This is not anything like that at all... Nintendo is saying that he cannot "speaking publicly about his hobbies". What if a hobby was reading books, oops, no book club for him. Hacking Linux... stay away from your local LUG. Drinking beer, can't do it socially.
Now I realize that the article is very vague on the terms of this, but I suspect that it is far broader than it needs to be.
I personally think this is just plain stupid anyway, all it does is give grounds for termination... which most employers can do without grounds anyway. Now if they hold him financially liable it's a whole different story.
No movie requires a "rocking and expensive home theater" and I will agree 100% that some of the best movies could almost be enjoyed on a 60 year old black and white set. In fact I would say some can't truely be appreciated with out an old school film projector clacking away beside you.
But I have to say that I find myself far more absorbed watching even the greatest movies when the sound is loud enough to drown out any distractions, the room is dark, and the picture is large and clear. Why... because I, like everyone, cannot focus all of my attention on anything, there are always distractions that part of your brain will be drawn to.
So, a "rocking and expensive home theater", though unnecessary to enjoy a movie, can serve to further that enjoyment when it is available.
All I know is that I just watched Schindlers List on DVD again on my modest HD home theater and compared to my old SDTV and cheap sound system, I found myself engrossed like never before. Though I have never "just watched" that movie.
Nonsense... I know the functional specifications... I only consult with users when they report that their system is not operating within those predetermined functional specifications... IE when it's broken.
Besides my PRIMARY function does not include consulting with users in any capacity. I fix non-working systems. Sure I do consult the user on some issues... however that is a very minimal portion of my work.
Be careful not to generalize... not all computer positions qualify for expemptions... only those where your PRIMARY responsibility is:
1) The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications; 2) The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications; 3) The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or 4) A combination of the aforementioned duties, the performance of which requires the same level of skills.
Essentially you need to be part of the development process to qualify for the computer exemption. I am fighting with my employer to convince them that I am non-exempt because all I do is end user and network support. If they fail to yeild then I will file a complaint with the Department of Labor, just as Apple's employees should have done!
Be careful not to generalize... not all computer related positions qualify for expemptions... only those where your PRIMARY responsibility is:
1) The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications; 2) The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications; 3) The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or 4) A combination of the aforementioned duties, the performance of which requires the same level of skills.
Essentially you need to be part of the development process to qualify for the computer exemption. I am fighting with my employer to convince them that I am non-exempt because all I do is end user and network support. If they fail to yeild then I will file a complaint with the Department of Labor, just as Apple's employees should have done!
Be careful not to generalize... not all computer related positions qualify for expemptions... only those where your PRIMARY responsibility is:
1) The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications; 2) The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications; 3) The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or 4) A combination of the aforementioned duties, the performance of which requires the same level of skills.
Essentially you need to be part of the development process to qualify for the computer exemption. I am fighting with my employer to convince them that I am non-exempt because all I do is end user and network support. If they fail to yeild then I will file a complaint with the Department of Labor, just as Apple's employees should have done!
The purpose of curving the sensor is so that you can maintain an equal ratio of pixels to degrees horizontal and vertical... IE if the lens is capable of 180 degrees horizontal... and you have an 1800 pixel display... you want 10 pixels per degree of view.
Why not just use a glass lens and a sensor array that has more pixels at the edges than in the middle... no fish eye, no distortion, no curved sensor.
students shouldn't learn to write viruses because it is a poor way to learn information security
I don't agree. It would be a poor way if it was the only way you learned, however it's acutally an excellent lesson for students who would otherwise fail to recognize just how easy it is to do and just how unprotected they are by software AV solutions.
Sometimes the best way to teach something is to immerse the student in it... and even better is to show them the other side of things.
Your statement is like saying that taking classes in breaking software (unpredictable behaviour) is a poor way to learn to test software. The more intimately you understand the threats, the better you can protect against them.
Besides... a class like this will breed a bunch of new Linux users cuz they will realize how easy it is for their windows machines to be pwned.
Yes there is a point that it stops... the desert becomes fertile and eventually a forest. Then as the cycle continues, it becomes a desert again.
Like most systems in our universe it is in equilibrium... it is nearly impossible for any natural process to remain out of equilibrium for very long, they all self regulate.
What may actually happen is that all of our carbon emmissions will create a greener planet in the long run... temps will rise causing more moisture in the atmosphere and more rain... the previously dry deserts will become wetter and capable of sustaining trees and grasses, the soil will become increasingly fertile, and slowly the deserts will disappear.
