Now if only they could evolve coherent thought to power the language adaptation.
Hell, even in the movie Firestarter the chickens knew to flee eminent firestarting activity whilst government agents watched said chickens run for it...
"(Basically, the UNIX-based stuff has been secure against cache poisoning
for quite some time, but there may always be a bug or design flaw that
is discovered. We are not quite sure why Microsoft left a default
configuration to be unsecure in NT4 and 2000. (Exercise to reader:
insert Microsoft security comment/opinion/joke here, but keep it to
yourself)."
Has anyone notice that it seems easier to commit identity theft now than before the so-called "IT industrial revolution"?
The same kind of thinking that got us into this situation won't get us out. Technology won't solve the problem - it'll probably just make it worse. Imagine if we used DNA as the basis for identity. Then, everyone with a strand of your hair could own you. Hey - isn't that what vodoo practioners do when they get piece of something personal to you (that has your DNA) and make a vodoo doll to torment you with?
There is no substitute for getting people to think for themselves. The more 'thinking-for-themselves' people there are involved in the indentity system, and the less automated the system is, the more secure it is. It'll just be less convenient.
Hmm - first of all, its not an article, its an ad, and I think it would help if people in general called it out for what it is. After all, there's no author. Secondly, its obviously an ad to convince you not to buy an iPod, and that's all it is.
Expecting an ad to be accurate is like expecting a fart to smell like perfume.
There are several ironies that one cannot help poke fun at:
"Let a professional make your next playlist"
A professional what? Playlists are bought and sold. There's about as much 'professional insight' in radio playlists as there is in coming up will silly ways of walking.
"Don't get locked into one online store."
How about "don't get locked into one OS/Office Suite/browser vendor"? Just couldn't resist that one.
Also, people should remember that this ad came from a corporation. Corporations are by definition non-living entities which have the capacity to act as if they were living beings. In other words, they enjoy many of the same rights and benefits as living, breathing human beings (more, in fact), but have no internal moral code to speak of, since they're not people. Without an internal moral code, they could be accurately thought of as severely mentally ill.
So, you could interview any severely mentally ill individual and get information just as good/delusional as you get from Microsoft:
Linux costs more that Windows
Aliens from outer space talk to my brain
Linux is/will be illegal
MP3 Players with hard drives are not as good as those without
DDT - good for you, good for me
Windows is more secure that Linux
The drinking water is seeded with mind control drugs from the CIA
"Trusted Computing" makes all things computer trustworthy
Sharks don't bite
The patent system works just fine for software
We have your best interests in mind
Maybe/. should have a "Delusional Corporate Drivel" (I know, triple redundant) icon for stuff like this MS Ad...
Some protocols are insecure, like ftp, but most are not. To be sure, BGP is not secure at all, but has not been exploited either. And there is a lot that can be done to secure protocols. However, making protocols more secure (adding an identity layer to TCP or UDP, for example) will not make windows secure.
Claiming protocols are insecure as a way of accounting for microsoft's largely pathetic security track record is like blaming bad locks on a house on the fact that roads exist. Other vendors do have security issues, but MS takes the lead by a large margin. Any real addressing of the IT infrastructure needs to address their deplorable security performance.
Hmm... trusted computing from trusted corporations... gives me that warm fuzzy feeling, like I get just before I throw up.
I think its a given that most people will think this protects their windows box from viruses and spam. When they find out it doesn't, they'll trust "trusted computing" and the "trusted corporations" it comes from even less. Nobody will have seen that one coming, at least not the drones that dreamed it up.
Maybe they'll end up being forced to put a truth-in-advertising disclaimer on the 'Trusted Computing Inside" sticker that'll get stamped on the computer - "Trusted computing doesn't protect you from viruses, trojans, or spam. It just means we don't trust YOU to compute responsibly"
At least I know who not to buy computers from. There will always be a market for freedom.
Too bad. Seems odd, though, that GM sites lack of parts and liability as reasons. After all, if they were really worried about liability, why would they have allowed them to be purchased in the first place.
I see three possibilities for the article's glaring errors - either the author of the article left out lots of insightfull answers from Robb Rasmussen, or the author didn't ask many questions, or Robb Rasmussen can't connect the dots.
"does not consider Linux to be a suitable operating system for the largest of enterprise customers because the open source operating system has issues with security, scalability and the possibility of forking."
Linux's security track record compares quite favorably or at least on par with Solaris, AIX, True65, even BSD. Oh, and yes, it puts windows security to shame, but then, doesn't everything?
Linux's scaleablity is on par with other Unixes, and of course far past windows what windows tries to pass of as 'scalability'. Cisco, for example, is moving to linux due to its superior scaling qualities.
As for the forking 'issue', god forbid that people should try new things. That would *never* happen in the windows OSes, or Solaris. Apparently Rasmussen thinks we must fear all new things or he doesn't have the slightest clue as to what forking is. So far it seems that the articles errors are mostly due to Rasmussen's lack of basic industry grasp
"We see some of the same things occurring that did to Unix -- it could splinter into many different types of languages."
