Pretty much anyone who starts a war is wrong. I can't think of anything that justifies a war, except fighting for your own freedom/life, and arguably that is not starting a war, just retaliating. That thousands of people would line up into two factions to kill people they do not know, because someone else told them to is the epitome of all that is wrong with humanity.
Elgato's EyeTV system allows you to set the amount of time before and after the scheduled show time for padding, as well as manually adjust program times. I have not had any problems with anything I record, but I only really record about 5 shows regularly, so I might have just lucked out.
Let's start punishing successful people, that will encourage more people to take risks and work hard to become successful
You seem to be under the mistaken belief that the wealthiest people are wealthy because they "take risks and work hard." That is a load of bunk. Of the richest 1% of our country, less than.004% of those people did not have a parent in the richest 1%. Mobility into the upper class is more likely in Iran. Money is power. Having money and the connections that come with it makes it easier to accumulate more money. In a strict capitalist system all money eventually ends up in the hands of one individual. Ask anyone with any experience in economic modeling. In the U.S. we have a managed capitalism that, theoretically allows people to work hard and become financially successful, by breaking up monopolies that threaten to overpower any segment of the market. Unfortunately, that is not happening do to the huge amount of bribery and corruption amongst our government. Do you know what the lottery is? It is hope, pretty much the only hope, of significant upward mobility.
And that is exactly what is wrong with your thinking. As far as this planet is concerned we will either learn to live without war, or we will fight a final war. Basic probability pretty much guarantees that eventually a war will be devastating enough to destroy all life on earth. Some of us would like to see things go the other way.
I'm no pacifist. I don't think killing is unethical. I do think that the only way our species will survive is if we strongly promote the ethical responsibility for killing on all levels. No one should kill someone that they do not know, and have not taken the time to understand unless their life is immediately threatened. No one should put themselves in a position where their life is immediately threatened and use that as an excuse to kill indiscriminately.
The time for letting others think for you and decide who you should kill is rapidly coming to a close. If we continue in this course, and continue to advance technologically, our species will perish.
Yup, I know when I'm buying a new home, directional mics designed to detect gunshots will be a real selling point. I'm sure the real estate agents will be pointing these out right away. Having a gunshot detecting system is not going to help high crime areas. It will provide a fun target for gang-bangers.
Crime is the result of poor education, lack of ethics, and social and financial desperation. If you want to decrease crime just reallocate some of the wealth that has accumulated at the top of the food chain.
So you are the Authority on what constitutes a person?
Nah, not me. Maybe it's that Webster guy. Or maybe it is you, and some other people. The point I was making (albeit in an overly dramatic way) was that laws don't constitute the meaning of the English language, however many lawyers and politicians would like it to be otherwise. Ketchup is not a fruit. Frozen orange juice is not "fresh and perishable produce" just because their are laws that say so.
The original poster said that corporations are not people. I believe that at this point I have adequately expressed my disapproval of quoting legalese to try and assert otherwise.
die and become deconstituted?
deconstituted, what an interesting word to use. I like the idea that dying is being made to sit down, it's very zen. You needn't worry yourself over it, I've written a four line perl script to replace myself.
Therefore, in the United States, corporations are people for most purposes.
That legal document states that for legal purposes, corporations are given the same rights as a person. That does not make them people. Even if Congress passes a law that specifically says that corporations are people, it still does not make it so. If congress passes a law, the pope blesses it, and Jesus comes down from heaven and stamps it "approved by GOD" that still doesn't make it so.
The law has little to do with "most purposes." The law is just a bunch of rules that are mostly ignored unless someone in power wants an excuse to lock someone in a cell. We citizens mostly ignore them.
I think the support and the marketing machinery are really the stumbling blocks here. Juniper already undercuts Cisco prices most of the time, but Cisco has sales people everywhere. This will only take off if someone with some real industry muscle, like IBM, were to market and support it. Also, they really need to build compatibility with the Cisco de-facto-standards and protocols. Without netflow, and the full range of supported protocols, this will not go anywhere.
a bunch of general purpose commodity hardware is going to replace their highly engineered, specialized hardware.
