduction. But even they would be censored by this bill.
You missed an important part of the userinfo page:
jlb has posted 2 comments (this only counts the last few weeks)
The important part there, that you apparently missed, is where it says 'last few weeks.'
This is my one, and only account. See, I usually lurk. I've also been very busy at work lately and haven't had much time to sit at my desk and read Slashdot.
Now, if you had half a clue, you could go and search through previous posts, perhaps for me in them.
Unfortunately the search engines only search the last 30,000 or so posts. And while I'm sure that someone of your hindered intelligence probably has lots of time on his hands, (it's got to be difficult to hold down a job when you have trouble tying your shoes) I'll help you out with a link.
Eh, I wouldn't believe this. It's a common troll tactic to post anonymous links in other sids to a post of a person they want to screw with. Thereby implicating that person as a troll.
I've seen a couple of people it's been happening to.
Don't believe everything you read. If the post is anonymous don't put any stock in it whatsoever. Especially if it claims to be a normal poster who is following up anonymously for some reason.
These are the real trolls. Don't let them disrupt the conversation.
Rob should really figure out something to do about this stuff. It's getting ridiculous.
Mr. Kazmaier is lifting this weight vertically with two arms supporting the bar weight and two legs supporting the bar and his body. In other words, he is supporting the the same bar weight twice, something Mr. Bronto doesn't have to do.
Or... Actually, the article says Mr. Kazmaier is doing "squats" which do *not* involve lifting the bar over your head. The bar rests on your shoulder, and you... squat.
Do you really think that the average citizen of Vienna in 1800 had access to the quantity and range of music that even an average Wal-Mart customer has today?
Just because something is better doesn't mean it's good.
And speaking of violence... Deadli contributed the news that the secretary of education opposes mechanical profiling programs according to this Washington Post article. Perhaps he's been reading the reaction to Jon Katz' article on WAVE.
Actuallying assuming 'mechanical profiling' means 'mechanical' then that wouldn't have much to do with WAVE at all. He says he doesn't think it's right to just put behaviors in a formula to pick out the 'dangerous' people.
He's more talking about profiling software, not profiling in general.
I can't stand telemarketers. I had this telemarketer call me when I was waiting for my friends to show up. They asked me If I'd take a 'quick survey'.
What the heck, I figured, there's no harm in that. I had to kill time anyway.
20 minutes later they were still blabbing at me and my friends were waiting for me in the living room. I finally just hung up on them because they just started blathering at me and wouldn't let me get a word in edgewise.
After I hung up on them they even called me right back. Ugh. I hate telemarketers.
Good summary. I was in a hurry when I posted that and didn't think it all through clearly. But the main point is hopefully the same, that war and conflict was what really pushed us to make that achievement.
Haven't there been studies that talked about war being the source of most major technological booms and accomplishments? Directly or indirectly.
All we really need is another good war, or even a cold war. The only reason America got to the moon so fast is that America was afraid the commies would get there first and somehow leverage this ability for power.
In what ways do you think opening the source to their product would convince the government that this would change Microsoft's monopolistic practices?
I don't think opening the source in and of itself would be enough to stop Microsoft from abusing it's power again. There are so many little details and loophopes that would be involved that I really don't think it would make enough of a business difference to Microsoft to have the government accept it.
Isn't one of the big things Open Source advocates are preaching to companies that opening the source to their products is a good thing and doesn't hurt them business wise?
Also, the reason they were found a monopoly isn't because of their code or their software design philosophies, but with their business practices.
None of this is intended as a flame, I'm interested in hearing opinions.
Why does everyone keep saying that Microsoft is going to open their source code to satisfy the DOJ?
Opening the source code will not remove the monopoly. I seriously doubt it's even being considered. I know it makes all the unix hax0rs happy because it sounds vindictive and it's something Microsoft doesn't want to do.
That's not usually how punishments work. Just because something is something *you'd* like to see doesn't make it a valid punishment.
Hey, I know, why don't you write the DOJ a letter and say "I think a good solution to the Microsoft monopoly abuse would be to make Bill Gates eat some dog shit. That would be funny!"
Bah. Try to be realistic, okay people? I realize you all want to be Altruistic Open Source Hackers but that doesn't mean the rest of the world works on your sense of irony.
If anything it will be a serious internal change to prevent them from exploiting the monopoly powers that they have. Open sourcing their software won't do it, and I even have doubts if that's within the governments power.
By the way, this article isn't necessarily to the author of this specific post, 348's was just the most recent one I saw on this thread when I finally got annoyed enough to post. Nothing specifically against him.
So...will this get moderated down Flamebait or Off-Topic?
