We call "merely [c]it[ing] a somewhat parallel norm" an "analogy". They are tools to help us find truth. Richard Stallman uses them to justify the philosophy behind the free software movement. Being on/., I'm sure that will convince most people of the value of analogies.
It is, "according to fact" (which is "de facto" translated from latin), that most people agree with me that someone who steals a t-shirt deserves to be punished beyond just paying for the t-shirt. Doubtless, there will be people who disagree with me. So what? There are enough who don't to make the statement valid.
Well, I use Mac OS X, but that is vulnerable to viruses too. Every OS is because every OS has flaws because every OS is written by flawed humans. Thus, every OS needs to be constantly fixed.
Wow, proof that Anonymous Cowards do eventually register.
If my windshield broke due to a vulnerability in the windshield, the company does a recall. Since viruses/attacks/etc. exploit FLAWS in the design, the company is responsible for FIXING those FLAWS.
No, go read a book on how to debate intelligently.
But, didn't the integrate IE with the OS so tightly that it also replaced parts of the OS? If so, doesn't it mean it isn't taking up more resources? Or, at least, not much more given the additional functionality? I'm speaking ignorant here (heh, when am I not these days?) so I'm really asking.
I see your point on the whole API thing. It wasn't in M$'s best interest to abstract the web layer out to the point where FireFox could actually replace the layer. And, as I told the owner of a business I got fired from once (that isn't as short a list as you might think), "Companies will always do what is in their best interest." He misunderstood, responding, "Is that bad?" We got interrupted before I could answer that it is if it is at the expense of others.
It isn't a long road to the argument that M$ is pure evil.
The 23rd century ships were actually sleeker and more high-tech, with more tactile gems instead of flat-panel displays. They employed three senses: visual, aural, and tactile, instead of two: visual and aural. The extra tactile dimension made them easier to use and a superior interface, particularly when dealing with many different species that might have different levels of one of these three senses (they have the other 2 to fall back on).
The ships were brighter, too, which I think you really need in deep space (Enterprise D was good for this too, though). Bright colors and brightly lit hallways will lift spirits. I can't defend the tricorders (those just looked bad), but as far as the bridge goes, in a way, I like 23rd century design over 24th/22nd. Sure, the special fx weren't the same, but consider the usability.
I think you addressed the root problem to all this: let's sue. But, we can't, because we don't have the money. Suing would get us justice. But, we cannot afford to sue, so we cannot afford justice. After all, when using M$ products, we're pretty much stuck having to spend all our money on proctologists and chiropractors first; who has money left over for a lawyer?
Hey, that's a really great idea! Have a program like ZoneAlarm connect to a site to query known good applications (with a checksum) and warn when they aren't. There might be some privacy issues, but I think they could be manageable.
I've always wondered to whom these spammers were talking to that makes them think I need such an enlargement. j/k
I realised I misread after I posted and I'm sorry I didn't pay more attention. I do think the OS should have some protection built inside. But if a user downloads behaves in the way you described, they deserve what they get. The problem is the line where a person crosses from innocent user to stupid user.
As far as the HAL reference, I think it is more like, "Dave; are you sure you want to do that?" The OS will still let Dave run the program, but knowing that it is a new program that connects to some host port 25, for example, it should ask first.
In my specific case, I never had a problem with IE being part of the OS. In fact, I remember thinking it was a good idea. But, I see your point and the conflict these two ideas cause.
"Explain to me how a user account on a highly secure OS would stop a virus like that if it was doing everything in the users temp folder, executing using that users startup file, and only scanning their Documents folder and their internet cache for e-mails."
By doing what ZoneAlarm does -- when an application is requesting network resources that have never done so before, ask the user if this is what they want.
As far as clicking on the box to dismiss it, that crosses the boundary. They've been warned and now they are deliberately letting something run they know may do damage. In that case, it is the user's fault.