Who said it had to run on commodity hardware? In fact the article specifically mentions trying to get semiconductor manufacturers interested in the project. Linux and the BSDs both run on their share of specialty hardware these days. This just aims to commoditize the software end and provide more flexibility.
If I go to the quickie mart, and after my purchase the clerk says, "Thank you, come again" does that mean I am legally obligated to do so? I mean he would not say that if I was not legally required to do so, would he? Licenses presented to you after you have already purchased goods have never been upheld in court. If someone puts a license agreement inside a box of software, at the beginning of a movie, or at the center of my tootsie roll, it does not matter because that license is not valid.
do not steal it under some flag of freedom just because you think the MPAA or RIAA is making to much money
I don't steal copyrighted works. Nor do I infringe upon legal copyrights by illegally publishing them. I also have no problem with people that do. I see no moral obligation to corporations that have paid politicians to pass ridiculous and antithetical laws. Laws are not always right. Breaking laws that are not right, is not wrong. Stealing the cultural heritage of our children by locking it away and arresting anyone who tries to distribute it, in order to prevent competition with current media crap is unethical. Screw the laws, I never agreed to them, and refuse to be bound by ones with which I do not agree.
why are corporations so quickly and easily linked to *evil*
That is an easy question. Evil is commonly defined as being morally corrupt. Most systems of moral values list greed as immoral. An organization that separates people from responsibility for their actions, in the name of greed is pretty clearly evil by most definitions. When you add into this equation the plethora of other immoral actions taken by corporations, and their relative lack of responsibility, it is even easier to understand the label. They lie, swindle, and cheat. They often ruin people's lives with arbitrary policies. The only punishment applied to them is monetary fines, which most people see as less than just.
Personally, I don't believe that evil exists, at least not in the religious or moral sense. Corporations are, however, highly unethical. And in my opinion, well deserving of their poor reputations.
P.P.S. Get a grammar checker. There are at least 4 grammatical errors in your post, you arrogant bitch.
Yes, there were several typos and grammatical errors in my post. But none were misspellings because I use a spell checker. Given how easy it is to use a spellchecker on most systems, I don't think my advice was out of line. As far as my being an arrogant bitch goes...yes I am arrogant. No, I am not a female dog. Getting a universal grammar checker is a great idea, their is one on my old workstation that never made it over to my laptop. The download is finished now. I'll have to restart my browser before the service is available for Slashdot posts. Thanks for your suggestion.
In America we will spend $200 billion and counting on a misguided war in Iraq instead of on education and research.
Now that's just not true, we made a profit on Iraq so far. Between selling of the natural resources, local industry, and U.S. gov. spending we are billions ahead. Heck, we even had our puppet take out a a few hundred million dollar loan which we divvied up...Oh wait, you meant the people of the U.S.? Yeah, they got screwed big, but don't mistake the U.S. for it's people. The U.S. is composed of companies, not people. People don't generally earn enough to even be counted.
I think you are getting away from the main issue. Windows can (as it currently exists) be functional or moderately secure, but not both. Who is to blame is irrelevant. If MS wants Windows to be secure, they have a number of options. They have already proven that compatibility layers can be built for older versions of the OS, and I think MS has enough pull to get all major developers on board if they just change their APIs and actually require software to run as a user. Most user's do not upgrade to a new OS, they buy a new machine with that software pre-installed. If they buy software that does not work, they blame the software author.
there are too many Joe Users that don't know the first thing about computer security
This is mostly just a cop out. While clueless users will always be vulnerable to trojans and phishing, the vast majority of the security problems in Windows cannot be blamed on them. Apple has, notably, built a system you can sit your grandmother in front of and expect reasonable security. Several of the pre-rolled linux distros are just as secure and nearly as easy to use.
