You mean the one that starts with, "I'll leave Linux out of the equation..."? His point is that OS X would be more vulnerable to malware, if it existed? You do realize that both this year's and last year's exploits were flaws in the Safari browser, right? I don't think he means what you think he means when he says a Mac is easy to break. Oh by the way, this is someone who is promoting his expertise in compromising platforms, so he does have an incentive to overstate the need for his services.
I'm telling you, the notion that Windows is swiss cheese and Macs/Linux are vaults is a complete fallacy.
You're really going out on a limb there. Nevermind that that isn't my point. Architecturally Linux and OS X are less susceptible to viruses. So, if you want to explain away the last ten years of internet facing Windows systems getting exploited even when they're not browsing or running any web services that's your business.
Sadly, that simply isn't true. The script-kiddies...
Let's end it here then. Script-kiddies are not the problem. I think the best thing about having switched to Linux is not needing to buy an anti-virus solution, which then needs to be maintained and which bogs down performance even when it's running properly. If Windows 7 doesn't need that, then great - it's about time.
And there's also not needing to manually remove a virus when it gets you before the update is disseminated (again, conficker). Real story, real hours of lost productivity, real money being spent on an A/V licenses. This only happens on Windows, so bring on the excuses - that's all they are.
I've heard this argument before. If there are 25 million each on Mac and Linux (I don't know the real numbers), then that is enough to be targeted. You aren't aware of it, but there are people who write a virus just for the challenge. Look at all the attention that Maynard and Ellch got for their claim to be able to compromise a Mac (which never materialized.) You'd be a rock star at the next Black Hat conference. If they could, they would.
This claim that nobody wants to write a virus for Mac and Linux is becoming laughable.
Are you suggesting that the lack of exploits (in the wild or otherwise) on Linux/Non-Windows-OS-of-your-choice indicates a lack of security holes?
Well, it doesn't indicate the opposite! I'd say there is enough installed base of Linux and Mac OS users to confirm what we already know from theory, that unixes are much less susceptible to viruses. However my main point was that we've suffered so long from the buggy and insecure Windows offerings that a perpetual subscription to an anti-virus program is considered normal. How come I never see this in the TCO calculations that MS/Gartner likes to spew out? I've lost way too much time to Windows malware to accept empty claims of Windows security. I sincerely hope, and I'll give them credit, if Windows 7 is finally better.
Conficker? Exploited a defect in a network service that was enabled by default, whereupon it disabled the anti-virus and blocked OS updates. If we're even discussing third-party virus scanners that have to be installed after you've installed and updated your OS, then it's *not* as secure.
So failing to follow procedure becomes manufacturing evidence in the minds of many. I thought he didn't get convicted because Mark Fuhrman was a racist and the jury was 9/12ths black. Never has the race card been so effectively played.
It's odd that the prosecutor thinks he's doing nothing wrong. The judge clearly has problems with it:
According to the Times, Judge Munley told Skumanick's lawyer, A. James Hailstone: "It seems like the children seemed to be the victims and the perpetrators here. How does that make sense?" State law "doesn't distinguish between who took the picture and who was in it," Hailstone was quoted by the newspaper as saying.
He's actually trying to charge them as accomplices to "open lewdness", which is a misdemeanor. I had never heard of such a thing. The possible child pornography charge was just prosecutorial blackmail - standard operating procedure for almost any DA. I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that these laws would be found unconstitutional. The legislature needs to amend them from being applied in this way - although they typically only take action after a well publicized travesty of justice.
In any case, I think you'd need this to be much more explicit to set the kind of precedent you want. A not-guilty will be good enough for me, and the children involved too, I'm sure.
Yes, what he did was legal, but that does not end the discussion. What do his constituents, and the public at large, think of this swaggering little man you who has become absorbed with criticism about himself, but does little to respond to it other than attacking those who are publishing it? You don't see anything but bashing here: http://www.akdemocrats.org/doogan/032709_2_doogan_in_juneau.htm
This arrogant representative entirely deserves the negative publicity this will earn him.