Perfect analogy. Absolutely perfect. It all comes down to where we define acceptable usage knowledge. With a car, you have to pass a test to get to drive the car. Now, there isn't one for computers because it really can't kill anyone if you use it wrong (well, usually), but the idea that there is a basic level of knowledge required to operate the machinery correctly is there as well. This level of knowledge is arguable, though. I argue that if the user is capable of even downloading an attachment that misrepresents itself and runs it, they pass the test. But others may disagree. So, the discourse explodes!
I don't usually responds to Anonymous Cowards, but in this case, I'm going to say this: Yes, I could have read Google for that, but having an explanation there for that helped everyone who read the thread further on. An acronymn should be defined the first time it is used if it is at all rare. Sometimes, people forget that, and that is okay; I do that a lot too, and worse, which is why I didn't get snippy about it. Google isn't an excuse for a lack of a level of communication.
Right. Even in the case where a person downloads an executable that destroys their machine, any well written OS should not enable a user to do that. Mac OS X is pretty good at this by making it so that the user does not run as root. It still isn't enough, though; we get used to typing that root password too much. But, it is an illustration of how the makers can better design their OS to be more secure.
It's a matter of philosophy. I believe the user is not to blame for such problems, even if they downloaded a program that nukes their PC; it isn't their fault!. I know, I know; some people will get all mad at me for saying this who have contempt for users and their stupidity, but users should not have to understand the internals of their machines to use them. We're not in that era of computing anymore. If the user accidently does something destructive, it is the fault of the interface, not the person. We need to be more clever when writing our interfaces.
Slashdot Mirror
No, but you can fine them $500. They tell you so in the changing stalls.
We call "merely [c]it[ing] a somewhat parallel norm" an "analogy". They are tools to help us find truth. Richard Stallman uses them to justify the philosophy behind the free software movement. Being on /., I'm sure that will convince most people of the value of analogies.
It is, "according to fact" (which is "de facto" translated from latin), that most people agree with me that someone who steals a t-shirt deserves to be punished beyond just paying for the t-shirt. Doubtless, there will be people who disagree with me. So what? There are enough who don't to make the statement valid.
I'm not sure what your point is.
That is like saying the most a person can be fined for stealing a shirt from WalMart is the price of the shirt.
Brilliantly put. "Innovate or die".
Bill? Is that you?
Sorry I fed the troll, guys.
Well, I use Mac OS X, but that is vulnerable to viruses too. Every OS is because every OS has flaws because every OS is written by flawed humans. Thus, every OS needs to be constantly fixed.
Wow, proof that Anonymous Cowards do eventually register.
If my windshield broke due to a vulnerability in the windshield, the company does a recall. Since viruses/attacks/etc. exploit FLAWS in the design, the company is responsible for FIXING those FLAWS.
No, go read a book on how to debate intelligently.
But, didn't the integrate IE with the OS so tightly that it also replaced parts of the OS? If so, doesn't it mean it isn't taking up more resources? Or, at least, not much more given the additional functionality? I'm speaking ignorant here (heh, when am I not these days?) so I'm really asking.
I see your point on the whole API thing. It wasn't in M$'s best interest to abstract the web layer out to the point where FireFox could actually replace the layer. And, as I told the owner of a business I got fired from once (that isn't as short a list as you might think), "Companies will always do what is in their best interest." He misunderstood, responding, "Is that bad?" We got interrupted before I could answer that it is if it is at the expense of others.
It isn't a long road to the argument that M$ is pure evil.
So, explain why FireFox is so successful if we don't have choice?
Bang! Hammer hits the nail.
The 23rd century ships were actually sleeker and more high-tech, with more tactile gems instead of flat-panel displays. They employed three senses: visual, aural, and tactile, instead of two: visual and aural. The extra tactile dimension made them easier to use and a superior interface, particularly when dealing with many different species that might have different levels of one of these three senses (they have the other 2 to fall back on).
