Just as adding together the millions and millions of postal junk mail that's sent would demonstrate a similar 'problem.' However, both our roads and the Internet are decentralized systems so the overall effect is still very small. Addition in this context doesn't really prove anything or even make sense. Email, despite anti-spam activists ranting, does not require the majority of the bandwith on the internet. I disagree that a small problem spread out over a very large area equates to a big problem. I see the situation as "on average, individuals receive few spam messages" rather than "collectively, very many spam messages are sent." Of course, I do actually receive few spam messages and I might be a bit more bitter if that number was an order of magnitude or two greater. Though, if it was, I would probably get around to setting up SpamAssassin.
There is little need for your word games; You know what he meant. Besides, for at least the server-side filtering you could argue that it is filtered before he 'gets' it. The point is that spam is a non-problem for anyone with a clue. Sure, it might be better to eliminate the 'problem' at its source but first we'd have to agree on whether it's a problem that merits legal action and on just what crosses the line into illegality. I question whether it's even illegal in the first place. We need well-defined laws before the FBI runs around arresting people for sending email. The people who want legal action are the people who don't want to deal with it as their own problem. Few complain about junk snail mail, and that takes far more time to get rid of than email and it's hardly possible to eliminate.
I disagree. When Joe consumer wants to do something that the DRM restricts, he will realize what the disadvantages are. However, you can be 90% sure that by the time Joe figures out whats happened, it will be too late (for at least him, and probably for most other Joes as well). See the beauty in this for the corporations? The same thing goes for clickwrap licenses--nobody knows what the restrictions are until they are prevented from doing something practical or are hit with a lawsuit. The corps love it because they can stick anything in there and nobody will know any better. It _should_ be illegal or at least invalid as a contract. At least with clickwrap you have the option of reading it, but in all honesty who does that?
Bah. DRM wouldn't be a major obstacle without the DMCA. That law gives copyright holders unlimited power to protect their content by making it illegal to circumvent protections no matter how trivial it is. The discs or players aren't the real problem, the DMCA is. Accept this and then complain to your local politicians. Don't waste your time here, since if the DMCA is changed you could circumvent whatever bs protection they have (and you know someone will break any such protection scheme eventually (CSS)).
Perhaps I did not make myself clear, because you do not really disagree with me. What I meant by the "normal amount" was the ratio that we are comparing the dead organisms' ratio to, the one that should be stable while it is alive because of the exchange you mention. My whole point was that the gp was saying that he thought it was perhaps 20 million years old relative to other things that were carbon dated, when radiocarbon dating (or any radioactive dating) is inherently relative; by using the ratio in living organisms and the ratio in dead organisms, the date calculated is relative to the present.
Well in that case, its definately 20 million years old. Because... uhm... we can carbon date stuff thats not dead yet. Thats how they figured out what the 'normal' amount of C-14 was.
Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.
Bullshit. There are ordinary users who see KDE, for example, as at least as intuitive as Windows. Can you honestly say that its all that different? Users shouldn't need to touch the command line in either Win or Lin.
Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".
Bullshit. Ever heard of GUI package managers? Did you realize that there is InstallShield for Linux these days? (No, I'm not kidding. I have used it)
User-friendliness is no longer the primary reason Linux has not achieved widespread adoption. Stop continuing this age-old FUD against Linux. Its getting old and is no longer true. STFU already.
Read: this is what MS is telling you. It may have no effect whatsoever. It IS possible and it SOUNDS good. "We will have it fixed, soon." Of course they're not keeping their plans to fix your life Real Soon(tm) a secret. This page is only slightly technical, and is made to market Vista. If these take the form of real architectural changes in Windows which make it true, then great! My point is that experience has taught us to be skeptical of Microsoft.
Things like not giving services rediculous privileges is something that has been possible on *NIX for years. Also, sane defaults (ie, not creating everyone as an Administrator on setup) were also not just now discovered Microsoft. They just never were in Microsoft's interests (their customers didn't care) so they never bothered to implement them that way. Now that their home customers have realized that maybe security is a good idea, they are telling you everything you want to hear.