Let's not discourage someone from asking questions. Believe it or not, brainstorming amongst intelligent people can make you more aware of the things you should consider - even in the field of law. Anecdotal information can also pass on advice from a legal professional to someone who was in a similar situation, without the need to hire someone else to tell you the exact same thing. Yes, we know that similar situations may be different in a small yet important way. We take that into account. Let's not be awed by the law in relatively simple situation, and certainly not be awed by legal professionals in general - no slight intended.
Basically, I would have seen enough from this thread to take it down, as it does not appear to meet the common definition of fair use. If it was a close call, and the explanations here of the possible need to defend any fair use in court were not a deterrent, then perhaps a lawyer would be called for at that point. I just don't think I'd want to pay for an overpriced consult just to get the safe counsel that there is some risk and it would be best to remove it. Better to get paid advice when I plan to take it farther and the advice requires more expertise.
I've gotten good information from non-lawyers before - who were subsequently muzzled by the state bar who threatened to pursue charges of giving legal advice without a license, despite their disclaimers - when information, not advice was all I was looking for. Naturally, the assertion that you always need a lawyer to be able to make a decision on any legal question is self-serving.
And those MS employees are residents of the state, so this is benefiting citizens of Washington. If you're against the stimulus altogether, then I can understand that, but otherwise, what did you expect?
Of course, I'm one of those people that thought the Bridge to Nowhere was a bridge to the Ketchikan airport.
It wasn't a loophole, it was the deal they were promoting to have a competitive advantage over Netflix. I assume it worked, but was too expensive for them. Time for customers to re-evaluate cost vs benefits.
When I look at which is better, a big part will be based on how easy it is to browse movies. The last I remember was that both of them make it difficult to browse the full catalog out of a desire to rent out their less popular inventory, but Netflix was worse.
MS could certainly bash Linux in commercials if they thought is was worth their money, but at this point it would just provide name recognition and credibility to mention Linux as competition in a commercial. I think they've only taken on Apple, because the PC vs. Mac commercials were making them look bad (They still don't attack Apple, lest more people realize they have a choice.) They'd much rather spend money on locking in their current customers and reducing unlicensed copies. Business as usual still pays pretty well.
So, why exactly should Apple go out of their way to make batteries more user removable?
Because MacBook batteries have a history of dying? An alarming number of the MacBook and MacBook Pros in our office needed replacing around the 1-year mark. Yes, we did the MacBookPro battery recall. Yes, we installed the OS update that fixed what was killing some batteries. Several needed replacing anyway, most of them just out of warranty.
I'm sure nothing will go wrong this time though. Good call!
That's wrong, since they sought to extend the expiration date of the currently valid coupons by the same amount. However, the stimulus package includes an additional $650 million for the coupon program, so now they don't need to wait for coupons to expire to start issuing coupons to those on the waiting list.
My life experience has taught me that violence trumps other forms of control. If the police or army is coming down on you, good luck using your self-control to do anything about it. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be avoided, but those who forget it are in for a rude shock when someone less civilized breaks the rules.
It is undemocratic, but it's still representative, and more importantly, constitutional. Everyone is free to move to Alaska, but I doubt people will want to. Keep in mind that the difference is small, but this would not require small states to surrender some of the little voting power they currently have.
You're not accounting for the two additional votes that each state gets, which is especially important for small states. Thus, a candidate that appeals primarily to the large population centers, but does not appeal to a majority of the states, would be at a small disadvantage. I like this difference from a purely popular election as we are still a nation of states.
The other question for me is how we would conduct a nationwide recount if the result is extremely close, given how hard it is for a single state, like Florida and Minnesota.
If the recount technology is up to it, I would prefer that states divide their electoral votes according to the popular vote within the state. That way small states do not lose the additional weight they have been given by the constitution, and politicians have more of a reason campaign there, even though they get more bang for their buck in NY, Chicago, and L.A.
This is not intended only for low-income families? This is for everyone who wants to continue using TVs without a digital tuner and will be negatively affected by the change. That's me - and millions of others.