The ships were brighter, too, which I think you really need in deep space (Enterprise D was good for this too, though). Bright colors and brightly lit hallways will lift spirits. I can't defend the tricorders (those just looked bad), but as far as the bridge goes, in a way, I like 23rd century design over 24th/22nd. Sure, the special fx weren't the same, but consider the usability.
LOL; thanks for that :-) I was wondering if someone was going to mention Jelicho. He was bad-ass.
Yeah, but she was hot....
Why are you all looking at me like that?
Yeah, I'll throw in my vote on Sheridan too. B5 has never been beat.
I think you addressed the root problem to all this: let's sue. But, we can't, because we don't have the money. Suing would get us justice. But, we cannot afford to sue, so we cannot afford justice. After all, when using M$ products, we're pretty much stuck having to spend all our money on proctologists and chiropractors first; who has money left over for a lawyer?
Hey, that's a really great idea! Have a program like ZoneAlarm connect to a site to query known good applications (with a checksum) and warn when they aren't. There might be some privacy issues, but I think they could be manageable.
I've always wondered to whom these spammers were talking to that makes them think I need such an enlargement. j/k
I realised I misread after I posted and I'm sorry I didn't pay more attention. I do think the OS should have some protection built inside. But if a user downloads behaves in the way you described, they deserve what they get. The problem is the line where a person crosses from innocent user to stupid user.
As far as the HAL reference, I think it is more like, "Dave; are you sure you want to do that?" The OS will still let Dave run the program, but knowing that it is a new program that connects to some host port 25, for example, it should ask first.
In my specific case, I never had a problem with IE being part of the OS. In fact, I remember thinking it was a good idea. But, I see your point and the conflict these two ideas cause.
"Explain to me how a user account on a highly secure OS would stop a virus like that if it was doing everything in the users temp folder, executing using that users startup file, and only scanning their Documents folder and their internet cache for e-mails."
By doing what ZoneAlarm does -- when an application is requesting network resources that have never done so before, ask the user if this is what they want.
As far as clicking on the box to dismiss it, that crosses the boundary. They've been warned and now they are deliberately letting something run they know may do damage. In that case, it is the user's fault.
Hmmm... indeed, an interesting point. It still doesn't make it right, but it does make it more right. Thank you for this!
The key word here being "deliberate".
"In fact, the latest version of XP makes you intimately aware when you do not have any virus software installed."
Much like SPAM does to get you to send money in for a penis enlargement.
Perfect analogy. Absolutely perfect. It all comes down to where we define acceptable usage knowledge. With a car, you have to pass a test to get to drive the car. Now, there isn't one for computers because it really can't kill anyone if you use it wrong (well, usually), but the idea that there is a basic level of knowledge required to operate the machinery correctly is there as well. This level of knowledge is arguable, though. I argue that if the user is capable of even downloading an attachment that misrepresents itself and runs it, they pass the test. But others may disagree. So, the discourse explodes!
I don't usually responds to Anonymous Cowards, but in this case, I'm going to say this: Yes, I could have read Google for that, but having an explanation there for that helped everyone who read the thread further on. An acronymn should be defined the first time it is used if it is at all rare. Sometimes, people forget that, and that is okay; I do that a lot too, and worse, which is why I didn't get snippy about it. Google isn't an excuse for a lack of a level of communication.
Right. Even in the case where a person downloads an executable that destroys their machine, any well written OS should not enable a user to do that. Mac OS X is pretty good at this by making it so that the user does not run as root. It still isn't enough, though; we get used to typing that root password too much. But, it is an illustration of how the makers can better design their OS to be more secure.
It's a matter of philosophy. I believe the user is not to blame for such problems, even if they downloaded a program that nukes their PC; it isn't their fault!. I know, I know; some people will get all mad at me for saying this who have contempt for users and their stupidity, but users should not have to understand the internals of their machines to use them. We're not in that era of computing anymore. If the user accidently does something destructive, it is the fault of the interface, not the person. We need to be more clever when writing our interfaces.