There are several papers out there describing malware spreading in corporate networks (full disclaimer: I wrote one of them). I'll give you a hint towards why you want AV on each and every machine: Because once your perimeter has been penetrated, the worst-case scenario for a well-crafted malware to infect your entire corporate network is measured in seconds.
I agree with you in principle. But as I said in my original posting: A full outbreak happened in our corporate environment despite the existence of AV on all desktops. I doubt that it would had happened multiple more times, if we had no AV at all (but who knows for sure?). So, AV on all machines cannot prevent outbreaks of well crafted worms and viruses. My math: AV costs money and might not stop outbreaks. Your math: AV costs money and may stop outbreaks.
Which math do you apply for non Windows machines? Which one is the more economic model over time?
Anti-virus is a security last resort. If you've already downloaded or executed malware, then anti-virus might prevent it from running, or might be able to remove it if it already has. But it can't detect everything. It can only detect common malware.
This is too true. On our Windows machines is a self-updating AV installed. From time to time it deletes an email with a virus (or suspicious) attachment - we would never opened it in any case (you know those lame emails, where you can smell the virus already in the subject line). Nevertheless, over ten years in corporation, we had two outbreaks: one was the slammer worm brought in from an executive with a laptop and a bad firewall config (in the Windows 2000 days), the other was a very well crafted social engineered email with a PDF attachment that was not yet known by the AV. So, in both cases, the AV did not help and I assume that all the other viruses would not have the chance to run either, since the humans would not execute them (opening rotten attachments).
On the other hand the AV got multiple times in the way of the business by disabling remote login software, network analyzers, etc.
I think that it make sense to have an AV software on the email server to filter all those typical attacks, but I am not convinced about the need of an AV on each desktop, laptop etc. It makes sense to have AN AV to test each downloaded file or USB stick when connected, but to have it always running might be overkill.
And, btw: we also had Linux machines, which were successfully attacked. However, those were network attacks against security holes in Internet servers. Maybe an intrusion detection system would have helped, but clearly not a typical anti-virus.
"Increasingly irrelevant to the world beyond academia"
A PhD is very often only relevant for academia. It might help also a carreer outside of academia, but in essence the work of a PhD should advance the research in the field of study - therefore advancing "academia".
Maybe I did not get it - and it's not explicit in the linked article either.
But, assuming that her friend did not illegally got the music tracks (but e.g. owns the CDs), where is here the copyright infringement? At least in the US and most Europe countries, copying music that you "own" for a friend is OK under "fair use" or "private copy" exceptions of the copyright law.
The absolute best money the govt could put forward towards green initiatives is a heavy tax break based on number of telecommuters employed by a company.
Or just increase taxes on gas. Same effect, but the government gets more money to spend at the same time.
Does the EU do anything apart from make things harder for people? This effectively means no anonymous cookies.
What is an "anonymous" cookie? A cookie that I cannot see - a "stealth cookie"?
I'm guessing it's more about controling and monitoring citizens than about protecting their privacy.
Wrong guess. It has nothing to do with it.
The thing is there are lots of legitimate uses for anonymous or one time cookies for which consent.isn't practical, so if this flies, it will detract from the Internet as we know it.
Please elaborate.
BTW: I agree to another argument: We can use cookie filters within the browser and do not need to make it part of the Web sites. On the other hand, if all sites that do not actually need cookies from a technical point stop using them, this would be a Good Thing(tm).
The H.264 open standard is as open as the open MPGE2 standard. It makes a lot of sense to use it for many people (e.g. TV equipment makers); it makes a lot of sense to not use it for others (e.g. open source video tools). Did you wonder why you do not find a pre-installed free version to playback MPEG2 content on your computer? Or to create MPEG2 content?
As part of a Web standard such "open" standards make no sense, if we want to ensure that the Web remains open (i.e. accessible for everybody).
The exception reads "If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed."
In other words, in the event of any patent litigation regarding VP8.. then at least one entity will have its license to use VP8 revoked.. and in the event that Google is found to be infringing, EVERYONE will have their license revoked.
This exception only gives Google the right to revoke the patent license, if you sue them with the help of this license (e.g. by using the VP8 code). So, as long as you are not attacking Google for the VP8 related code, you have an irrevocable license. In other words: Only you can invalidate Google's license for yourself.
Now, how do you read into this that if Google is found to be infringing, everybody would have their licenses revoked?
The blocking of material should be decided on a legal / illegal basis.
Wrong. Blocking the access to any information should never happen. If the content is illegal, you should try a case against the publisher. If the publisher is outside your legislation, you can try to inform the Web hosting facilities - if it is also illegal in their jurisdiction, you will find out that the content is very fast removed from their servers. If the content is legal in their jurisdiction, you need to live with it.
This is exactly why iPad type "computers" are the coming thing. Locked down in a walled garden and simple to use. Few people *really* need a 'real' computer when a small "device" will do everything they need.