There are 11.7 million coupons outstanding. So, if the redemption rate continues below 60%, then that would be enough to cover the 2.5 million coupons on the waiting list and 2 or 3 million more. However, I read elsewhere that current expiration dates would be pushed out to September 15th, so new applicants would probably not be issued any coupons until after that.
Don't ignore the other aspect of this bill. As a holder of one of the 14 million expired coupons, I look forward to getting and using a new one. I requested so early, that it came in February, with an unexpected 3-month expiration period. For price and selection, I was motivated to wait as long as possible, and time ran out. My mistake, but if I get a second chance, I'll buy it right away.
I'm unsure if it'll really happen, because the funding looks to have been spent, and there's a waiting list of people who didn't waste their coupon ahead of me, but it's in the article, so it must be true. [sign-up required, editor - or you can change your user-agent to be the googlebot.]
Indeed. A huge troll by twitter, and we're all so used to it that there's hardly any complaint. On the other hand, an interesting semi-off-topic discussion comparing MSN, Yahoo and Google broke out, so that's probably the best we could hope for.
She may have been charged for a 1-year subscription to the download site, a service that she then used. If she signed up with billing information, then it's a done deal. If not, I would contact the company in writing explaining that she made no agreement to buy anything (if she didn't), blame them for not making it clear, request that the account be canceled, and refuse to pay.
I doubt that they have an enforcible contract with her.
I'm not a wireless network chip designer, but this sounds like a poor excuse.
You prefer your binary blobs in firmware? Assuming you have any firmware, not just EEPROM, then the driver can probably override the transmit limitations anyway. If your suggestion is that they should make their chips immune to reverse engineering, I think you must not be a wireless network chip designer.
Slashdot Mirror
Charlie Miller Interview
You mean the one that starts with, "I'll leave Linux out of the equation..."? His point is that OS X would be more vulnerable to malware, if it existed? You do realize that both this year's and last year's exploits were flaws in the Safari browser, right? I don't think he means what you think he means when he says a Mac is easy to break. Oh by the way, this is someone who is promoting his expertise in compromising platforms, so he does have an incentive to overstate the need for his services.
I'm telling you, the notion that Windows is swiss cheese and Macs/Linux are vaults is a complete fallacy.
You're really going out on a limb there. Nevermind that that isn't my point. Architecturally Linux and OS X are less susceptible to viruses. So, if you want to explain away the last ten years of internet facing Windows systems getting exploited even when they're not browsing or running any web services that's your business.
Sadly, that simply isn't true. The script-kiddies...
Let's end it here then. Script-kiddies are not the problem. I think the best thing about having switched to Linux is not needing to buy an anti-virus solution, which then needs to be maintained and which bogs down performance even when it's running properly. If Windows 7 doesn't need that, then great - it's about time.
And there's also not needing to manually remove a virus when it gets you before the update is disseminated (again, conficker). Real story, real hours of lost productivity, real money being spent on an A/V licenses. This only happens on Windows, so bring on the excuses - that's all they are.
http://windowsteamblog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2006/11/10/windows-vista-defense-in-depth.aspx
I've heard this argument before. If there are 25 million each on Mac and Linux (I don't know the real numbers), then that is enough to be targeted. You aren't aware of it, but there are people who write a virus just for the challenge. Look at all the attention that Maynard and Ellch got for their claim to be able to compromise a Mac (which never materialized.) You'd be a rock star at the next Black Hat conference. If they could, they would.
This claim that nobody wants to write a virus for Mac and Linux is becoming laughable.
Are you suggesting that the lack of exploits (in the wild or otherwise) on Linux/Non-Windows-OS-of-your-choice indicates a lack of security holes?
Well, it doesn't indicate the opposite! I'd say there is enough installed base of Linux and Mac OS users to confirm what we already know from theory, that unixes are much less susceptible to viruses. However my main point was that we've suffered so long from the buggy and insecure Windows offerings that a perpetual subscription to an anti-virus program is considered normal. How come I never see this in the TCO calculations that MS/Gartner likes to spew out? I've lost way too much time to Windows malware to accept empty claims of Windows security. I sincerely hope, and I'll give them credit, if Windows 7 is finally better.
