If I steal a new processor and reverse engineer it to make my own identical processor, am I 'stealing'? umm...the smart money would have to say yes. Did you create it yourself with your own resources and imagination? No. Would you have it if it weren't for someone else already creating it? No.
I'm having trouble seeing how this is a fuzzy area...
If a penny saved is a penny earned, the same logic can be applied to 'lost sales' (defining this can be a grey area, but stay with me for a second) and in doing so you are essentially 'stealing' from the original creator/owner/seller. Ethical now?
it seemed to have worked for the people in congress that passed the anti-spyware bill a little while ago...even though i originally said it as sort of a joke, when they all realized how much spyware they had on their own computers they were compelled to push it through...whatever works i guess, unfortunately the mindset of 'the masses' makes that necessary
was that "scientific proof" and a link to slashdot that I just saw ?
Just because something happens, or one person experiences something does not imply that it is a fact or in any way normal. I have had a unpatched machine on 'the internet' and in the DMZ as an experiment and actually did not get any viruses or worms at all. Does that mean I'm lying?
okay, so I'm not typically one to defend MS's stance on security, or patches, or their 'make good software the first time' approach to good software...but seriously, what kind of network are you attaching to that you get to the point of "drown[ing] in a sea of viruses and worms after only 4 minutes" ?! Are you that inept at operating your PC and immediately start surfing pr0n sites and the like? Did Windows Update's website attack you with viruses and worms (no irony intended)?
I have a cable modem and see maybe one worm an hour on an average day, maybe two to four...I'd say you have a much better chance of getting scanned by someone looking for vulnerable machines...but you didn't mention that threat at all...
I see your point about Dr.'s, but the mere fact that they're a Dr. tells me their in a certain age bracket, one that typically has considerably less aptitude towards computers. 12 year-olds these days are doing crazy things with computers, and I can only assume that college students have a much higher aptitude for computers than they did even 5 years ago.
Getting back to my original point, I think some parts of the solution originally proposed would be extremely difficult and most likely not work for most of the targetted people (the ones that are already having trouble with their computer). That's great that your solution works in your situation, anything that can cut down on adware and viruses has to be a good thing in some regard...and taking your comment about the web-form to switch networks, we could just take it a step further and sensationalize the entire internet to everyone and scare those people away...but that sounds more like a MS tactic to get people to buy their stuff
Are you making my point for me? I'm happy to see you've been working on this and it does work, I never said it wouldn't. Quick question about your post (which I read), if everyone goes to a page saying they're on this more secure network (read:limited usage network) and how to switch over to fix whatever it is that broke (and how would you detect when these things are broken?) then what is the point...everyone will just switch over and we'll be back where are already are. I just ask you A)read my posts B)think your solution through with an open mind before saying it's perfect for everyone and every situation. (note, you're doing this on a college campus right? Does everyone on the internet, especially the target group for this conversation, have a college degree? high school degree?)
Just a thought, but didn't the police get away with keyloggers similar to this in a somewhat recent article here on Slashdot
I guess it could be different since how the keylogger works is secret because of national security, but if it was similar then I may have a point...if it's legal for them to do without a warrant, it could very well be legal for anyone to do...
I had a class in college and the only thing the teacher ever did was print out powerpoints and show them on the board. That's it! Damn I hated that class...
And let the "Why can't I do ____" phone calls bring down the ISP's PBX...
I guess we're in agreement though, since I was saying there were serious issues with ISP forced firewalls too...and for the ISP to limit it too much from their end they'd be breaking some serious laws regarding that aspect too, not to mention invading everyone's privacy (no matter how legal).
But getting back to the two networks, How would they block dynamic ports? When I go to a website, what if it points to a website on port 8080 or any other port? What if certain parts of that website are drawing files from another webserver on an 'unknown' port?
On paper it seems real nice, but I don't really see how it would work (at least not without some serious hardware improvements that the ISP certainly isn't going to want to spend tons of money on).
ok, anti-spy/ad tools and virus scanning is all you mentioned...these are rather simple to set-up and run (assuming removing ads won't disable some program they happen to be running, in which case you'll have an even more pissed off customer calling you or someone). I already admitted this, my main point is configuring a firewall for dummies...do you expect them to lookup each process (some very necessary and some very bad) to either allow or deny it? Are you going to write a complete list of all processes that may at some time request access to the internet through a software client-side firewall? These are my points...I realize it's quite simple to do some of the things you are talking about...you'd have to read my posts to see what I'm talking about though...