In any context, this statement is just plain stupid.
"Also, we are somewhat cautious about what happened with Unix - it splintered into eight applications -- until McNealy (Scott McNealy, chief executive of Sun) finally announced he won the battle and had the one surviving Unix out there"
At this point, it clear this guy is totally ignorant of the current landscape.
Final verdict - the article's author could have asked more thoughtfull questions, but probably would have gotten either dead air, or answers even more foolish sounding that the above statements.
So, if you're a foreign government, the US government has one month to break into your unpatched systems. Or, if you're anyone the US government doesn't like, the CIA, FBI, HLS, etc., has a month to hack your unpatched systems.
I give Microsoft credit for possessing at least a basic understanding of Machiavelli.
allowing a parent talk to the child through a special phone, or monitor the child via a camera and wireless Internet connection.
Who else gets to monitor your child, or tell them what to do? "Teddy says go and open the door..".
Given the track record for home wireless security, and MS's own track record for security, it just seems like the wrong kind of opportunity for the wrong kind of people. Combining microsoft and wireless child monitoring gives a whole new and disturbing dimension to war driving...
Microsoft is talking with the state Department of Transportation about sharing its interface with the government,
Now that's reassuring. The US govn't would never abuse such a thing. George Orwell eat your heart out....
Here's my windows.vs. linux driver story. I recently bought a thinkpad with Win98SE, and installed Win200pro. For ethernet connectivity, it had a pcmcia card with a dongle. Predictably, the dongle quit working, so I installed and internal ethernet card. The 2000pro I bought had no drivers for this card, a card that has been around for years. Windows 2000pro could not recognize the card. I dug around and found drivers at Intel's web sight, ran the installer, which didn't work. The second download/installer round did work.
I installed SuSe 9.1, it recongnized the card and ran perfectly with no problems. More so, my roommate, a garden-variety computer user, sat down to use SuSe to browse the web, read/write email, and etc, and had zero issues whatsoever. She really didn't know it wasen't running windows.
Linux (SuSe) 1, Windows 0.
Slashdot Mirror
"Tiger is in fact a minor upgrade with few major new features, more akin to what we'd call a service pack in the Windows world."
Doesn't seem that way. Its got new features, which is the point of the release. Do service packs typically add significant features?
"became famous for slowing down light, which normally travels at 186,000 miles per second, to less than the speed of a bicycle.
I'd like to see how she managed to get light to run in java
What's that other law that predicted the end of Moore's law?
Oh, yeah, that one real law. Two objects can't occupy the same space at the same time...
Bill Gates' open letter to hobbyists.
"Only human brains are able to produce language"
Now if only they could evolve coherent thought to power the language adaptation.
Hell, even in the movie Firestarter the chickens knew to flee eminent firestarting activity whilst government agents watched said chickens run for it...
Man was it nice....
"(Basically, the UNIX-based stuff has been secure against cache poisoning for quite some time, but there may always be a bug or design flaw that is discovered. We are not quite sure why Microsoft left a default configuration to be unsecure in NT4 and 2000. (Exercise to reader: insert Microsoft security comment/opinion/joke here, but keep it to yourself)."
mmphm...!
"3.2.2. Jumbo Packets
It is no longer appropriate to refer to "jumbo packets". Please use the term "capacitorially challenged".
Also known as "Fat Bastard" packets.
Has anyone notice that it seems easier to commit identity theft now than before the so-called "IT industrial revolution"?
The same kind of thinking that got us into this situation won't get us out. Technology won't solve the problem - it'll probably just make it worse. Imagine if we used DNA as the basis for identity. Then, everyone with a strand of your hair could own you. Hey - isn't that what vodoo practioners do when they get piece of something personal to you (that has your DNA) and make a vodoo doll to torment you with?
There is no substitute for getting people to think for themselves. The more 'thinking-for-themselves' people there are involved in the indentity system, and the less automated the system is, the more secure it is. It'll just be less convenient.
Expecting an ad to be accurate is like expecting a fart to smell like perfume.
There are several ironies that one cannot help poke fun at:
A professional what? Playlists are bought and sold. There's about as much 'professional insight' in radio playlists as there is in coming up will silly ways of walking.
How about "don't get locked into one OS/Office Suite/browser vendor"? Just couldn't resist that one.
Also, people should remember that this ad came from a corporation. Corporations are by definition non-living entities which have the capacity to act as if they were living beings. In other words, they enjoy many of the same rights and benefits as living, breathing human beings (more, in fact), but have no internal moral code to speak of, since they're not people. Without an internal moral code, they could be accurately thought of as severely mentally ill.
So, you could interview any severely mentally ill individual and get information just as good/delusional as you get from Microsoft:
Maybe
"Take the personal out of computing"
Isn't that pretty much what microsoft did/is doing?
Bill's right, though, that the most revolutionary years are yet to come. Linux's just getting started...