Conficker? Exploited a defect in a network service that was enabled by default, whereupon it disabled the anti-virus and blocked OS updates. If we're even discussing third-party virus scanners that have to be installed after you've installed and updated your OS, then it's *not* as secure.
Thanks for confirming the point.
So failing to follow procedure becomes manufacturing evidence in the minds of many. I thought he didn't get convicted because Mark Fuhrman was a racist and the jury was 9/12ths black. Never has the race card been so effectively played.
On second thought, please don't. We've had enough for one year.
Not anymore...
It's odd that the prosecutor thinks he's doing nothing wrong. The judge clearly has problems with it:
According to the Times, Judge Munley told Skumanick's lawyer, A. James Hailstone: "It seems like the children seemed to be the victims and the perpetrators here. How does that make sense?" State law "doesn't distinguish between who took the picture and who was in it," Hailstone was quoted by the newspaper as saying.
He's actually trying to charge them as accomplices to "open lewdness", which is a misdemeanor. I had never heard of such a thing. The possible child pornography charge was just prosecutorial blackmail - standard operating procedure for almost any DA. I don't think it's a forgone conclusion that these laws would be found unconstitutional. The legislature needs to amend them from being applied in this way - although they typically only take action after a well publicized travesty of justice.
In any case, I think you'd need this to be much more explicit to set the kind of precedent you want. A not-guilty will be good enough for me, and the children involved too, I'm sure.
Yes, what he did was legal, but that does not end the discussion. What do his constituents, and the public at large, think of this swaggering little man you who has become absorbed with criticism about himself, but does little to respond to it other than attacking those who are publishing it? You don't see anything but bashing here: http://www.akdemocrats.org/doogan/032709_2_doogan_in_juneau.htm
This arrogant representative entirely deserves the negative publicity this will earn him.
Let's not discourage someone from asking questions. Believe it or not, brainstorming amongst intelligent people can make you more aware of the things you should consider - even in the field of law. Anecdotal information can also pass on advice from a legal professional to someone who was in a similar situation, without the need to hire someone else to tell you the exact same thing. Yes, we know that similar situations may be different in a small yet important way. We take that into account. Let's not be awed by the law in relatively simple situation, and certainly not be awed by legal professionals in general - no slight intended.
Basically, I would have seen enough from this thread to take it down, as it does not appear to meet the common definition of fair use. If it was a close call, and the explanations here of the possible need to defend any fair use in court were not a deterrent, then perhaps a lawyer would be called for at that point. I just don't think I'd want to pay for an overpriced consult just to get the safe counsel that there is some risk and it would be best to remove it. Better to get paid advice when I plan to take it farther and the advice requires more expertise.
I've gotten good information from non-lawyers before - who were subsequently muzzled by the state bar who threatened to pursue charges of giving legal advice without a license, despite their disclaimers - when information, not advice was all I was looking for. Naturally, the assertion that you always need a lawyer to be able to make a decision on any legal question is self-serving.
And those MS employees are residents of the state, so this is benefiting citizens of Washington. If you're against the stimulus altogether, then I can understand that, but otherwise, what did you expect?
Of course, I'm one of those people that thought the Bridge to Nowhere was a bridge to the Ketchikan airport.
It wasn't a loophole, it was the deal they were promoting to have a competitive advantage over Netflix. I assume it worked, but was too expensive for them. Time for customers to re-evaluate cost vs benefits.
When I look at which is better, a big part will be based on how easy it is to browse movies. The last I remember was that both of them make it difficult to browse the full catalog out of a desire to rent out their less popular inventory, but Netflix was worse.
I don't remember the last time I saw a site that used ActiveX.
Windows Update?