Open source helps both the attackers and defenders, and thereore does not have an inherent advantage in security, in my opinion. Now, the formerly closed code that has leaked is indeed more vulnerable after the leak.
And I'm sure MS would love getting a vulnerability patch from some_guy after a code leak. Leaks help only the attackers and therefore can't be effectively compared.
We could argue all day about whether Open Source helps both the attackers and defenders equally. Fortunately, there seem to be a few proactive people on the defending team, and its much easier to fix a potentially exploitable bug than it is to make a working exploit.
I believe you suffer some trouble with English. I'll spell it out: can != will.
Security minded people can audit Firefox and send their finding to Mozilla. Security minded companies can pay someone to do this (hey, maybe they really want a secure browser). Can they do the same with IE? Not realistically.
Yes, there are facts, and these may well be reliable. The conclusion however is not. He just fell into the trap of more vulnerabilities reported => more vulnerable. TFA is not considering other explanations for the data. We are not questioning the data, only the conclusion.
Neither do you, unless you work at MS. Comeon, they are just trying to comfort their customers. Whether or not any effort they put forth to back their claims up makes any difference will take time. Personally, I have my doubts.
Slashdot Mirror
Just as adding together the millions and millions of postal junk mail that's sent would demonstrate a similar 'problem.' However, both our roads and the Internet are decentralized systems so the overall effect is still very small. Addition in this context doesn't really prove anything or even make sense. Email, despite anti-spam activists ranting, does not require the majority of the bandwith on the internet. I disagree that a small problem spread out over a very large area equates to a big problem. I see the situation as "on average, individuals receive few spam messages" rather than "collectively, very many spam messages are sent." Of course, I do actually receive few spam messages and I might be a bit more bitter if that number was an order of magnitude or two greater. Though, if it was, I would probably get around to setting up SpamAssassin.
There is little need for your word games; You know what he meant. Besides, for at least the server-side filtering you could argue that it is filtered before he 'gets' it. The point is that spam is a non-problem for anyone with a clue. Sure, it might be better to eliminate the 'problem' at its source but first we'd have to agree on whether it's a problem that merits legal action and on just what crosses the line into illegality. I question whether it's even illegal in the first place. We need well-defined laws before the FBI runs around arresting people for sending email. The people who want legal action are the people who don't want to deal with it as their own problem. Few complain about junk snail mail, and that takes far more time to get rid of than email and it's hardly possible to eliminate.
Why do people get kicks out of solving NP-complete problems? It does take some problem solving skill but its still mostly just tedious trial & error.
the top-level servers could be configured using an excel spreadsheet, and keeping them synchronised would be simple.
Bahahaha! Do you really think these things run MS Windows?
They said they have few outside contributions; they could just rewrite the code by people who won't relicense.
Its also an effective way to make it illegal to take advantage of fair use. Why does everybody forget about the legality issue with the DMCA and all?
I disagree. When Joe consumer wants to do something that the DRM restricts, he will realize what the disadvantages are. However, you can be 90% sure that by the time Joe figures out whats happened, it will be too late (for at least him, and probably for most other Joes as well). See the beauty in this for the corporations? The same thing goes for clickwrap licenses--nobody knows what the restrictions are until they are prevented from doing something practical or are hit with a lawsuit. The corps love it because they can stick anything in there and nobody will know any better. It _should_ be illegal or at least invalid as a contract. At least with clickwrap you have the option of reading it, but in all honesty who does that?
I wholeheartedly agree, but... the DMCA. See my other posts. Circumvention is illegal, remember?
Except for a little piece of legal tyrrany known as the DMCA. The restriction then becomes backed by law so the work-around is illegal.