Unless you want to access something that Steve Jobs does not want you to access (wait until iSomeThing will block wikileaks, porn sites, piracy sites, or just the wrong download site).
Roaming charges are so high because there is no competition in that field. None. You're dependent on your operator - you have no choice. They compete with each other on the local market, not on roaming charges, because - let's be real - some 90% of the telephone users doesn't even use roaming, save for maybe those two weeks vacation a year and then they'd just switch off the phone.
I am still looking for a pan-European provider that offers a flat rate - or at least a constant minute price - for all phone calls regardless the (European) country, I happen to be. I know that there is a market. However, it is not since long that you would be allowed to create such a meta-provider (i.e. reselling only, without own network) in some countries and I am not sure that you are allowed in all countries (this was to make sure that providers actually build out a competing infrastructure; but the downside is that it also created an oligopoly).
If the costs could've collapsed by nature, it probably would've happened to at least a miniscule degree in the last decade of widespread mobile phone use. The fact is that it's at a deadlock. Each carrier charges every other carrier obscene termination fees for roaming. It's that fee that then sets the roaming rate in the market.
In theory, you are right. However, de facto there are only some mobile phone operators which are active in (nearly) all European countries. If Orange UK charges an Orange France user huge roaming costs, this is just for screwing the customer. And, to make it worse, the SIM card of the Orange France user has the preinstalled "preference" to use the Orange UK network. The same goes for t-mobile and Vodafone users - and probably most the other mobile carriers.
While the EU regulation already put a cap on the roaming costs for phone calls; the costs for data roaming is still obscene and completely nontransparent (I have really no clue how much the provider in another EU country charges me, if I do not do a check first - btw: how do you do this check without paying roaming costs? - everytime I turn on my mobile when arriving at the airport).
Slashdot Mirror
There are several papers out there describing malware spreading in corporate networks (full disclaimer: I wrote one of them). I'll give you a hint towards why you want AV on each and every machine: Because once your perimeter has been penetrated, the worst-case scenario for a well-crafted malware to infect your entire corporate network is measured in seconds.
I agree with you in principle. But as I said in my original posting: A full outbreak happened in our corporate environment despite the existence of AV on all desktops. I doubt that it would had happened multiple more times, if we had no AV at all (but who knows for sure?). So, AV on all machines cannot prevent outbreaks of well crafted worms and viruses. My math: AV costs money and might not stop outbreaks. Your math: AV costs money and may stop outbreaks.
Which math do you apply for non Windows machines? Which one is the more economic model over time?
Anti-virus is a security last resort. If you've already downloaded or executed malware, then anti-virus might prevent it from running, or might be able to remove it if it already has. But it can't detect everything. It can only detect common malware.
This is too true. On our Windows machines is a self-updating AV installed. From time to time it deletes an email with a virus (or suspicious) attachment - we would never opened it in any case (you know those lame emails, where you can smell the virus already in the subject line). Nevertheless, over ten years in corporation, we had two outbreaks: one was the slammer worm brought in from an executive with a laptop and a bad firewall config (in the Windows 2000 days), the other was a very well crafted social engineered email with a PDF attachment that was not yet known by the AV. So, in both cases, the AV did not help and I assume that all the other viruses would not have the chance to run either, since the humans would not execute them (opening rotten attachments).
On the other hand the AV got multiple times in the way of the business by disabling remote login software, network analyzers, etc.
I think that it make sense to have an AV software on the email server to filter all those typical attacks, but I am not convinced about the need of an AV on each desktop, laptop etc. It makes sense to have AN AV to test each downloaded file or USB stick when connected, but to have it always running might be overkill.
And, btw: we also had Linux machines, which were successfully attacked. However, those were network attacks against security holes in Internet servers. Maybe an intrusion detection system would have helped, but clearly not a typical anti-virus.
Because SJ runs a company, not an opinion factory?
SlashJot?
"Increasingly irrelevant to the world beyond academia"
A PhD is very often only relevant for academia. It might help also a carreer outside of academia, but in essence the work of a PhD should advance the research in the field of study - therefore advancing "academia".
Then we looked at our $96/month DirecTv bill and thought, "Hmm.....,"
(Some) Americans pay nearly $100/month for TV??? As a continental European, this is completely beyond my comprehension ...
My guess is that the next iOS release will wipe this data every seven days or so.
And this would be OK, then?
He was joking. Just that the "irony" tags were subtle enough to get you trapped...
Maybe I did not get it - and it's not explicit in the linked article either.
But, assuming that her friend did not illegally got the music tracks (but e.g. owns the CDs), where is here the copyright infringement? At least in the US and most Europe countries, copying music that you "own" for a friend is OK under "fair use" or "private copy" exceptions of the copyright law.
I'd take a world powered by nuclear any day.
I would like to have two worlds. One powered by nuclear - you can have it and deal with the local-ish problems. I take the other world.
The absolute best money the govt could put forward towards green initiatives is a heavy tax break based on number of telecommuters employed by a company.