Some protocols are insecure, like ftp, but most are not. To be sure, BGP is not secure at all, but has not been exploited either. And there is a lot that can be done to secure protocols. However, making protocols more secure (adding an identity layer to TCP or UDP, for example) will not make windows secure.
Claiming protocols are insecure as a way of accounting for microsoft's largely pathetic security track record is like blaming bad locks on a house on the fact that roads exist. Other vendors do have security issues, but MS takes the lead by a large margin. Any real addressing of the IT infrastructure needs to address their deplorable security performance.
These people must be really, really smart
"software is a major vulnerability"
"endless patching is not the answer"
Did they recommend BREAKING UP THE OS MONOPOLY CHIEFLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAJORITY OF THE PROBLEM?
I didn't see that one
3d Jar-Jar...
Thanks. Now I'm going to have nightmares. The bad kind.
$1.8 billion dollars per year is a lot of money. Even to Microsoft.
Aren't they selling Xboxen at below cost? How much are they losing from that?
It tries to eat your brains.
Hmm... trusted computing from trusted corporations
I think its a given that most people will think this protects their windows box from viruses and spam. When they find out it doesn't, they'll trust "trusted computing" and the "trusted corporations" it comes from even less. Nobody will have seen that one coming, at least not the drones that dreamed it up.
Maybe they'll end up being forced to put a truth-in-advertising disclaimer on the 'Trusted Computing Inside" sticker that'll get stamped on the computer - "Trusted computing doesn't protect you from viruses, trojans, or spam. It just means we don't trust YOU to compute responsibly"
At least I know who not to buy computers from. There will always be a market for freedom.
Too bad. Seems odd, though, that GM sites lack of parts and liability as reasons. After all, if they were really worried about liability, why would they have allowed them to be purchased in the first place.
:-(
Here a link to pics of the remains.
I see three possibilities for the article's glaring errors - either the author of the article left out lots of insightfull answers from Robb Rasmussen, or the author didn't ask many questions, or Robb Rasmussen can't connect the dots.
"does not consider Linux to be a suitable operating system for the largest of enterprise customers because the open source operating system has issues with security, scalability and the possibility of forking."
Linux's security track record compares quite favorably or at least on par with Solaris, AIX, True65, even BSD. Oh, and yes, it puts windows security to shame, but then, doesn't everything?
Linux's scaleablity is on par with other Unixes, and of course far past windows what windows tries to pass of as 'scalability'. Cisco, for example, is moving to linux due to its superior scaling qualities.
As for the forking 'issue', god forbid that people should try new things. That would *never* happen in the windows OSes, or Solaris. Apparently Rasmussen thinks we must fear all new things or he doesn't have the slightest clue as to what forking is. So far it seems that the articles errors are mostly due to Rasmussen's lack of basic industry grasp
"We see some of the same things occurring that did to Unix -- it could splinter into many different types of languages."
In any context, this statement is just plain stupid.
"Also, we are somewhat cautious about what happened with Unix - it splintered into eight applications -- until McNealy (Scott McNealy, chief executive of Sun) finally announced he won the battle and had the one surviving Unix out there"
At this point, it clear this guy is totally ignorant of the current landscape.
Final verdict - the article's author could have asked more thoughtfull questions, but probably would have gotten either dead air, or answers even more foolish sounding that the above statements.
One more finger
So, if you're a foreign government, the US government has one month to break into your unpatched systems. Or, if you're anyone the US government doesn't like, the CIA, FBI, HLS, etc., has a month to hack your unpatched systems.
I give Microsoft credit for possessing at least a basic understanding of Machiavelli.
allowing a parent talk to the child through a special phone, or monitor the child via a camera and wireless Internet connection.
Who else gets to monitor your child, or tell them what to do? "Teddy says go and open the door..".
Given the track record for home wireless security, and MS's own track record for security, it just seems like the wrong kind of opportunity for the wrong kind of people. Combining microsoft and wireless child monitoring gives a whole new and disturbing dimension to war driving...
Microsoft is talking with the state Department of Transportation about sharing its interface with the government,
Now that's reassuring. The US govn't would never abuse such a thing. George Orwell eat your heart out....
Infinitely more so than 95 or 98.
Being more stable than 95/98 is like shooting fish in a barrel...
Does he become a full member of the House of Lords?
Can I challenge him to a jousting match? I'll even let him choose the OS his mechanical horse runs...
Here's my windows .vs. linux driver story. I recently bought a thinkpad with Win98SE, and installed Win200pro. For ethernet connectivity, it had a pcmcia card with a dongle. Predictably, the dongle quit working, so I installed and internal ethernet card. The 2000pro I bought had no drivers for this card, a card that has been around for years. Windows 2000pro could not recognize the card. I dug around and found drivers at Intel's web sight, ran the installer, which didn't work. The second download/installer round did work.
I installed SuSe 9.1, it recongnized the card and ran perfectly with no problems. More so, my roommate, a garden-variety computer user, sat down to use SuSe to browse the web, read/write email, and etc, and had zero issues whatsoever. She really didn't know it wasen't running windows.
Linux (SuSe) 1, Windows 0.