MS could certainly bash Linux in commercials if they thought is was worth their money, but at this point it would just provide name recognition and credibility to mention Linux as competition in a commercial. I think they've only taken on Apple, because the PC vs. Mac commercials were making them look bad (They still don't attack Apple, lest more people realize they have a choice.) They'd much rather spend money on locking in their current customers and reducing unlicensed copies. Business as usual still pays pretty well.
So, why exactly should Apple go out of their way to make batteries more user removable?
Because MacBook batteries have a history of dying? An alarming number of the MacBook and MacBook Pros in our office needed replacing around the 1-year mark. Yes, we did the MacBookPro battery recall. Yes, we installed the OS update that fixed what was killing some batteries. Several needed replacing anyway, most of them just out of warranty.
I'm sure nothing will go wrong this time though. Good call!
That's wrong, since they sought to extend the expiration date of the currently valid coupons by the same amount. However, the stimulus package includes an additional $650 million for the coupon program, so now they don't need to wait for coupons to expire to start issuing coupons to those on the waiting list.
You have to buy your own HD antenna.
My life experience has taught me that violence trumps other forms of control. If the police or army is coming down on you, good luck using your self-control to do anything about it. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be avoided, but those who forget it are in for a rude shock when someone less civilized breaks the rules.
It is undemocratic, but it's still representative, and more importantly, constitutional. Everyone is free to move to Alaska, but I doubt people will want to. Keep in mind that the difference is small, but this would not require small states to surrender some of the little voting power they currently have.
You're not accounting for the two additional votes that each state gets, which is especially important for small states. Thus, a candidate that appeals primarily to the large population centers, but does not appeal to a majority of the states, would be at a small disadvantage. I like this difference from a purely popular election as we are still a nation of states.
The other question for me is how we would conduct a nationwide recount if the result is extremely close, given how hard it is for a single state, like Florida and Minnesota.
If the recount technology is up to it, I would prefer that states divide their electoral votes according to the popular vote within the state. That way small states do not lose the additional weight they have been given by the constitution, and politicians have more of a reason campaign there, even though they get more bang for their buck in NY, Chicago, and L.A.
This is not intended only for low-income families? This is for everyone who wants to continue using TVs without a digital tuner and will be negatively affected by the change. That's me - and millions of others.
Where did you get the idea that this was welfare?
I think I understand now: https://www.dtv2009.gov/Stats.aspx
There are 11.7 million coupons outstanding. So, if the redemption rate continues below 60%, then that would be enough to cover the 2.5 million coupons on the waiting list and 2 or 3 million more. However, I read elsewhere that current expiration dates would be pushed out to September 15th, so new applicants would probably not be issued any coupons until after that.
Don't ignore the other aspect of this bill. As a holder of one of the 14 million expired coupons, I look forward to getting and using a new one. I requested so early, that it came in February, with an unexpected 3-month expiration period. For price and selection, I was motivated to wait as long as possible, and time ran out. My mistake, but if I get a second chance, I'll buy it right away.
I'm unsure if it'll really happen, because the funding looks to have been spent, and there's a waiting list of people who didn't waste their coupon ahead of me, but it's in the article, so it must be true. [sign-up required, editor - or you can change your user-agent to be the googlebot.]
Indeed. A huge troll by twitter, and we're all so used to it that there's hardly any complaint. On the other hand, an interesting semi-off-topic discussion comparing MSN, Yahoo and Google broke out, so that's probably the best we could hope for.
She may have been charged for a 1-year subscription to the download site, a service that she then used. If she signed up with billing information, then it's a done deal. If not, I would contact the company in writing explaining that she made no agreement to buy anything (if she didn't), blame them for not making it clear, request that the account be canceled, and refuse to pay.
I doubt that they have an enforcible contract with her.
I'm not a wireless network chip designer, but this sounds like a poor excuse.
You prefer your binary blobs in firmware? Assuming you have any firmware, not just EEPROM, then the driver can probably override the transmit limitations anyway. If your suggestion is that they should make their chips immune to reverse engineering, I think you must not be a wireless network chip designer.