Or just increase taxes on gas. Same effect, but the government gets more money to spend at the same time.
And why should privacy protection require a log-in? It's the exact opposite.
Does the EU do anything apart from make things harder for people? This effectively means no anonymous cookies.
What is an "anonymous" cookie? A cookie that I cannot see - a "stealth cookie"?
I'm guessing it's more about controling and monitoring citizens than about protecting their privacy.
Wrong guess. It has nothing to do with it.
The thing is there are lots of legitimate uses for anonymous or one time cookies for which consent.isn't practical, so if this flies, it will detract from the Internet as we know it.
Please elaborate.
BTW: I agree to another argument: We can use cookie filters within the browser and do not need to make it part of the Web sites. On the other hand, if all sites that do not actually need cookies from a technical point stop using them, this would be a Good Thing(tm).
I wonder what they actually hope to accomplish/gain with this.
Let's call it "guerrilla marketing".
The H.264 open standard is as open as the open MPGE2 standard. It makes a lot of sense to use it for many people (e.g. TV equipment makers); it makes a lot of sense to not use it for others (e.g. open source video tools). Did you wonder why you do not find a pre-installed free version to playback MPEG2 content on your computer? Or to create MPEG2 content?
As part of a Web standard such "open" standards make no sense, if we want to ensure that the Web remains open (i.e. accessible for everybody).
The exception reads "If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that this implementation of VP8 or any code incorporated within this implementation of VP8 constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for this implementation of VP8 shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed."
In other words, in the event of any patent litigation regarding VP8 .. then at least one entity will have its license to use VP8 revoked.. and in the event that Google is found to be infringing, EVERYONE will have their license revoked.
This exception only gives Google the right to revoke the patent license, if you sue them with the help of this license (e.g. by using the VP8 code). So, as long as you are not attacking Google for the VP8 related code, you have an irrevocable license. In other words: Only you can invalidate Google's license for yourself.
Now, how do you read into this that if Google is found to be infringing, everybody would have their licenses revoked?
Most pornography is legal.
The blocking of material should be decided on a legal / illegal basis.
Wrong. Blocking the access to any information should never happen. If the content is illegal, you should try a case against the publisher. If the publisher is outside your legislation, you can try to inform the Web hosting facilities - if it is also illegal in their jurisdiction, you will find out that the content is very fast removed from their servers. If the content is legal in their jurisdiction, you need to live with it.
So, he wants that all ISPs implement OpenDNS? Why not just telling parents that they can go there and subscribe for their family?
I'm not saying I agree with this, but they're not trying to block porn, they're trying to make it opt-in.
Knowing the reputation of data security in GB, I am waiting for the list of porn consumers to be released soon.
I'm not saying I agree with this, but they're not trying to block porn, they're trying to make it opt-in. Buying a newspaper is definitely opt-in.
Uh, you are leaving your name and address to show that you are of legal age before you can buy your newspaper?
This is exactly why iPad type "computers" are the coming thing. Locked down in a walled garden and simple to use. Few people *really* need a 'real' computer when a small "device" will do everything they need.
Unless you want to access something that Steve Jobs does not want you to access (wait until iSomeThing will block wikileaks, porn sites, piracy sites, or just the wrong download site).
Roaming charges are so high because there is no competition in that field. None. You're dependent on your operator - you have no choice. They compete with each other on the local market, not on roaming charges, because - let's be real - some 90% of the telephone users doesn't even use roaming, save for maybe those two weeks vacation a year and then they'd just switch off the phone.
I am still looking for a pan-European provider that offers a flat rate - or at least a constant minute price - for all phone calls regardless the (European) country, I happen to be. I know that there is a market. However, it is not since long that you would be allowed to create such a meta-provider (i.e. reselling only, without own network) in some countries and I am not sure that you are allowed in all countries (this was to make sure that providers actually build out a competing infrastructure; but the downside is that it also created an oligopoly).
If the costs could've collapsed by nature, it probably would've happened to at least a miniscule degree in the last decade of widespread mobile phone use. The fact is that it's at a deadlock. Each carrier charges every other carrier obscene termination fees for roaming. It's that fee that then sets the roaming rate in the market.
In theory, you are right. However, de facto there are only some mobile phone operators which are active in (nearly) all European countries. If Orange UK charges an Orange France user huge roaming costs, this is just for screwing the customer. And, to make it worse, the SIM card of the Orange France user has the preinstalled "preference" to use the Orange UK network. The same goes for t-mobile and Vodafone users - and probably most the other mobile carriers.
While the EU regulation already put a cap on the roaming costs for phone calls; the costs for data roaming is still obscene and completely nontransparent (I have really no clue how much the provider in another EU country charges me, if I do not do a check first - btw: how do you do this check without paying roaming costs? - everytime I turn on my mobile when arriving at the airport).
I just say: "Cleaning-woman".
"Free" is often related to pira^H^H^H^H copyright infringement.
reflective ...