WinCE is also the palmtop OS that microsoft is pushing right? Palmtop Computing is supposed to be the Next Big Thing.
One could argue that if Microsoft lowers the hurdles for companies that develop CE-ized software, so they can understand the platform better, it will just anchor Windows that much more in the operating systems market.
Hey, all that software Joe User really loves is on his palmtop as well, it's very easy as far as he's concerned to transfer information back and forth. Everything works with everything else.
By giving away a product or even just offering the source to specific developers to a product that's not making much money right now, Microsoft gets companies trapped in the Microsoft world.
Palmtops are kind of a new field, and they're one Microsoft probably can't afford to lose.
First off, this is completely pointless and wrong. But...it's like trying to stop a flood with a bucket. There are so many ways to get around things that are blocked. Especially on the router level. You can download files to shell accounts and donwload them from there, use an encrypted anonymous service like freedom so they won't even be able to tell where you're going in the first place and the fact that they won't be able to effectively block anything anyway.
Why are we constantly beseiged on all sides by this kind of stupidity? Like, every day I come on here and see something just as dumb as this idea.
bah.
I don't really know where I'm going with this, I just wanted to bitch and moan a little.
The summary didn't give all that much information. This site basically hosts a mailing list for the discussion of dead media and a summary of information exchanged on that mailing list.
People share their information on dead media and list sources. They have a section of 'Working Notes' with all the information that can be found here.
Altogether, it looks very cool. They even have an article about the radio shack trash-80.
Great potential in that one. You forge someone's signature and and send of a request ( all other details of your intended victim being 100% kosher ) and hey presto! Suddenly the FBI takes a much more active interest in them.
No, not really. He said the signature has to be notarized, which means you have to provide proof to the notary that you are that person. Faking or forging notarization I believe is a federal crime. And a nasty one at that. You don't want to do that, now, do you?
In a UNIX/NT shop several of my friend work at, putting MCSE on your resume is a strike against you. Unless you really impress them in the interview, they probably won't hire you.
Might not be fair, but it's true. And it's been my experience as well.
Apparently you haven't seen the movie. The scene he's talking about is this guy models a dna chain with M&M's, and it spins around like a rotating holographic rotation. There's nothing holding the m&ms together, they're "orbiting" around nothing. IANAP (I am not a physicist) but the basic way I understand it is the reason things orbit is because they have as much energy going past the object as they do pulling it down towards it, so it's in a constant state of falling. Could you throw a baseball in a circle? That's basically what the m&ms were doing on a smaller scale.
There was one detail I forgot to include. I have minor motion sickness, and some of the scenes where the camera spun around zooming in on someone turned my stomach.
This film shows that just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
You can tell a movie is bad when during the 'powerful' moments the people in the theater start laughing. People laughed through most of the movie. For those who haven't seen it, it's a comedy. Near the end, when they take their helmets off, my friend leaned over to whisper to me "Helmets come off, heads explode, credits roll." In retrospect, that would have been a much more satisfying ending. On the way out, people in the crowd who didn't even know each other were united by making fun of the movie on the way out. I've never really had that happen before. Some people outside of the theater asked my friends and I if we had seen it and what we thought. Although we had earlier agreed to admit to no one we had wasted hours of our lives and hard earned money on the film, we decided to do the right thing and warn them away. Do *NOT* see this movie unless you want to see a bad movie. This wasn't even good-bad like I thought starship troopers was. The beginning had a lot of promise, and at first I was willing to look over a lot of the little problems.
And to everyone who has seen the movie, I learned something that night: people with beards are crazy -- at least until they shave them off.
You are arguing whether it's a defensive use of patents or not. It's not. Defensive Patents is a phrase that has a specific meaning, and this doesn't match it. Defensive Patents doesn't mean right or wrong, or good or bad.
As I understand it, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Defensive patents are mainly used for one thing which makes them defensive patents. They are used to make sure you can always use your technology, so that no one else can take it from you. That's it. Trying to prevent other people from using them is when it stops being 'defensive' and starts being offensive.
This is more than just a request to boycott: there could be privacy issues, possibly data mining or building a mailing list of security conscious users.
This is an observation. Note particularly that it discusses in the hypothetical mode (note the words "possibly" and "could be") what could be done with such a domain, and as a webadmin, I can assure you that the observation is absolutely true. But note that at no point is any accusation made that this is or ever will be done.
If it's just an innocent observation why is it there in the first place? It's an observation put there to garner a reaction. If there's nothing to back up this simple observation, why put it there in the first place? Or even better! We could include a few more observations:
It's possible this site is run by a large pink gorilla
Puppies are neat.