Of course a few million years will go by and the trend will reverse as the CO2 in the atmosphere is reduced and the planet cools and more water is trapped in ice.
I think that the worst thing we humans can do is speed or even start a shift in the equilibrium, when it's all said and done the earth will compensate.
Read the laws reguarding overtime. According the the Fair Labor Standards Act, an employee must be classified as exempt by meeting certain legal requirements, or they must be paid 1.5x their hourly wage. The law specifically states that no contract or agreement between employee and employer can override the law.
In this case, it appears that the workers signed contracts which said that they wouldn't get paid an hourly rate, which means that they don't get overtime. Which means (at least in this case), that they can get over worked for nothing.
Read the laws reguarding overtime. According the the Fair Labor Standards Act, an employee must be classified as exempt by meeting certain legal requirements, or they must be paid 1.5x their hourly wage. The law specifically states that no contract or agreement between employee and employer can override the law.
Read all about it, you very well might be a victim too!
best guess is that the larger machines require a greater quantity of blood... thus reducing the amount in the patient by a greater percentage in smaller patients.
I have posted a ton of replies, so I'm not gonna respond to everything you said... but there is one area that I can see things improved.
As far as patching risk analysis is concerned... why couldn't MS do this for us.
For example, they score each and every patch based upon several factors successful installations, Exploit Risk, stability risk, etc. Additionally, they assess the risk based upon the function of the target system so that patches to IIS score higher for machines that are primarily a web server and IE patches score higher for workstations. Finally, the administrator configures Windows Update so that it is aware of the primary and secondary functions of the machine, that machine's environment (corporate firewall, remote connectivity, etc.) and they sets thresholds for the ratio of risk that is acceptable.
With this system in place, I could blindly apply any patch that has been widely deployed and has a low risk of instability, or fixes an extremely high risk exploit on my servers... while being a little more accepting of risk on my workstations. My test stations could automatically apply all patches early on and I could provide feedback to MS on those machines.
Because MS should know the potential ramifications of a fixed typo vs a complete rewrite, they can properly assess the risk of many patches simply on the scope of the change. Additionally I wouldn't apply risky but unnecessary patches to machines that don't really need them because they are behind a corporate firewall for example.
I agree that blind patching isn't necessarily the solution... but something like this would make automated security patching far less scary.
I realize that I'm being a bit of an idealist... but seriously, when did it become OK for anyone to just do the bare minimum necessary to make a buck. Microsoft has repeatedly failed to go beyond what was required to keep them ahead of the competition, and they didn't do it by creating a better product than the competition in most cases.
I am sure you have heard "WITH GREAT POWER THERE MUST ALSO COME - - GREAT RESPONSIBILITY" (Stan Lee). It's a bit cliche, but it is true. MS is one of the most powerful companies in the world... if not THE most powerful were they to exert their influence. With that power they need to assume some responsibility. They could start by ensuring that the users of their products are not placed at risk by simply connecting it to the internet.
Call me an unrealistic, or nieve, or whatever. But it doesn't change the fact that Microsoft is not even coming close to doing all that they could do to make the best OS on the market and to ensure that those buying it are safe. In fact, I would guess that they spend more money hiding or distracting users from the problems with Windows than they do actually fixing them.
Microsoft has the power and the resources to develop an OS that is so stable and so secure that it could be compared to medical equipment. Sure it would be overkill, I realize that, I just want them doing more than dumping the responsibility for their shortcomings to third parties and requiring thier customers to purchase a third party product just to be protected from the problems within their software.
I agree... and I wrote it... it is purely speculation and personal opinion, as is anything I post unless I specifically claim it as fact.
However, they obviously have given pay raises in the past, added pay catagories, made changes to they amount and ways that people have been paid. Therefore I have to conclude that the system does not hardcode this information and it is instead comprised of adjustable values.
Again, I could be wrong and every adjustment requires the work of a Cobol programmer, but that is very unlikely.
Medical equipment software, space shuttle navigation software, and other robust software though very narrow in scope is no different than Windows. It's all the same stuff at it's core... it's just the quantity that differs. I realize that to create something on the scale of Windows following the development practices used in the medical, aviation, and similar industries, would be very time consuming and expensive. But like anything else these days, Windows is modular, and as such this type of work could be broken into many smaller peices similar in scope to that of the x-ray scanner you mentioned. With MS's resources, they could approach the reliablity of that x-ray scanner if they chose to do so.