Who said anything about requiring a hardware firewall?
The anonymous coward I was responding to did, item 1, first half of the sentence.
How is it Microsoft or Windows's fault that third party applications
Well considering they wrote some of them, I'd say that is their fault. Also, they set up the system and it's defaults in previous versions, software vendors just coded following MS's best practices, which have now changed, breaking many applications. MS opens network ports for local services and make exceptions for Window's own services in the firewall settings. When 3rd party apps break, because of the same, MS can be faulted for leading the way off the cliff, and not telling all their developers it was coming. I seriously doubt software coders will stop coding under the assumption that the user will be the administrator until MS stops making users administrators by default. For that too, MS can be blamed. They own the platform, but have not fixed these issues, and many users are stuck between a security hole and a software incompatability.
Linux would be going to a nude beach, scantily clad, with some people that may or may not be your bodyguards, in Brazil. You might get mugged or kidnapped, but at least you aren't going to freeze. A good number of Linux users are talented enough to qualify as black belts, and that makes a difference too.
I think this analogy has now been strained and twisted well past any sensibility. It is possible to run a relatively safe windows system, it is also possible to safely walk through Detroit naked. It just is a pain in the arse. I'm happy for your lack of viruses, good luck with that going forward. I'm sorry you live in Detroit, feel free to visit Italy or Brazil some day.
This is just BS. Windows is a secure OS...you just need to enable its security by:
...doing things that make lots of software not work anymore. Enabling the built in firewall breaks many applications. Running as a non-admin breaks many applications. Putting a device between you and the big bad internet is sensible, but is also a demonstration of Window's insecurity. Do you have to buy a separate device to make anything else you own function normally? This boat works just fine so long as you buy these floatation devices and attach them to the sides. I'm happy that you have managed to keep your system up and running without any malware. But that is not proof that windows is secure, and the discussion above was about the fact that you have to take extra steps, that are a major inconvenience, just to have a reasonably secure product. Windows is broken, stop apologizing for MS, and acting like this is how a normal computer should run or they will never fix it.
Windows is insecure. Sorry, that is just the way it is. It can be made better by installing the latest version with the latest service patch, by adding third party software, by adding layers of hardware protection between it an the internet, etc., but it is still pretty piss poor. It is especially bad given that it it the industry leader in market share and produced by a company with more money than god (disclaimer have not checked MS vs. RCC relative financials). Your arguments boils down to, "SP2 fixes the security problems" and it does fix most current exploits, and makes future exploits slightly harder. It also breaks a huge number of programs, including some current offerings from Microsoft themselves and conflicts with a number of device drivers. That does not exactly make it the solution for everyone. For now, Windows 98, ME, 2K, and XP-SP1 all have to be taken into consideration when talking about windows security, because they are all common on most large networks. Does Mac OSX 10.3.2 break any third party programs? Maybe. None that I have noticed though, and certainly no major offerings from Apple. And OSX 10.0.0 does not get p0wn3d if you stick it on the internet for 10 minutes, or a few days for that matter. In fact I'd be willing to bet your WinXP-SP2 machine gets taken first. And that, is just the way it is.
I was speaking strictly of security. The guards, clothing, location, and heaters can represent hardware firewall and NAT, the lack of default exposed services, reasonable (non su) privileges for normal users, and anti-spyware software, in any order you like. Windows takes many extra steps to make as secure as a default install of many Linux, BSD, OSX, or other *nix distributions. Many Detroit residents know walking outside, naked, at 3AM is a risky idea, just as many Windows users know running Windows without extras is a bad idea. All in all, I think I'd rather be on a nude beach in Italy, whether or not I have clothes, and security guards.
Windows isn't susceptile to malware, if you know what you are doing. Judging from the quantities of infected machines, there seem to be a lot of incompetent computer owners.