While I agree with your post, can we both also agree that "stay between the lines" "obey speed limits" and the like are much more simplistic than some of those you would need to understand to be truly proficient at protecting your home network. I realize, "don't double click that attachment that says it will show boobies if i do" isn't too complicated, but it also takes place in a different realm than driving a car does.
Perhaps we should blame culture, simply that computers are relatively new, or even that you don't need a license (to show at least some proficiency and basic rules to follow, like a drivers permit) that there are so many problems that can very easily be avoided. What I don't think is that by making (people who have car accidents or get speeding tickets) them install a program that is quite complicated, (even if considering only the conceptual complications) such as a firewall, will help solve the problem to a reasonable degree. By reasonably, I mean not snatching anyone's computer away simply because they did not run Windows Update hourly. Just like we don't get driving licenses revoked after a single accident or ticket.
I'm all for Computer Usage 101 coming with any computer purchase or something in that sense, but ISPs forcing them to install things or improve security beyond their capacity to do so seems unreasonable to me (see parent post/my reply).
That would be great, but for some of the same reasons Joe User isn't already securing his PC is because he doesn't know where to start, let alone how to finish.
Let's say the ISP tells him to run ZoneAlarm (firewall for PCs), he will most likely end up just saying "Allow always" to any suspicious programs requesting internet access, or "Deny always" and he'll just have to call the ISP back to figure out why Windows can't open any TCP/IP connections....it's a great fix on paper, but I think there are a lot of other factors that need to be considered before you assume you can "just tell them to become computer security experts"
the FOIA does not apply to open investigations pertaining to the requestor (and possibly anyone related to the request itself).
Obviously they don't have to tell you they are currently tapping your phone and hand you a transcript of your last conversation as part of the FOIA request.
Touche. I'm not sure which was worse, that I thought someone actually modded it Insighful (meaning, insightful) or that someone said it seriously...or that I bought it at all....touche mr. salesman, touche.
Insightful?!?! He doesn't understand english and he's insightful? It is rewarding people who do a really good job. No one is being punished, unless you think 'punish' means 'not rewarded'. If you get fired for not winning this award in the first few years of employment, then you are getting punished for your half assed job. If you get fired for doing a half assed job, then that serves you right. But don't expect to win any prizes for it and certainly don't think not winning a prize for it is 'punishement'...
I see I may have fallen for it, so at the very least this is to the mod that thought it was insightful...
It's definitely not American English. It seems to be an idiom of English English, but is not used frequently any more. At least that's what I tell from a Google search. Either way, it wasn't made to make sense to 99% of us anyway
I'm going to guess it has something to do with TCP/IP communications being two-way (stateless or statefull). If you use the isolated serial cable to another closed network (creating one dual-located closed network) you wouldn't need them to be one-way...as long as you hid the wires well enough that no one could 'tap in'
You said it yourself. Now, are these the hee-bee-jeebies that caused you to hesitate crossing the road moments before a drunk driver came flying through, or the ones that made you go to bar B instead of bar A, only that have bar A burn down that very night. Or perhaps it was the feeling that you should get out of that bank moments before it was robbed....not sure, but just like pain, sometimes hee-bee-jeebies can be very indicitive of events to come.
but if you built your own computer the old fashion way and the license....you can install it whereever you want:) (if i'm wrong, let me know cuz i did a no-no)
Speaking of ignorant numbnuts...have you ever tried to design any sort of graphic from the command line? (Not counting ASCII-art, of course) Do you really think that everyone can do everything they need to do from any platform? Try to be a little less retarded and think before you try to make a point that should be made much better.
Oh, and Windows isn't necessarily bloat-ware only because of the GUI aspect of it...if you knew more about the operating system itself (how all that 'magic' stuff makes your little commands work) you might realize where the bulk of the problem is and may even realize a thing or two about yourself. Good day.
It didn't happen to be about 82% that responded that they were confused, did it? I try to avoid MSN as much as possible so I couldn't compare it to anything, it may very well have been hard to differentiate...just a hunch about the 82%...
If they did, just goes to show you the power of Google!
Slashdot Mirror
If I steal a new processor and reverse engineer it to make my own identical processor, am I 'stealing'? umm...the smart money would have to say yes. Did you create it yourself with your own resources and imagination? No. Would you have it if it weren't for someone else already creating it? No.
