I thought that too as I read it. Hmm, just imagine it - enemy (or traitor) starts controlling your own exoskeleton and makes YOU start shooting up your buddies. And then he could make it do some interesting piston movements to rip your muscles and limbs and make you do a back flip out a high window.
Interesting you should mention that they are defining what "unsinkable" should mean. Check out this garbage:
While Oracle's vulnerabilities are no greater in number or severity than those found in other major software products, some experts charge that the steady stream of security holes transforms "unbreakable" from a harmless marketing gimmick into a potentially dangerous misstatement.
They should have said: "Unbreakable compared to Sendmail", or "Unbreakable compared to MS SQL server with the default password". Or how about "Unbreakable compared to BIND"?
Also notice in the quote I pasted the last word: "misstatement".
WTF is a misstatement? The author isn't George Orwell, so there is no reason for him to use DoubleSpeak. It's a lie. Call it what it is and stop being a lying wimp.
According to the Microsoft Museum, FUD regarding MS Windows was published perhaps half a year before the X Consortium got their act together. Check the other poster's comment about Xerox.
One good use of the kernel lists is to stress test your mail reader. One kernel hacker I know of posted on the LUG mailing list to say that Netscape 4 refused to read his kernel lists mailbox which was over 70MB in size.
The "desktop" idea has already been yelled and screamed at as a bad idea. And simply, a FTP server is going to be way too hard to use.
OK, I have it easy. I mount my web site as a folder on my local machine, and to "upload" a file I just "Save as..." in the GIMP and POW! It's published on my web site within seconds. But even that is a little bit difficult
So if you think people, AOL users even, are going to be using FTP... na, forget it.
FTP daemons are as buggy as hell. Read Bugtraq - all the FTP daemons you can write to have exploits, and the only secure one I know has no upload facility.
Windows XP has the right idea with clicking "publish to the web" or whatever nonsense they've built into the folders. But it is still too difficult.
I'm sorry but I'm unable to read documents in Microsoft Word format because I use Linux.
Reading between the lines do you know what that says? It says: Linux doesn't have even minimal functionality - it sucks. Really, that's what you're saying.
Plus it is wrong. strings(), AbiWord, KWord, and StarOffice all open Word documents. Just fiddle your mailcap if you need to get them opening automagically.
What you should instead is say what is wrong with Word. How about this...
I'm sorry but I'm unable to read documents from Microsoft Word because the risk of receiving a virus through one is too great and I will not buy the ridiculously high-priced software to read it.
Most definately. I'm still appalled to see the C text books I was learning from still encourage use of gets() to read into fixed length buffers. And the explanation of the problems of buffer overflows was that it can cause your program to crash!
I yelled and screamed but apparantly instead using fgets() is too difficult. FWIW, fgets() is just like gets() except you can tell it a maximum number of characters to snaffle.
We need security from a DJB point of view. Every single byte accounted for. Don't go from a BIND9 or Microsoft point-of-view where you think about security when a "remote root exploit" is posted to Bugtraq.
Maybe now the first virus for.NET has been concocted Microsoft will consider security.
I use Word almost every day, and while many of your comments are true for default behavior, you clearly have not attempted to actually learn the program.
I've emphasised a particular part of your sentence. A bit of background from me: I have used Windows since 1993 or some ridiculously long time ago - even before Windows 95. I know Word (up to Word '97) backwards and forwards. I have tutored people (my parents, folks I know, and another person old enough to be my grandmother) in the use of those programs.
From your comment you seem to be advocating that people bend over backwards to learn something obscure. Is there such a thing as intuitive interfaces? Why does he have to spend so long changing himself to fit the mold of "standard Word user" before he can use the program?
I have to tell you that after 7 years of MS Windows and two months of Blackbox, Blackbox is a damn sight more intuitive than MS Windows. Sure it took me a couple of minutes to learn what menues popped up where, but that was getting my bearings.
Then about default settings. They shipped with the product set up for distractions. They want you to format as you type. They want you to get carried away frobbing knobs.
A lot of stuff can wait for the proofing stage. Why should it be fixed now? There isn't much advantage. It distracts your flow of thoughts. Some is OK because you may forget what you meant by "larg" later on.
It once affected Mozilla and once affected Netscape 4 too.
Webmail suffers from leaving delicious referers in my log files. I couldn't find any [Netscape 4 style] mailbox:// urls in my referer logs sorry, but I have seen them before.
And then you can just do a fancy whizz-bang regex that matches the URL and blocks it anyway. For example my Squid rules blocks the adverts from mp3.com but don't block the servers. (I think I matched on/Ads/ - it works on other sites using that advert rotation software.)
Note that they also lose the ability to read / write their "bugs" which are on a per-server basis.
Whatever their method of adding an advert, people will still find a way to block it.