By analogy, walking naked in downtown Detroit at 3AM is not unsafe either provided you hire two security guards with shotguns and a guy with a portable heater to keep you warm. It's just that most people are not very smart about their naked Detroit wandering.
There are lots of things you can do, if you know beforehand to do so, that will make running Windows or walking naked in Detroit safer. That does not mean it is not easier, and all around nicer to walk naked on a nude beach in Italy, or run a better OS.
Windows XP, SP1 does include a firewall that is off by default. Google will give you plenty of instructions for enabling it. SP2 merely enables it by default.
This is a flame for everybody who keeps making these assnine comparisons and believes that they're OS integrity is somehow extra special or that Windows M$ is extra bad.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but Windows security is extra bad. Popularity aside, Windows does some really dumb things from a security perspective, both historically and currently, and and security professional will tell you that Windows needs some serious changes to their underlying system if they ever want to make it reasonably secure.
No system is bulletproof, but some of them at least put the bulletproof vest on their chest and the helmet on their head. Windows puts them both on it's ass.
Just because Windows is popular, you should not excuse the designers their crappy security decisions.
The write up did not cover the story very well, and the article is slashdotted, but when/if it comes back up you will be able to note that the study was on a whole series of machines, including patched and unpatched ones subjected to an unfiltered internet connection. Also the study was on machines that were not doing anything. It is significant as a security benchmark for common systems. Most importantly, this was a study commissioned by USA Today, a mainstream news source. As much as you would like to think otherwise, most people (think USA Today readers) do not know how bad Windows security is or how vulnerable their machines are. Most do not know that their machine runs like crap because of spyware, and most do not know there are alternatives. This is probably not news for Slashdot, and not very significant, but some of us read these articles looking for good summaries to send to obtuse management.
Slashdot Mirror
You start a war and you're wrong,
Pretty much anyone who starts a war is wrong. I can't think of anything that justifies a war, except fighting for your own freedom/life, and arguably that is not starting a war, just retaliating. That thousands of people would line up into two factions to kill people they do not know, because someone else told them to is the epitome of all that is wrong with humanity.
Elgato's EyeTV system allows you to set the amount of time before and after the scheduled show time for padding, as well as manually adjust program times. I have not had any problems with anything I record, but I only really record about 5 shows regularly, so I might have just lucked out.
Let's start punishing successful people, that will encourage more people to take risks and work hard to become successful
You seem to be under the mistaken belief that the wealthiest people are wealthy because they "take risks and work hard." That is a load of bunk. Of the richest 1% of our country, less than .004% of those people did not have a parent in the richest 1%. Mobility into the upper class is more likely in Iran. Money is power. Having money and the connections that come with it makes it easier to accumulate more money. In a strict capitalist system all money eventually ends up in the hands of one individual. Ask anyone with any experience in economic modeling. In the U.S. we have a managed capitalism that, theoretically allows people to work hard and become financially successful, by breaking up monopolies that threaten to overpower any segment of the market. Unfortunately, that is not happening do to the huge amount of bribery and corruption amongst our government. Do you know what the lottery is? It is hope, pretty much the only hope, of significant upward mobility.
war will always happen
And that is exactly what is wrong with your thinking. As far as this planet is concerned we will either learn to live without war, or we will fight a final war. Basic probability pretty much guarantees that eventually a war will be devastating enough to destroy all life on earth. Some of us would like to see things go the other way.
I'm no pacifist. I don't think killing is unethical. I do think that the only way our species will survive is if we strongly promote the ethical responsibility for killing on all levels. No one should kill someone that they do not know, and have not taken the time to understand unless their life is immediately threatened. No one should put themselves in a position where their life is immediately threatened and use that as an excuse to kill indiscriminately.
The time for letting others think for you and decide who you should kill is rapidly coming to a close. If we continue in this course, and continue to advance technologically, our species will perish.
