It installed by default with a firewall that denied inbound connections.
My memory is a little fuzzy, but I don't think that was the case before SP2. Before then, if your computer was hooked up to the Internet, you could get a virus in the time it took to boot it the first time and install antivirus software. The XP firewall was disabled by default, allowing a DCOM bug to be exploited.
If you're looking for *nix groups specifically, there's Uniforum, which meets at the IIT campus in Wheaton. Also, I run a PHP Meetup group which meets in Glen Ellyn.
I ran Linux when I last had Comcast installed. They asked "do you have *any* computer here with Windows? We can't do this without Windows." Of course, this was when they were using those stupid install CDs.
They already send out ads for their "viagara" with my home business's main contact email in the "from" header. What makes you think *real* identity fraud is beneath them?
Lots of people in this discussion mention that they don't use any of the math they were forced to take in college. I think the problem is that schools are requiring the wrong kinds of math, or maybe they're using math to "weed out" students instead of helping them. I think classes in formal logic and discrete math are invaluable to computer science students. Calc...eh, not so much.
Is it necessary? Absolutely not. As long as you can *think* like the computer -- in other words, using logic -- you're better off than someone who just knows their sums
Thinking like a computer...using Boolean logic perhaps? Those if-then-else structures you love are a way of expressing algebraic statements, even if the language you're using to express them is more like English than algebra.
Further, when you simplify:
if ( (a && b) || (a && c) )...
into
if ( a && (b || c) ) )...
you're using commutation, a mathematical property.
See? This doesn't have anything to do with the police and everything to do with the other people. If you watch any of the police video shows you will always see the "perp" with his face pixelated so they aren't identifiable. Do you think amature videographers are going to do this before uploading their clip to YouTube?
That's a fine argument, but not really applicable to this case. What's at issue is your right to record how the police treat you. Cameras are one was to equalize the power imbalance between the police and the citizenry without putting deadly weapons in everyone's hands. It's already proven effective, with 400 people released after the 2004 Republican National Convention because of amateur video evidence (granted, not their own videotape). Even if the police are recording what goes on, they can't necessarily be trusted.
From the NY Times article:
Last week, he discovered that there were two versions of the same police tape: the one that was to be used as evidence in his trial had been edited at two spots, removing images that showed Mr. Dunlop behaving peacefully. When a volunteer film archivist found a more complete version of the tape and gave it to Mr. Dunlop's lawyer, prosecutors immediately dropped the charges and said that a technician had cut the material by mistake.
[...]
That was a problem in the case of Mr. Dunlop, who learned that his tape had been altered only after Ms. Clancy found another version of the same tape. Mr. Dunlop had been accused of pushing his bicycle into a line of police officers on the Lower East Side and of resisting arrest, but the deleted parts of the tape show him calmly approaching the police line, and later submitting to arrest without apparent incident.
A spokeswoman for the district attorney, Barbara Thompson, said the material had been cut by a technician in the prosecutor's office. "It was our mistake," she said. "The assistant district attorney wanted to include that portion" because she initially believed that it supported the charges against Mr. Dunlop. Later, however, the arresting officer, who does not appear on the video, was no longer sure of the specifics in the complaint against Mr. Dunlop.
The defendant in TFA was a passenger in the vehicle that was pulled over, not some random passer-by. Similarly, a man in New Hampshire was arrested a year ago for wiretapping when he recorded police coming to his door and treating him "rudely". When he brought the tape the police dept. to complain, they arrested him on the charge, which was later dropped, just like in this case.
"The cameras are clearly visible when they are worn and the instant playback facility means that officers can easily see again exactly who did what in public disorder situations, as well as showing the offenders themselves the poor level of their behaviour."
Back in March, I sketched out some "Laws of Reputation" (along the lines of Kim Cameron's "Laws of Identity") on my blog. As I thought about it, I came to the same conclusion. It's *hard*. eBay has a good system, but they only have one context to juggle and it's hardly free. I've seen people posting about the need for context & anonymity, which I touched on, but there's a big difference between saying "it needs to" and "it does". At this point...there hasn't been anything done to implement them, and I'm not 100% sure it would be commercially viable.
An online reputation system should be...
Anonymous: The system needs to protect anonymity. OpenID uses URLs for identity, with the knowledge that a person can register for a LiveJournal account under an assumed name and get an OpenID with it. On the other hand, a site like csixty4.com is my OpenID, and I have my name all over the place.