There's a possibility a meteor could crash into the earth.
There's a possibility this site is run by the NSA as a way to track down peopel who have an interest in security in privacy so they can be the first executed once all our freedoms are gone.
The person who runs this site could very well be a commie sympathizer.
Theo could theoretically molest children.
See how useful all those observations were? Maybe they should include some of them in their next press release.
What I'm trying to say here is that you're doing two things, you're nitpicking and you're playing dumb. It's very obvious why those 'observations' were there and to pretend anything else is just silly.
Slashdot Mirror
--
As to yoursuggestion, in a large corporation that would be a *lot* of email for some admin to read, a full time job at least. Does a corporation really want some guy to read email to the CEO, CFO, COO and CTO?
Anyway, I'm not arguing that you can't prevent viruses. I'm arguing that THEY COST MONEY, prevention costs money and the occasional mistake costs a LOT of money. The article said they don't really see why viruses cost money and I was giving them the reasons why they do.
I've gotten permission denied when trying to load comments.pl.
I've got a page that was blank except for 'this is test content' at http://slashdot.org/.
For a long time several people I know couldn't post because of some invalid formkey error.
I've got 'internal server errors' from the perl scripts that run slashdot while just trying to navigate.
Just now when I tried to reply to your post I had to go back and hit reply again because I couldn't connect to the webserver. In fact just about every other web-request I'm sending to slashdot is failing right now. I just had to try to load a page four times. And I'm relatively sure it's not my net connection. My net connection is behaving very nicely right now.
What I'm saying is that I agree with reverand, just a note that says 'yes we know there was a problem and we've addressed it'.
Or even better..how about a slashdot status slashbox? Even if stuff is broken we'll have the satisfaction of knowing it's being addressed.
Wait, I've got a perfect solution. Instead of Andover giving hardware to k5, perhaps Andover should give more hardware to rob & co so they can *test* code before running it live on the server.
Or if they already have that hardware, they should use it.
Addiction is a disease. It is an largely undetectable until it rears it's ugly head.
Any, I repeate any drug can set it off. Saying that marijuana is 100% harmless is not only wrong but irresponsible.
There's a reason why there's Marijuana Anonymous, just like Alcoholics Anonymous, Narcotics Anonymous, Cocaine Anonymous, etc.
It's not a matter of if a particular drug will set it off but how soon.
I agree that banning substances is not the solution, and I oppose the War On (some) Drugs that our government is waging. And I agree that banning substances is not the answer.
The answer is education.
Eventually I hope we are able to detect diseases like addiction early and save people a lot of pain.
An example of someone doing it right is dancesafe who preach harm reduction. But even they would be censored by this bill.
jlb has posted 2 comments (this only counts the last few weeks)
The important part there, that you apparently missed, is where it says 'last few weeks.'
This is my one, and only account. See, I usually lurk. I've also been very busy at work lately and haven't had much time to sit at my desk and read Slashdot.
Now, if you had half a clue, you could go and search through previous posts, perhaps for me in them.
Unfortunately the search engines only search the last 30,000 or so posts. And while I'm sure that someone of your hindered intelligence probably has lots of time on his hands, (it's got to be difficult to hold down a job when you have trouble tying your shoes) I'll help you out with a link.
post 6 From April 29th, 2000
I got this from the referrer log on my website, which is about how far back I've had the site at that provider.
And yes, I have read and posted to the troll sid. That's because I find some of the trolls amusing.
And I'm not wrong about people often posting anonymously, pointing to a real post and claiming it as a troll to mess with the user.
In summary: I am not a troll. I do not post trolls. I do not participate in trolls. I have, however been trolled. Which is why I read the sid.
Heavens, I'm guilty by association.
I've seen a couple of people it's been happening to.
Don't believe everything you read. If the post is anonymous don't put any stock in it whatsoever. Especially if it claims to be a normal poster who is following up anonymously for some reason.
These are the real trolls. Don't let them disrupt the conversation.
Rob should really figure out something to do about this stuff. It's getting ridiculous.
Or... Actually, the article says Mr. Kazmaier is doing "squats" which do *not* involve lifting the bar over your head. The bar rests on your shoulder, and you ... squat.
Check your math again. :)
Just because something is better doesn't mean it's good.
Actuallying assuming 'mechanical profiling' means 'mechanical' then that wouldn't have much to do with WAVE at all. He says he doesn't think it's right to just put behaviors in a formula to pick out the 'dangerous' people.
He's more talking about profiling software, not profiling in general.
What the heck, I figured, there's no harm in that. I had to kill time anyway.