Yup, I know when I'm buying a new home, directional mics designed to detect gunshots will be a real selling point. I'm sure the real estate agents will be pointing these out right away. Having a gunshot detecting system is not going to help high crime areas. It will provide a fun target for gang-bangers.
Crime is the result of poor education, lack of ethics, and social and financial desperation. If you want to decrease crime just reallocate some of the wealth that has accumulated at the top of the food chain.
So you are the Authority on what constitutes a person?
Nah, not me. Maybe it's that Webster guy. Or maybe it is you, and some other people. The point I was making (albeit in an overly dramatic way) was that laws don't constitute the meaning of the English language, however many lawyers and politicians would like it to be otherwise. Ketchup is not a fruit. Frozen orange juice is not "fresh and perishable produce" just because their are laws that say so.
The original poster said that corporations are not people. I believe that at this point I have adequately expressed my disapproval of quoting legalese to try and assert otherwise.
die and become deconstituted?
deconstituted, what an interesting word to use. I like the idea that dying is being made to sit down, it's very zen. You needn't worry yourself over it, I've written a four line perl script to replace myself.
BS. Windows is fine...nothing wrong with it. It's like saying that a Volvo isn't safe because you refuse to wear the seatbelt.
Your analogy is very apt, provided the seatbelt weighs 3 tons and has to turned on by a mechanic before being used for all car models before 2004.
No offense.
None taken, but if he lives up to his reputation, I'm siding with the accuser.
Therefore, in the United States, corporations are people for most purposes.
That legal document states that for legal purposes, corporations are given the same rights as a person. That does not make them people. Even if Congress passes a law that specifically says that corporations are people, it still does not make it so. If congress passes a law, the pope blesses it, and Jesus comes down from heaven and stamps it "approved by GOD" that still doesn't make it so.
The law has little to do with "most purposes." The law is just a bunch of rules that are mostly ignored unless someone in power wants an excuse to lock someone in a cell. We citizens mostly ignore them.
While providing similar levels of support.
I think the support and the marketing machinery are really the stumbling blocks here. Juniper already undercuts Cisco prices most of the time, but Cisco has sales people everywhere. This will only take off if someone with some real industry muscle, like IBM, were to market and support it. Also, they really need to build compatibility with the Cisco de-facto-standards and protocols. Without netflow, and the full range of supported protocols, this will not go anywhere.
a bunch of general purpose commodity hardware is going to replace their highly engineered, specialized hardware.
Who said it had to run on commodity hardware? In fact the article specifically mentions trying to get semiconductor manufacturers interested in the project. Linux and the BSDs both run on their share of specialty hardware these days. This just aims to commoditize the software end and provide more flexibility.
If I go to the quickie mart, and after my purchase the clerk says, "Thank you, come again" does that mean I am legally obligated to do so? I mean he would not say that if I was not legally required to do so, would he? Licenses presented to you after you have already purchased goods have never been upheld in court. If someone puts a license agreement inside a box of software, at the beginning of a movie, or at the center of my tootsie roll, it does not matter because that license is not valid.
do not steal it under some flag of freedom just because you think the MPAA or RIAA is making to much money
I don't steal copyrighted works. Nor do I infringe upon legal copyrights by illegally publishing them. I also have no problem with people that do. I see no moral obligation to corporations that have paid politicians to pass ridiculous and antithetical laws. Laws are not always right. Breaking laws that are not right, is not wrong. Stealing the cultural heritage of our children by locking it away and arresting anyone who tries to distribute it, in order to prevent competition with current media crap is unethical. Screw the laws, I never agreed to them, and refuse to be bound by ones with which I do not agree.
why are corporations so quickly and easily linked to *evil*
That is an easy question. Evil is commonly defined as being morally corrupt. Most systems of moral values list greed as immoral. An organization that separates people from responsibility for their actions, in the name of greed is pretty clearly evil by most definitions. When you add into this equation the plethora of other immoral actions taken by corporations, and their relative lack of responsibility, it is even easier to understand the label. They lie, swindle, and cheat. They often ruin people's lives with arbitrary policies. The only punishment applied to them is monetary fines, which most people see as less than just.