Contextual: We have different facets of our lives, and the should have relatively little ability to influence each other. I could be the most helpful person on technical message boards, but a complete jerk in Star Trek chatrooms. My negative behavior in one venue should influence my reputation in other forums, but to a small extent.
Forgiving: A reputation system can't hold people accountable for stupid things they did ten years ago. A reputation claim against you from a third party should lose relevance with time, and be completely ignored after a "sunset" date.
Automatic: People are quick to complain about bad behavior, but less motivated to laud good behavior. The system should support default, automated "good" ratings, which would carry less weight than a positive reputation claim, and would be in effect until a positive or negative claim is made. In other words, a message board post that isn't marked as "good" or "bad" by other posters would, by default, rate as "half a good" or "1/4 good" as long as nobody said otherwise.
Free: Second Life's reputation system lets users make reputation claims about other people, if the party making the claim pays for the privilege. This is to cut down on people gaming the system, but also acts as a disincentive to say nice things about other people. It shouldn't cost anything to make a reputation claim about another person, and it shouldn't take much effort, either.
Trustworthy: The system should be set up so it's hard to "game". A reputation system is pointless if someone can run a script that creates 1000 fake accounts which all sing the praises of a main account.
What would this reputation system do? On Slashdot, a person's "karma" can modify their posts' scores, and low-scoring posts (trolls, flamebait, etc.) are hidden from view. A similar phenomenon leads to troll posts on Digg to be "dugg down". Similarly, programs and sites could let users set a reputation threshold, and statements from anyone below that threshold would be ignored.
In response to the snarky aside in the summary, the Cardspace designers actually had anonymous use cases in mind when they designed it. You can generate a card at any time with any information on it. When you submit a card to a site, you get to choose what personal information (if any) gets sent along with it. And, there is a unique ID generated for each site/card combination. So, you could create 100 different cards named "Anonymous Coward" and use a different one each time you came to Slashdot to post as 100 different Anonymous Cowards from one machine.
I can't speak on the figure-out-who-you-are-by-your-browsing-habits bit, but Cardspace was specifically designed to *not* be Passport 2.0. Kim Cameron is one of the big names in the identity community, and his Laws of Identity are considered the standard by which identity solutions are judged. Microsoft bought the identity startup (Zoomit) where he was working and once they realized who they had on their hands, gave him the title Architect of Identity.
With Passport, users were expected to trust Microsoft with their personal information, including their credit card numbers. The data would be stored on Microsoft's servers, and customers weren't willing to trust Microsoft with that data given all the privacy & security problems going on with Hotmail at the time.
Cardspace stores your data on your machine, in a tightly-controlled section of Windows. The UI runs in a separate desktop overlaid on top of your current one, and there is a limited API for getting access to the data in the "vault". If you give one of your cards to a site, the UI tells you what information they're requesting and lets you decide which required and optional fields to send.
It's a major step forward in user-centric identity.
I second this! I keep the Windows and Linux versions of PasswordSafe on a USB key I wear around my neck, and back them whole thing up weekly. It's free, secure, and usually on-hand when I need it.
I, for one, was very impressed with DOS Shell, which made its debut in MS-DOS 4.x. The task switcher was a nice introduction to being able to run more than one program at once before taking the plunge and buying a copy of Windows 3.11.
My guess is that the feds would argue that this is a plus, because then they could go after them for having & using a fake ID. It's kind of like how they ended up going after Capone for tax evasion.
But that's just a hunch. That and $1 will get you a Coke.
The most secure OS in the world wont protect you from a poorly-coded app. How many people are trying to crack your server at the OS level vs. the number of people looking for SQL injection vulnerabilities?
There was talk about converting the server-side scripting engine to Mono, with huge (50x) performance gains. There was supposed to be a LSL->CIL compiler at first, then libraries for other.Net languages.
Has anyone heard anything about this recently?
Slashdot Mirror
My memory is a little fuzzy, but I don't think that was the case before SP2. Before then, if your computer was hooked up to the Internet, you could get a virus in the time it took to boot it the first time and install antivirus software. The XP firewall was disabled by default, allowing a DCOM bug to be exploited.
If you're looking for *nix groups specifically, there's Uniforum, which meets at the IIT campus in Wheaton. Also, I run a PHP Meetup group which meets in Glen Ellyn.
I ran Linux when I last had Comcast installed. They asked "do you have *any* computer here with Windows? We can't do this without Windows." Of course, this was when they were using those stupid install CDs.
It might be a Chicago thing. I haven't heard of anyone taking the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray plunge here either.