When I use the terms unsafe, I mean that during standard use it puts it's user at risk and the manufacturer expects the user to purchase additional products to achive any sort of safety. It would be like Ford saying that they put cheap Firestone tires on their trucks and it's the dead drivers' faults for not replacing them with tires that would prevent roll over. Or how about a toy manufacturer that sprays their toys with lead paint then saying it's the parents responsibility to strip the paint off and repaint with something non toxic before they let thier children play with it.
I realize that you cannot expect MS, or any company, to create a perfectly safe product. However they can prevent 99% of the unsafe conditions that result by use of that product. And they definately should be held responsible when their NEGLIGENCE causes undo harm to a user. There is a clear legal definition of negligence and trust me MS is one of the most negligent companies around.
Anyway, it all comes down to one point. MS has the abilty and the responsibility to ensure that the users of their software are as safe from harm as can be resonably expected; how they do it is none of my concern.
I do understand the why... but your explaining the why in the current situation that was created by MS's... failures?
Had MS spent more time developing good software with sane security there would be a far lower amount of risk.
Besides that, what makes you think that a machine that is unpatched will have current virus definitions. If MS hadn't convinced people that viruses are not the fault of the software vendor and convinced them that they needed special virus protection, people would be much more in the habit of keeping systems patched. If MS didn't force unnecessary and unwanted patches along with the highly important security patches, people would be much more in the habit of keeping systems patched.
Essentially what MS is doing is suggesting that their patch system is inadequate and instead of fixing it they are going to leave it up to AV vendors to ensure that windows user's operating systems are secure. If you ask me it's absolute bull shit!
A good system for distributing security patches is not that difficult. A method of ranking patches by risk to operational stability vs risk of attack is not that difficult. A way for an administrator to choose how much risk they are willing to accept is not that difficult.
So why not have a system where my server can check for new patches every few hours, and those patches include risk scores dependant upon the function of the system... if I want to get all patches and keep myself secure but risk instability I can... if I would rather wait until the patch has been widely deployed and is considered low risk, I can configure that too. Why involve a third party? Why should the security of my operating system be the responsibility of someone who has no control of the internal working of my OS.
It's easy to justify what MS does, after all Windows is one hell of a complex peice of software. But we are talking about a company that has more resources than many small countries and has their software deployed on Billions of computers world wide. They can do better, and they should!
Then multiply the cost of the OS by a factor anywhere from 10 to 1000.
The cost of development... not the cost to the consumer.
It would take a chunk out of their immediate profits but make them far more secure in their market. Right now MS is slowly losing it advantage in the market place... more and more alternatives are getting attention that don't suffer the same issues as MS products do, and eventually MS's unwillingness to make their core products the best they can be will be their downfall.
This would suggest that the system was totally inflexable... which I doubt.
I would speculate that they could simply keep the current system in place, calculating the pay as usual... and use the reports it generates to populate a new second system that instead pays everyone minimum wage for the same hours.
Now all they need to do is subtract the amount paid by the new second system, from the amount calculated by the old first system and that is the difference owed.
Overtime, vacation time, sick days, etc are still tracked in the old system as usual... even the pay stubs could reflect the actual pay earned vs the pay issued.
I second this suggestion. There are professional tools and services for a reason.
I have even seen devices that actually heat the plastic, effectively making a few microns on the surface flow again, and then buff it perfectly smooth.
I would bet that there is an online service that will restore it to near perfect through a similar method. Just make sure you insure your shipment and provide a detailed list of the package contents.
One other recommendation... store your CD's in a cool, dark, dry, and stable environment for maximum life. I already have disks from the early 90's that are immaculate in appearance but don't play worth a damn. I attribute it to storing them in their jewel cases in my livingroom cd tower... the fluctuations in temperature and humidity and perhaps some UV light have taken their toll. I imagine newer disks have only gotten worse.
Why would MS, if they know about the problem and are planning a patch for it, let the security vendors know. Essentially that would make the vendors a stopgap until the patch is released a few days later.
Why the hell doesn't MS simply release a stop-gap patch themselves and then finalize it on Tuesday. All this does is shift the blame for a bad fix to the security vendor who has a much smaller understanding of the problem's cause and potential effects.