Personally, I don't believe that evil exists, at least not in the religious or moral sense. Corporations are, however, highly unethical. And in my opinion, well deserving of their poor reputations.
P.P.S. Get a grammar checker. There are at least 4 grammatical errors in your post, you arrogant bitch.
Yes, there were several typos and grammatical errors in my post. But none were misspellings because I use a spell checker. Given how easy it is to use a spellchecker on most systems, I don't think my advice was out of line. As far as my being an arrogant bitch goes ...yes I am arrogant. No, I am not a female dog. Getting a universal grammar checker is a great idea, their is one on my old workstation that never made it over to my laptop. The download is finished now. I'll have to restart my browser before the service is available for Slashdot posts. Thanks for your suggestion.
In America we will spend $200 billion and counting on a misguided war in Iraq instead of on education and research.
Now that's just not true, we made a profit on Iraq so far. Between selling of the natural resources, local industry, and U.S. gov. spending we are billions ahead. Heck, we even had our puppet take out a a few hundred million dollar loan which we divvied up...Oh wait, you meant the people of the U.S.? Yeah, they got screwed big, but don't mistake the U.S. for it's people. The U.S. is composed of companies, not people. People don't generally earn enough to even be counted.
I think you are getting away from the main issue. Windows can (as it currently exists) be functional or moderately secure, but not both. Who is to blame is irrelevant. If MS wants Windows to be secure, they have a number of options. They have already proven that compatibility layers can be built for older versions of the OS, and I think MS has enough pull to get all major developers on board if they just change their APIs and actually require software to run as a user. Most user's do not upgrade to a new OS, they buy a new machine with that software pre-installed. If they buy software that does not work, they blame the software author.
there are too many Joe Users that don't know the first thing about computer security
This is mostly just a cop out. While clueless users will always be vulnerable to trojans and phishing, the vast majority of the security problems in Windows cannot be blamed on them. Apple has, notably, built a system you can sit your grandmother in front of and expect reasonable security. Several of the pre-rolled linux distros are just as secure and nearly as easy to use.
Who said anything about requiring a hardware firewall?
The anonymous coward I was responding to did, item 1, first half of the sentence.
How is it Microsoft or Windows's fault that third party applications
Well considering they wrote some of them, I'd say that is their fault. Also, they set up the system and it's defaults in previous versions, software vendors just coded following MS's best practices, which have now changed, breaking many applications. MS opens network ports for local services and make exceptions for Window's own services in the firewall settings. When 3rd party apps break, because of the same, MS can be faulted for leading the way off the cliff, and not telling all their developers it was coming. I seriously doubt software coders will stop coding under the assumption that the user will be the administrator until MS stops making users administrators by default. For that too, MS can be blamed. They own the platform, but have not fixed these issues, and many users are stuck between a security hole and a software incompatability.
what would Linux be?
Linux would be going to a nude beach, scantily clad, with some people that may or may not be your bodyguards, in Brazil. You might get mugged or kidnapped, but at least you aren't going to freeze. A good number of Linux users are talented enough to qualify as black belts, and that makes a difference too.
I think this analogy has now been strained and twisted well past any sensibility. It is possible to run a relatively safe windows system, it is also possible to safely walk through Detroit naked. It just is a pain in the arse. I'm happy for your lack of viruses, good luck with that going forward. I'm sorry you live in Detroit, feel free to visit Italy or Brazil some day.
This is just BS. Windows is a secure OS...you just need to enable its security by:
...doing things that make lots of software not work anymore. Enabling the built in firewall breaks many applications. Running as a non-admin breaks many applications. Putting a device between you and the big bad internet is sensible, but is also a demonstration of Window's insecurity. Do you have to buy a separate device to make anything else you own function normally? This boat works just fine so long as you buy these floatation devices and attach them to the sides. I'm happy that you have managed to keep your system up and running without any malware. But that is not proof that windows is secure, and the discussion above was about the fact that you have to take extra steps, that are a major inconvenience, just to have a reasonably secure product. Windows is broken, stop apologizing for MS, and acting like this is how a normal computer should run or they will never fix it.