They already send out ads for their "viagara" with my home business's main contact email in the "from" header. What makes you think *real* identity fraud is beneath them?
Lots of people in this discussion mention that they don't use any of the math they were forced to take in college. I think the problem is that schools are requiring the wrong kinds of math, or maybe they're using math to "weed out" students instead of helping them. I think classes in formal logic and discrete math are invaluable to computer science students. Calc...eh, not so much.
Thinking like a computer...using Boolean logic perhaps? Those if-then-else structures you love are a way of expressing algebraic statements, even if the language you're using to express them is more like English than algebra.
Further, when you simplify:
into
you're using commutation, a mathematical property.
See, you're better at math than you thought.
That's a fine argument, but not really applicable to this case. What's at issue is your right to record how the police treat you. Cameras are one was to equalize the power imbalance between the police and the citizenry without putting deadly weapons in everyone's hands. It's already proven effective, with 400 people released after the 2004 Republican National Convention because of amateur video evidence (granted, not their own videotape). Even if the police are recording what goes on, they can't necessarily be trusted.
From the NY Times article:
The defendant in TFA was a passenger in the vehicle that was pulled over, not some random passer-by. Similarly, a man in New Hampshire was arrested a year ago for wiretapping when he recorded police coming to his door and treating him "rudely". When he brought the tape the police dept. to complain, they arrested him on the charge, which was later dropped, just like in this case.
I would. This isn't 1999 anymore. Javascript has made big strides in security in the past few years.
In response to the snarky aside in the summary, the Cardspace designers actually had anonymous use cases in mind when they designed it. You can generate a card at any time with any information on it. When you submit a card to a site, you get to choose what personal information (if any) gets sent along with it. And, there is a unique ID generated for each site/card combination. So, you could create 100 different cards named "Anonymous Coward" and use a different one each time you came to Slashdot to post as 100 different Anonymous Cowards from one machine.
I can't speak on the figure-out-who-you-are-by-your-browsing-habits bit, but Cardspace was specifically designed to *not* be Passport 2.0. Kim Cameron is one of the big names in the identity community, and his Laws of Identity are considered the standard by which identity solutions are judged. Microsoft bought the identity startup (Zoomit) where he was working and once they realized who they had on their hands, gave him the title Architect of Identity.
With Passport, users were expected to trust Microsoft with their personal information, including their credit card numbers. The data would be stored on Microsoft's servers, and customers weren't willing to trust Microsoft with that data given all the privacy & security problems going on with Hotmail at the time.
Cardspace stores your data on your machine, in a tightly-controlled section of Windows. The UI runs in a separate desktop overlaid on top of your current one, and there is a limited API for getting access to the data in the "vault". If you give one of your cards to a site, the UI tells you what information they're requesting and lets you decide which required and optional fields to send.
It's a major step forward in user-centric identity.
BTW, Kim Cameron has a blog at http://www.identityblog.com/
I second this! I keep the Windows and Linux versions of PasswordSafe on a USB key I wear around my neck, and back them whole thing up weekly. It's free, secure, and usually on-hand when I need it.
Look, everyone's having fun using this as fodder for ripping on corporations. Stop being such a killjoy with your facts and logic.
In all these years, I still haven't beaten it. But I still have fun wandering the landscape and interacting with the locals.
Forgive me for being a little pedantic here, but your while loop terminates (as so does, presumably, the mouse) once it stops smelling cheese.
I, for one, was very impressed with DOS Shell, which made its debut in MS-DOS 4.x. The task switcher was a nice introduction to being able to run more than one program at once before taking the plunge and buying a copy of Windows 3.11.
I'll see your URL with this one... http://tinyurl.com/23vr4y I'd raise ya, but my last few hands have been pretty crummy.
My guess is that the feds would argue that this is a plus, because then they could go after them for having & using a fake ID. It's kind of like how they ended up going after Capone for tax evasion. But that's just a hunch. That and $1 will get you a Coke.
The most secure OS in the world wont protect you from a poorly-coded app. How many people are trying to crack your server at the OS level vs. the number of people looking for SQL injection vulnerabilities?
COPA (the Child Online Protection Act) was overturned, not COPPA (the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act).
And neither should be confused with the Copa, Copacabana, the hottest spot north of Havana...
Here in Illinois, it's due in the following month (by the 10th I think), or else you get a threatening letter.
There was talk about converting the server-side scripting engine to Mono, with huge (50x) performance gains. There was supposed to be a LSL->CIL compiler at first, then libraries for other .Net languages.
Has anyone heard anything about this recently?