I'm having trouble seeing how this is a fuzzy area...
If a penny saved is a penny earned, the same logic can be applied to 'lost sales' (defining this can be a grey area, but stay with me for a second) and in doing so you are essentially 'stealing' from the original creator/owner/seller. Ethical now?
it seemed to have worked for the people in congress that passed the anti-spyware bill a little while ago...even though i originally said it as sort of a joke, when they all realized how much spyware they had on their own computers they were compelled to push it through...whatever works i guess, unfortunately the mindset of 'the masses' makes that necessary
was that "scientific proof" and a link to slashdot that I just saw ?
Just because something happens, or one person experiences something does not imply that it is a fact or in any way normal. I have had a unpatched machine on 'the internet' and in the DMZ as an experiment and actually did not get any viruses or worms at all. Does that mean I'm lying?
okay, so I'm not typically one to defend MS's stance on security, or patches, or their 'make good software the first time' approach to good software...but seriously, what kind of network are you attaching to that you get to the point of "drown[ing] in a sea of viruses and worms after only 4 minutes" ?! Are you that inept at operating your PC and immediately start surfing pr0n sites and the like? Did Windows Update's website attack you with viruses and worms (no irony intended)?
I have a cable modem and see maybe one worm an hour on an average day, maybe two to four...I'd say you have a much better chance of getting scanned by someone looking for vulnerable machines...but you didn't mention that threat at all...
here here...even if there is oil in our 'nature reserve'...
I see your point about Dr.'s, but the mere fact that they're a Dr. tells me their in a certain age bracket, one that typically has considerably less aptitude towards computers. 12 year-olds these days are doing crazy things with computers, and I can only assume that college students have a much higher aptitude for computers than they did even 5 years ago.
Getting back to my original point, I think some parts of the solution originally proposed would be extremely difficult and most likely not work for most of the targetted people (the ones that are already having trouble with their computer). That's great that your solution works in your situation, anything that can cut down on adware and viruses has to be a good thing in some regard...and taking your comment about the web-form to switch networks, we could just take it a step further and sensationalize the entire internet to everyone and scare those people away...but that sounds more like a MS tactic to get people to buy their stuff
Are you making my point for me? I'm happy to see you've been working on this and it does work, I never said it wouldn't. Quick question about your post (which I read), if everyone goes to a page saying they're on this more secure network (read:limited usage network) and how to switch over to fix whatever it is that broke (and how would you detect when these things are broken?) then what is the point...everyone will just switch over and we'll be back where are already are. I just ask you A)read my posts B)think your solution through with an open mind before saying it's perfect for everyone and every situation. (note, you're doing this on a college campus right? Does everyone on the internet, especially the target group for this conversation, have a college degree? high school degree?)
Just a thought, but didn't the police get away with keyloggers similar to this in a somewhat recent article here on Slashdot
I guess it could be different since how the keylogger works is secret because of national security, but if it was similar then I may have a point...if it's legal for them to do without a warrant, it could very well be legal for anyone to do...
I had a class in college and the only thing the teacher ever did was print out powerpoints and show them on the board. That's it! Damn I hated that class...
And let the "Why can't I do ____" phone calls bring down the ISP's PBX...
I guess we're in agreement though, since I was saying there were serious issues with ISP forced firewalls too...and for the ISP to limit it too much from their end they'd be breaking some serious laws regarding that aspect too, not to mention invading everyone's privacy (no matter how legal).
But getting back to the two networks, How would they block dynamic ports? When I go to a website, what if it points to a website on port 8080 or any other port? What if certain parts of that website are drawing files from another webserver on an 'unknown' port?
On paper it seems real nice, but I don't really see how it would work (at least not without some serious hardware improvements that the ISP certainly isn't going to want to spend tons of money on).
ok, anti-spy/ad tools and virus scanning is all you mentioned...these are rather simple to set-up and run (assuming removing ads won't disable some program they happen to be running, in which case you'll have an even more pissed off customer calling you or someone). I already admitted this, my main point is configuring a firewall for dummies...do you expect them to lookup each process (some very necessary and some very bad) to either allow or deny it? Are you going to write a complete list of all processes that may at some time request access to the internet through a software client-side firewall? These are my points...I realize it's quite simple to do some of the things you are talking about...you'd have to read my posts to see what I'm talking about though...