Windows is insecure. Sorry, that is just the way it is. It can be made better by installing the latest version with the latest service patch, by adding third party software, by adding layers of hardware protection between it an the internet, etc., but it is still pretty piss poor. It is especially bad given that it it the industry leader in market share and produced by a company with more money than god (disclaimer have not checked MS vs. RCC relative financials). Your arguments boils down to, "SP2 fixes the security problems" and it does fix most current exploits, and makes future exploits slightly harder. It also breaks a huge number of programs, including some current offerings from Microsoft themselves and conflicts with a number of device drivers. That does not exactly make it the solution for everyone. For now, Windows 98, ME, 2K, and XP-SP1 all have to be taken into consideration when talking about windows security, because they are all common on most large networks. Does Mac OSX 10.3.2 break any third party programs? Maybe. None that I have noticed though, and certainly no major offerings from Apple. And OSX 10.0.0 does not get p0wn3d if you stick it on the internet for 10 minutes, or a few days for that matter. In fact I'd be willing to bet your WinXP-SP2 machine gets taken first. And that, is just the way it is.
I was speaking strictly of security. The guards, clothing, location, and heaters can represent hardware firewall and NAT, the lack of default exposed services, reasonable (non su) privileges for normal users, and anti-spyware software, in any order you like. Windows takes many extra steps to make as secure as a default install of many Linux, BSD, OSX, or other *nix distributions. Many Detroit residents know walking outside, naked, at 3AM is a risky idea, just as many Windows users know running Windows without extras is a bad idea. All in all, I think I'd rather be on a nude beach in Italy, whether or not I have clothes, and security guards.
Windows isn't susceptile to malware, if you know what you are doing. Judging from the quantities of infected machines, there seem to be a lot of incompetent computer owners.
By analogy, walking naked in downtown Detroit at 3AM is not unsafe either provided you hire two security guards with shotguns and a guy with a portable heater to keep you warm. It's just that most people are not very smart about their naked Detroit wandering.
There are lots of things you can do, if you know beforehand to do so, that will make running Windows or walking naked in Detroit safer. That does not mean it is not easier, and all around nicer to walk naked on a nude beach in Italy, or run a better OS.
Windows XP, SP1 does include a firewall that is off by default. Google will give you plenty of instructions for enabling it. SP2 merely enables it by default.
This is a flame for everybody who keeps making these assnine comparisons and believes that they're OS integrity is somehow extra special or that Windows M$ is extra bad.
Well, I hate to break it to you, but Windows security is extra bad. Popularity aside, Windows does some really dumb things from a security perspective, both historically and currently, and and security professional will tell you that Windows needs some serious changes to their underlying system if they ever want to make it reasonably secure.
No system is bulletproof, but some of them at least put the bulletproof vest on their chest and the helmet on their head. Windows puts them both on it's ass.
Just because Windows is popular, you should not excuse the designers their crappy security decisions.
P.S. Get a spellchecker.
The write up did not cover the story very well, and the article is slashdotted, but when/if it comes back up you will be able to note that the study was on a whole series of machines, including patched and unpatched ones subjected to an unfiltered internet connection. Also the study was on machines that were not doing anything. It is significant as a security benchmark for common systems. Most importantly, this was a study commissioned by USA Today, a mainstream news source. As much as you would like to think otherwise, most people (think USA Today readers) do not know how bad Windows security is or how vulnerable their machines are. Most do not know that their machine runs like crap because of spyware, and most do not know there are alternatives. This is probably not news for Slashdot, and not very significant, but some of us read these articles looking for good summaries to send to obtuse management.