I am so tired of shoddy software from the richest company in the world, there is absolutely no excuse for it! With their resources they could develop the OS using the same practices used in medical equipment software and be able to guarantee a neigh 99.9999% uptime... but instead they release crappy code and milk the public for cash.
I am not a big fan of regulation, however I believe that any company that creates an unsafe product needs to be penalized, even if that product is software. Microsoft has indirectly caused trillions of dollars in lost productivity, theft, vandalisim, security management costs etc... Almost all of which could have been prevented using the resources available to them.
The one thing that MS has going for it is a complete lack of understanding of "open source" by upper management of many companies. I know that at previous jobs I couldn't even use those two words together without fear of a slap on the hand.
I realize that things are shifting and many companies are already investigating "open source" solutions, however they still weigh the pros and cons of both and still usually go for the business model that they understand the most.
Now that Microsoft is trying to be Open Source friendly, their name is appearing in all kinds of articles with those dreaded words "open source" and therefore all those managers who disreguarded that entire sector of the software industry are now that much more willing to let their IT departments experiment with "open source" solutions. And us IT people who have been waiting to jump the MS ship for years actually have an audience for that great MS replacement solution we have had in our heads.
I predict that this pandering to the Open Source community might signal the downfall for MS. Unless they embrace it completely and bleed "open source", they will never be as good as their "truely open" competitors.
It would be like Coke advertising that it now tastes more like (insert cheap cola maker here)... all of those people who have been drinking Coke because they thought it was better because they knew the name will now try the alternative. If the alternative is truely better, who's gonna drink Coke anymore?
I thought about using a stationary bike as a generator and using it to power my TV or computer... that way if I want to use either one I would be forced to exercise. And it would be a fun project to actually implement.
Slashdot Mirror
This is not anything like that at all... Nintendo is saying that he cannot "speaking publicly about his hobbies". What if a hobby was reading books, oops, no book club for him. Hacking Linux... stay away from your local LUG. Drinking beer, can't do it socially.
Now I realize that the article is very vague on the terms of this, but I suspect that it is far broader than it needs to be.
I personally think this is just plain stupid anyway, all it does is give grounds for termination... which most employers can do without grounds anyway. Now if they hold him financially liable it's a whole different story.
No movie requires a "rocking and expensive home theater" and I will agree 100% that some of the best movies could almost be enjoyed on a 60 year old black and white set. In fact I would say some can't truely be appreciated with out an old school film projector clacking away beside you.
But I have to say that I find myself far more absorbed watching even the greatest movies when the sound is loud enough to drown out any distractions, the room is dark, and the picture is large and clear. Why... because I, like everyone, cannot focus all of my attention on anything, there are always distractions that part of your brain will be drawn to.
So, a "rocking and expensive home theater", though unnecessary to enjoy a movie, can serve to further that enjoyment when it is available.
All I know is that I just watched Schindlers List on DVD again on my modest HD home theater and compared to my old SDTV and cheap sound system, I found myself engrossed like never before. Though I have never "just watched" that movie.
Nonsense... I know the functional specifications... I only consult with users when they report that their system is not operating within those predetermined functional specifications... IE when it's broken.
Besides my PRIMARY function does not include consulting with users in any capacity. I fix non-working systems. Sure I do consult the user on some issues... however that is a very minimal portion of my work.
Before someone trys to tell me I am wrong:
Be careful not to generalize... not all computer positions qualify for expemptions... only those where your PRIMARY responsibility is:
1) The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to
determine hardware, software or system functional specifications;
2) The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer
systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design
specifications;
3) The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to
machine operating systems; or
4) A combination of the aforementioned duties, the performance of which requires the same level of
skills.
Essentially you need to be part of the development process to qualify for the computer exemption. I am fighting with my employer to convince them that I am non-exempt because all I do is end user and network support. If they fail to yeild then I will file a complaint with the Department of Labor, just as Apple's employees should have done!
For all of the qualifications for exempt status read: http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17a_overview.pdf
Be careful not to generalize... not all computer related positions qualify for expemptions... only those where your PRIMARY responsibility is:
1) The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to
determine hardware, software or system functional specifications;
2) The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer
systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design
specifications;
3) The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to
machine operating systems; or
4) A combination of the aforementioned duties, the performance of which requires the same level of
skills.