Bah. DRM wouldn't be a major obstacle without the DMCA. That law gives copyright holders unlimited power to protect their content by making it illegal to circumvent protections no matter how trivial it is. The discs or players aren't the real problem, the DMCA is. Accept this and then complain to your local politicians. Don't waste your time here, since if the DMCA is changed you could circumvent whatever bs protection they have (and you know someone will break any such protection scheme eventually (CSS)).
Perhaps I did not make myself clear, because you do not really disagree with me. What I meant by the "normal amount" was the ratio that we are comparing the dead organisms' ratio to, the one that should be stable while it is alive because of the exchange you mention. My whole point was that the gp was saying that he thought it was perhaps 20 million years old relative to other things that were carbon dated, when radiocarbon dating (or any radioactive dating) is inherently relative; by using the ratio in living organisms and the ratio in dead organisms, the date calculated is relative to the present.
Well in that case, its definately 20 million years old. Because... uhm... we can carbon date stuff thats not dead yet. Thats how they figured out what the 'normal' amount of C-14 was.
And BSD will still be dying. It wont be dead yet!! Hope netcraft is still around to give updates!
ROFLMAO. +6 inflammatory with funny
Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.
Bullshit. There are ordinary users who see KDE, for example, as at least as intuitive as Windows. Can you honestly say that its all that different? Users shouldn't need to touch the command line in either Win or Lin.
Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".
Bullshit. Ever heard of GUI package managers? Did you realize that there is InstallShield for Linux these days? (No, I'm not kidding. I have used it)
User-friendliness is no longer the primary reason Linux has not achieved widespread adoption. Stop continuing this age-old FUD against Linux. Its getting old and is no longer true. STFU already.
uhhhh.. j2se is just "Java 2 Standard Edition" which is an umbrella term for the JRE and the JDK. Am I missing something?
apples beat oranges any day
Just a quick note. The odds of winning 10 games in a row assuming neither team has an advantage is (1/2)^10 or 1/1024 not 1/10.
so is sed.
Uhm, how is it easier on BT than other services? You are fooling yourself. Its easy to get the IP of any peer you are connected from any P2P service.
Read: this is what MS is telling you. It may have no effect whatsoever. It IS possible and it SOUNDS good. "We will have it fixed, soon." Of course they're not keeping their plans to fix your life Real Soon(tm) a secret. This page is only slightly technical, and is made to market Vista. If these take the form of real architectural changes in Windows which make it true, then great! My point is that experience has taught us to be skeptical of Microsoft.
Things like not giving services rediculous privileges is something that has been possible on *NIX for years. Also, sane defaults (ie, not creating everyone as an Administrator on setup) were also not just now discovered Microsoft. They just never were in Microsoft's interests (their customers didn't care) so they never bothered to implement them that way. Now that their home customers have realized that maybe security is a good idea, they are telling you everything you want to hear.
Open source helps both the attackers and defenders, and thereore does not have an inherent advantage in security, in my opinion. Now, the formerly closed code that has leaked is indeed more vulnerable after the leak.
And I'm sure MS would love getting a vulnerability patch from some_guy after a code leak. Leaks help only the attackers and therefore can't be effectively compared.
We could argue all day about whether Open Source helps both the attackers and defenders equally. Fortunately, there seem to be a few proactive people on the defending team, and its much easier to fix a potentially exploitable bug than it is to make a working exploit.
I believe you suffer some trouble with English. I'll spell it out: can != will.
Security minded people can audit Firefox and send their finding to Mozilla. Security minded companies can pay someone to do this (hey, maybe they really want a secure browser). Can they do the same with IE? Not realistically.
Yes, there are facts, and these may well be reliable. The conclusion however is not. He just fell into the trap of more vulnerabilities reported => more vulnerable. TFA is not considering other explanations for the data. We are not questioning the data, only the conclusion.
Neither do you, unless you work at MS. Comeon, they are just trying to comfort their customers. Whether or not any effort they put forth to back their claims up makes any difference will take time. Personally, I have my doubts.