20 minutes later they were still blabbing at me and my friends were waiting for me in the living room. I finally just hung up on them because they just started blathering at me and wouldn't let me get a word in edgewise.
After I hung up on them they even called me right back. Ugh. I hate telemarketers.
Haven't there been studies that talked about war being the source of most major technological booms and accomplishments? Directly or indirectly.
I didn't say it made sense.
I don't think opening the source in and of itself would be enough to stop Microsoft from abusing it's power again. There are so many little details and loophopes that would be involved that I really don't think it would make enough of a business difference to Microsoft to have the government accept it.
Isn't one of the big things Open Source advocates are preaching to companies that opening the source to their products is a good thing and doesn't hurt them business wise?
Also, the reason they were found a monopoly isn't because of their code or their software design philosophies, but with their business practices.
None of this is intended as a flame, I'm interested in hearing opinions.
Opening the source code will not remove the monopoly. I seriously doubt it's even being considered. I know it makes all the unix hax0rs happy because it sounds vindictive and it's something Microsoft doesn't want to do.
That's not usually how punishments work. Just because something is something *you'd* like to see doesn't make it a valid punishment.
Hey, I know, why don't you write the DOJ a letter and say "I think a good solution to the Microsoft monopoly abuse would be to make Bill Gates eat some dog shit. That would be funny!"
Bah. Try to be realistic, okay people? I realize you all want to be Altruistic Open Source Hackers but that doesn't mean the rest of the world works on your sense of irony.
If anything it will be a serious internal change to prevent them from exploiting the monopoly powers that they have. Open sourcing their software won't do it, and I even have doubts if that's within the governments power.
By the way, this article isn't necessarily to the author of this specific post, 348's was just the most recent one I saw on this thread when I finally got annoyed enough to post. Nothing specifically against him.
So...will this get moderated down Flamebait or Off-Topic?
WinCE is also the palmtop OS that microsoft is pushing right? Palmtop Computing is supposed to be the Next Big Thing.
One could argue that if Microsoft lowers the hurdles for companies that develop CE-ized software, so they can understand the platform better, it will just anchor Windows that much more in the operating systems market.
Hey, all that software Joe User really loves is on his palmtop as well, it's very easy as far as he's concerned to transfer information back and forth. Everything works with everything else.
By giving away a product or even just offering the source to specific developers to a product that's not making much money right now, Microsoft gets companies trapped in the Microsoft world.
Palmtops are kind of a new field, and they're one Microsoft probably can't afford to lose.
Makes perfect sense.
Why are we constantly beseiged on all sides by this kind of stupidity? Like, every day I come on here and see something just as dumb as this idea.
bah.
I don't really know where I'm going with this, I just wanted to bitch and moan a little.
People share their information on dead media and list sources. They have a section of 'Working Notes' with all the information that can be found here.
Altogether, it looks very cool. They even have an article about the radio shack trash-80.
No, not really. He said the signature has to be notarized, which means you have to provide proof to the notary that you are that person. Faking or forging notarization I believe is a federal crime. And a nasty one at that. You don't want to do that, now, do you?
Might not be fair, but it's true. And it's been my experience as well.
Apparently you haven't seen the movie. The scene he's talking about is this guy models a dna chain with M&M's, and it spins around like a rotating holographic rotation.
There's nothing holding the m&ms together, they're "orbiting" around nothing. IANAP (I am not a physicist) but the basic way I understand it is the reason things orbit is because they have as much energy going past the object as they do pulling it down towards it, so it's in a constant state of falling.
Could you throw a baseball in a circle? That's basically what the m&ms were doing on a smaller scale.
This film shows that just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should.
And to everyone who has seen the movie, I learned something that night: people with beards are crazy -- at least until they shave them off.
It's a definition. This doesn't match. Period.
As I understand it, and someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Defensive patents are mainly used for one thing which makes them defensive patents. They are used to make sure you can always use your technology, so that no one else can take it from you. That's it. Trying to prevent other people from using them is when it stops being 'defensive' and starts being offensive.
This is an observation. Note particularly that it discusses in the hypothetical mode (note the words "possibly" and "could be") what could be done with such a domain, and as a webadmin, I can assure you that the observation is absolutely true. But note that at no point is any accusation made that this is or ever will be done.
If it's just an innocent observation why is it there in the first place? It's an observation put there to garner a reaction. If there's nothing to back up this simple observation, why put it there in the first place? Or even better! We could include a few more observations:
See how useful all those observations were? Maybe they should include some of them in their next press release.
What I'm trying to say here is that you're doing two things, you're nitpicking and you're playing dumb. It's very obvious why those 'observations' were there and to pretend anything else is just silly.