Essentially you need to be part of the development process to qualify for the computer exemption. I am fighting with my employer to convince them that I am non-exempt because all I do is end user and network support. If they fail to yeild then I will file a complaint with the Department of Labor, just as Apple's employees should have done!
Read: http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/regs/compliance/fairpay/fs17a_overview.pdf
Be careful not to generalize... not all computer related positions qualify for expemptions... only those where your PRIMARY responsibility is:
1) The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to
determine hardware, software or system functional specifications;
2) The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer
systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design
specifications;
3) The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to
machine operating systems; or
4) A combination of the aforementioned duties, the performance of which requires the same level of
skills.
Essentially you need to be part of the development process to qualify for the computer exemption. I am fighting with my employer to convince them that I am non-exempt because all I do is end user and network support. If they fail to yeild then I will file a complaint with the Department of Labor, just as Apple's employees should have done!
The purpose of curving the sensor is so that you can maintain an equal ratio of pixels to degrees horizontal and vertical... IE if the lens is capable of 180 degrees horizontal... and you have an 1800 pixel display... you want 10 pixels per degree of view.
Why not just use a glass lens and a sensor array that has more pixels at the edges than in the middle... no fish eye, no distortion, no curved sensor.
students shouldn't learn to write viruses because it is a poor way to learn information security
I don't agree. It would be a poor way if it was the only way you learned, however it's acutally an excellent lesson for students who would otherwise fail to recognize just how easy it is to do and just how unprotected they are by software AV solutions.
Sometimes the best way to teach something is to immerse the student in it... and even better is to show them the other side of things.
Your statement is like saying that taking classes in breaking software (unpredictable behaviour) is a poor way to learn to test software. The more intimately you understand the threats, the better you can protect against them.
Besides... a class like this will breed a bunch of new Linux users cuz they will realize how easy it is for their windows machines to be pwned.
Yes there is a point that it stops... the desert becomes fertile and eventually a forest. Then as the cycle continues, it becomes a desert again.
Like most systems in our universe it is in equilibrium... it is nearly impossible for any natural process to remain out of equilibrium for very long, they all self regulate.
What may actually happen is that all of our carbon emmissions will create a greener planet in the long run... temps will rise causing more moisture in the atmosphere and more rain... the previously dry deserts will become wetter and capable of sustaining trees and grasses, the soil will become increasingly fertile, and slowly the deserts will disappear.
Of course a few million years will go by and the trend will reverse as the CO2 in the atmosphere is reduced and the planet cools and more water is trapped in ice.
I think that the worst thing we humans can do is speed or even start a shift in the equilibrium, when it's all said and done the earth will compensate.
Read the laws reguarding overtime. According the the Fair Labor Standards Act, an employee must be classified as exempt by meeting certain legal requirements, or they must be paid 1.5x their hourly wage. The law specifically states that no contract or agreement between employee and employer can override the law.
Read all about it, you very well might be a victim too!
http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/flsa/
In this case, it appears that the workers signed contracts which said that they wouldn't get paid an hourly rate, which means that they don't get overtime. Which means (at least in this case), that they can get over worked for nothing.
Read the laws reguarding overtime. According the the Fair Labor Standards Act, an employee must be classified as exempt by meeting certain legal requirements, or they must be paid 1.5x their hourly wage. The law specifically states that no contract or agreement between employee and employer can override the law.
Read all about it, you very well might be a victim too!
best guess is that the larger machines require a greater quantity of blood... thus reducing the amount in the patient by a greater percentage in smaller patients.
I have posted a ton of replies, so I'm not gonna respond to everything you said... but there is one area that I can see things improved.
As far as patching risk analysis is concerned... why couldn't MS do this for us.
For example, they score each and every patch based upon several factors successful installations, Exploit Risk, stability risk, etc. Additionally, they assess the risk based upon the function of the target system so that patches to IIS score higher for machines that are primarily a web server and IE patches score higher for workstations. Finally, the administrator configures Windows Update so that it is aware of the primary and secondary functions of the machine, that machine's environment (corporate firewall, remote connectivity, etc.) and they sets thresholds for the ratio of risk that is acceptable.
With this system in place, I could blindly apply any patch that has been widely deployed and has a low risk of instability, or fixes an extremely high risk exploit on my servers... while being a little more accepting of risk on my workstations. My test stations could automatically apply all patches early on and I could provide feedback to MS on those machines.