While I agree with your post, can we both also agree that "stay between the lines" "obey speed limits" and the like are much more simplistic than some of those you would need to understand to be truly proficient at protecting your home network. I realize, "don't double click that attachment that says it will show boobies if i do" isn't too complicated, but it also takes place in a different realm than driving a car does. Perhaps we should blame culture, simply that computers are relatively new, or even that you don't need a license (to show at least some proficiency and basic rules to follow, like a drivers permit) that there are so many problems that can very easily be avoided. What I don't think is that by making (people who have car accidents or get speeding tickets) them install a program that is quite complicated, (even if considering only the conceptual complications) such as a firewall, will help solve the problem to a reasonable degree. By reasonably, I mean not snatching anyone's computer away simply because they did not run Windows Update hourly. Just like we don't get driving licenses revoked after a single accident or ticket. I'm all for Computer Usage 101 coming with any computer purchase or something in that sense, but ISPs forcing them to install things or improve security beyond their capacity to do so seems unreasonable to me (see parent post/my reply).
That would be great, but for some of the same reasons Joe User isn't already securing his PC is because he doesn't know where to start, let alone how to finish.
Let's say the ISP tells him to run ZoneAlarm (firewall for PCs), he will most likely end up just saying "Allow always" to any suspicious programs requesting internet access, or "Deny always" and he'll just have to call the ISP back to figure out why Windows can't open any TCP/IP connections....it's a great fix on paper, but I think there are a lot of other factors that need to be considered before you assume you can "just tell them to become computer security experts"
the FOIA does not apply to open investigations pertaining to the requestor (and possibly anyone related to the request itself).
Obviously they don't have to tell you they are currently tapping your phone and hand you a transcript of your last conversation as part of the FOIA request.
i guess we already figured out why they have a Anonymous Coward option...
Touche. I'm not sure which was worse, that I thought someone actually modded it Insighful (meaning, insightful) or that someone said it seriously...or that I bought it at all....touche mr. salesman, touche.
Insightful?!?! He doesn't understand english and he's insightful? It is rewarding people who do a really good job. No one is being punished, unless you think 'punish' means 'not rewarded'. If you get fired for not winning this award in the first few years of employment, then you are getting punished for your half assed job. If you get fired for doing a half assed job, then that serves you right. But don't expect to win any prizes for it and certainly don't think not winning a prize for it is 'punishement'...
I see I may have fallen for it, so at the very least this is to the mod that thought it was insightful...
It's definitely not American English. It seems to be an idiom of English English, but is not used frequently any more. At least that's what I tell from a Google search. Either way, it wasn't made to make sense to 99% of us anyway
and aside from that, you completely missed my point--thanks for playing.
and when you say conclusively disproven, you mean ignorant and closed minded people said it can't exist because they can't prove it?
There's a huge difference between not proven, and disproven--most of which has to do with higher intelligence and an open mind.
I'm going to guess it has something to do with TCP/IP communications being two-way (stateless or statefull). If you use the isolated serial cable to another closed network (creating one dual-located closed network) you wouldn't need them to be one-way...as long as you hid the wires well enough that no one could 'tap in'
hee-bee-jeebies
You said it yourself. Now, are these the hee-bee-jeebies that caused you to hesitate crossing the road moments before a drunk driver came flying through, or the ones that made you go to bar B instead of bar A, only that have bar A burn down that very night. Or perhaps it was the feeling that you should get out of that bank moments before it was robbed....not sure, but just like pain, sometimes hee-bee-jeebies can be very indicitive of events to come.
but if you built your own computer the old fashion way and the license....you can install it whereever you want :) (if i'm wrong, let me know cuz i did a no-no)
Speaking of ignorant numbnuts...have you ever tried to design any sort of graphic from the command line? (Not counting ASCII-art, of course) Do you really think that everyone can do everything they need to do from any platform? Try to be a little less retarded and think before you try to make a point that should be made much better.
Oh, and Windows isn't necessarily bloat-ware only because of the GUI aspect of it...if you knew more about the operating system itself (how all that 'magic' stuff makes your little commands work) you might realize where the bulk of the problem is and may even realize a thing or two about yourself. Good day.
It didn't happen to be about 82% that responded that they were confused, did it? I try to avoid MSN as much as possible so I couldn't compare it to anything, it may very well have been hard to differentiate...just a hunch about the 82%...
If they did, just goes to show you the power of Google!