Because MS should know the potential ramifications of a fixed typo vs a complete rewrite, they can properly assess the risk of many patches simply on the scope of the change. Additionally I wouldn't apply risky but unnecessary patches to machines that don't really need them because they are behind a corporate firewall for example.
I agree that blind patching isn't necessarily the solution... but something like this would make automated security patching far less scary.
Your simply justifing Microsoft's incompetence.
I realize that I'm being a bit of an idealist... but seriously, when did it become OK for anyone to just do the bare minimum necessary to make a buck. Microsoft has repeatedly failed to go beyond what was required to keep them ahead of the competition, and they didn't do it by creating a better product than the competition in most cases.
I am sure you have heard "WITH GREAT POWER THERE MUST ALSO COME - - GREAT RESPONSIBILITY" (Stan Lee). It's a bit cliche, but it is true. MS is one of the most powerful companies in the world... if not THE most powerful were they to exert their influence. With that power they need to assume some responsibility. They could start by ensuring that the users of their products are not placed at risk by simply connecting it to the internet.
Call me an unrealistic, or nieve, or whatever. But it doesn't change the fact that Microsoft is not even coming close to doing all that they could do to make the best OS on the market and to ensure that those buying it are safe. In fact, I would guess that they spend more money hiding or distracting users from the problems with Windows than they do actually fixing them.
Microsoft has the power and the resources to develop an OS that is so stable and so secure that it could be compared to medical equipment. Sure it would be overkill, I realize that, I just want them doing more than dumping the responsibility for their shortcomings to third parties and requiring thier customers to purchase a third party product just to be protected from the problems within their software.
MS is not evil... just negligent.
I agree... and I wrote it... it is purely speculation and personal opinion, as is anything I post unless I specifically claim it as fact.
However, they obviously have given pay raises in the past, added pay catagories, made changes to they amount and ways that people have been paid. Therefore I have to conclude that the system does not hardcode this information and it is instead comprised of adjustable values.
Again, I could be wrong and every adjustment requires the work of a Cobol programmer, but that is very unlikely.
Medical equipment software, space shuttle navigation software, and other robust software though very narrow in scope is no different than Windows. It's all the same stuff at it's core... it's just the quantity that differs. I realize that to create something on the scale of Windows following the development practices used in the medical, aviation, and similar industries, would be very time consuming and expensive. But like anything else these days, Windows is modular, and as such this type of work could be broken into many smaller peices similar in scope to that of the x-ray scanner you mentioned. With MS's resources, they could approach the reliablity of that x-ray scanner if they chose to do so.
When I use the terms unsafe, I mean that during standard use it puts it's user at risk and the manufacturer expects the user to purchase additional products to achive any sort of safety. It would be like Ford saying that they put cheap Firestone tires on their trucks and it's the dead drivers' faults for not replacing them with tires that would prevent roll over. Or how about a toy manufacturer that sprays their toys with lead paint then saying it's the parents responsibility to strip the paint off and repaint with something non toxic before they let thier children play with it.
I realize that you cannot expect MS, or any company, to create a perfectly safe product. However they can prevent 99% of the unsafe conditions that result by use of that product. And they definately should be held responsible when their NEGLIGENCE causes undo harm to a user. There is a clear legal definition of negligence and trust me MS is one of the most negligent companies around.
Anyway, it all comes down to one point. MS has the abilty and the responsibility to ensure that the users of their software are as safe from harm as can be resonably expected; how they do it is none of my concern.
I do understand the why... but your explaining the why in the current situation that was created by MS's... failures?
Had MS spent more time developing good software with sane security there would be a far lower amount of risk.
Besides that, what makes you think that a machine that is unpatched will have current virus definitions. If MS hadn't convinced people that viruses are not the fault of the software vendor and convinced them that they needed special virus protection, people would be much more in the habit of keeping systems patched. If MS didn't force unnecessary and unwanted patches along with the highly important security patches, people would be much more in the habit of keeping systems patched.
Essentially what MS is doing is suggesting that their patch system is inadequate and instead of fixing it they are going to leave it up to AV vendors to ensure that windows user's operating systems are secure. If you ask me it's absolute bull shit!
A good system for distributing security patches is not that difficult. A method of ranking patches by risk to operational stability vs risk of attack is not that difficult. A way for an administrator to choose how much risk they are willing to accept is not that difficult.
So why not have a system where my server can check for new patches every few hours, and those patches include risk scores dependant upon the function of the system... if I want to get all patches and keep myself secure but risk instability I can... if I would rather wait until the patch has been widely deployed and is considered low risk, I can configure that too. Why involve a third party? Why should the security of my operating system be the responsibility of someone who has no control of the internal working of my OS.
It's easy to justify what MS does, after all Windows is one hell of a complex peice of software. But we are talking about a company that has more resources than many small countries and has their software deployed on Billions of computers world wide. They can do better, and they should!
Then multiply the cost of the OS by a factor anywhere from 10 to 1000.
The cost of development... not the cost to the consumer.
It would take a chunk out of their immediate profits but make them far more secure in their market. Right now MS is slowly losing it advantage in the market place... more and more alternatives are getting attention that don't suffer the same issues as MS products do, and eventually MS's unwillingness to make their core products the best they can be will be their downfall.
This would suggest that the system was totally inflexable... which I doubt.
I would speculate that they could simply keep the current system in place, calculating the pay as usual... and use the reports it generates to populate a new second system that instead pays everyone minimum wage for the same hours.
Now all they need to do is subtract the amount paid by the new second system, from the amount calculated by the old first system and that is the difference owed.
Overtime, vacation time, sick days, etc are still tracked in the old system as usual... even the pay stubs could reflect the actual pay earned vs the pay issued.
I have never seen a payroll program that has the wages hardcoded in it... there is no reason that this can't be done... she simply doesn't want to.
I second this suggestion. There are professional tools and services for a reason.
I have even seen devices that actually heat the plastic, effectively making a few microns on the surface flow again, and then buff it perfectly smooth.
I would bet that there is an online service that will restore it to near perfect through a similar method. Just make sure you insure your shipment and provide a detailed list of the package contents.
One other recommendation... store your CD's in a cool, dark, dry, and stable environment for maximum life. I already have disks from the early 90's that are immaculate in appearance but don't play worth a damn. I attribute it to storing them in their jewel cases in my livingroom cd tower... the fluctuations in temperature and humidity and perhaps some UV light have taken their toll. I imagine newer disks have only gotten worse.
Why would MS, if they know about the problem and are planning a patch for it, let the security vendors know. Essentially that would make the vendors a stopgap until the patch is released a few days later.
Why the hell doesn't MS simply release a stop-gap patch themselves and then finalize it on Tuesday. All this does is shift the blame for a bad fix to the security vendor who has a much smaller understanding of the problem's cause and potential effects.
I am so tired of shoddy software from the richest company in the world, there is absolutely no excuse for it! With their resources they could develop the OS using the same practices used in medical equipment software and be able to guarantee a neigh 99.9999% uptime... but instead they release crappy code and milk the public for cash.
I am not a big fan of regulation, however I believe that any company that creates an unsafe product needs to be penalized, even if that product is software. Microsoft has indirectly caused trillions of dollars in lost productivity, theft, vandalisim, security management costs etc... Almost all of which could have been prevented using the resources available to them.
I already commented on the article or I would have giving you a +1 Insightful.
The one thing that I am very upset with during all of this movement to web apps is the complete lack of quality network appliances.
To hell with ordering a server, and OS, and the software... then spending days configuring and testing, resolving any issues with scalability etc!
I say appliances are the future.
The one thing that MS has going for it is a complete lack of understanding of "open source" by upper management of many companies. I know that at previous jobs I couldn't even use those two words together without fear of a slap on the hand.
I realize that things are shifting and many companies are already investigating "open source" solutions, however they still weigh the pros and cons of both and still usually go for the business model that they understand the most.
Now that Microsoft is trying to be Open Source friendly, their name is appearing in all kinds of articles with those dreaded words "open source" and therefore all those managers who disreguarded that entire sector of the software industry are now that much more willing to let their IT departments experiment with "open source" solutions. And us IT people who have been waiting to jump the MS ship for years actually have an audience for that great MS replacement solution we have had in our heads.
I predict that this pandering to the Open Source community might signal the downfall for MS. Unless they embrace it completely and bleed "open source", they will never be as good as their "truely open" competitors.
It would be like Coke advertising that it now tastes more like (insert cheap cola maker here)... all of those people who have been drinking Coke because they thought it was better because they knew the name will now try the alternative. If the alternative is truely better, who's gonna drink Coke anymore?
I thought about using a stationary bike as a generator and using it to power my TV or computer... that way if I want to use either one I would be forced to exercise. And it would be a fun project to actually implement.