Exactly my thought. We find it hard to understand - what about the intended recipients?
I also worry that they've just gone and given away some of our most important discoveries (eg, three cubes around a right angled triangle) for free to any hostile race, and a map of great locations to hover spacecraft over in preparation for destroying.
Good one! What clown thought that up?
;-)
(And I hope it wasn't government funding that paid for it either. Gee, my taxes going to help get myself killed.)
Yes, it is silly seeing as this virus requires the user to run it before it will do anything. You may remember some recent flaws in several Microsoft products require you to do nothing, and exploits to some daemons also require you, the user, to do nothing.
Question... who here has a "sandbox" user for running dodgy code? (Dodgy = untrusted, suspect, obfuscated, unvalidated)
I do. Perhaps you should go and "sudo adduser sandbox" right now.
Unless there is a local root exploit in a can being passed around, you should be able to su to that user and be safe while running dodgy code. Just make sure your permissions in various areas are locked down.
Most definately this is the worst thing I have come across in my "evangelising" for reliable operating systems. How many times do I have to tell people that crashing is abnormal?
Crashing is abnormal. If software crashes it is broken. Take it back for a refund.
Are they stupid or just masochists? Software crashes and they lose an hours worth of data. What do they do? Oh well, let's do that again. It also destroys people's faith in software. I'm a bit cautious about using Mozilla because once in the last week it disappeared - ZAP!
People aren't going to get saved if they don't see the need for it. Even if they can't see the need it doesn't mean the need disappears. You need stable software. (Hmm, close parallel to another sort of evangelism.)
It wouldn't be the guy responsible for feeding the servers or administering the database responsible for this.
I'd say the editorial team who clicked the submit button a day early were the ones who will be getting a debriefing.
But then again, I haven't a clue how their organisation is structured. It might just be one guy feeding the servers, wearing the pager, doing the accounts, laying out the pages, creating artwork, writing stories, and editing.
"Far Side" sounds like something by Gary Larson.:-)
Yes, "Far Side" is a more correct term for the side of the moon furtherest from Earth. It most certaintly isn't dark - where does the other light from the Sun when there is only a "quarter moon" in the sky? And surely the "Dark Side" would be light during a lunar eclipse.:-)
The moon's orbit around its axis is the same length as its orbit around the Earth, so the same side of the moon is always facing the Earth. When you look up there at the moon, that's the same part of the Moon you always see. That's why sticking an observatory on it means they'll always be able to point out into space, but they'll still have trouble when the sun shines on them (during a "New Moon" from our perspective) and blots out its vision of the stars with interference (which I assume would be lessen by the lack of an atmosphere to scatter waves).
Flagrantly ripped from the latest DNRC newsletter:
Plop, The Hairless Elbonian
Over the summer I was experimenting with a Dilbert spin-off comic strip about a little boy and his pig growing up in the clueless country of Elbonia. Unfortunately this isn't a good time to launch a comic featuring people who look like the Taliban. So it's on the shelf, probably permanently.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems that most "good" applications Microsoft has their name on it are purchased from someone else.
Internet Explorer, Ages of Empires, Frontpage, Word's proofing tools, ... go read the credits.
I thought that too as I read it. Hmm, just imagine it - enemy (or traitor) starts controlling your own exoskeleton and makes YOU start shooting up your buddies. And then he could make it do some interesting piston movements to rip your muscles and limbs and make you do a back flip out a high window.
Don't these guys ever watch sci-fi action movies?
Interesting you should mention that they are defining what "unsinkable" should mean. Check out this garbage:
They should have said: "Unbreakable compared to Sendmail", or "Unbreakable compared to MS SQL server with the default password". Or how about "Unbreakable compared to BIND"?
Also notice in the quote I pasted the last word: "misstatement".
WTF is a misstatement? The author isn't George Orwell, so there is no reason for him to use DoubleSpeak. It's a lie. Call it what it is and stop being a lying wimp.
According to the Microsoft Museum, FUD regarding MS Windows was published perhaps half a year before the X Consortium got their act together. Check the other poster's comment about Xerox.
One good use of the kernel lists is to stress test your mail reader. One kernel hacker I know of posted on the LUG mailing list to say that Netscape 4 refused to read his kernel lists mailbox which was over 70MB in size.
The "desktop" idea has already been yelled and screamed at as a bad idea. And simply, a FTP server is going to be way too hard to use.
OK, I have it easy. I mount my web site as a folder on my local machine, and to "upload" a file I just "Save as ..." in the GIMP and POW! It's published on my web site within seconds. But even that is a little bit difficult
So if you think people, AOL users even, are going to be using FTP ... na, forget it.
FTP daemons are as buggy as hell. Read Bugtraq - all the FTP daemons you can write to have exploits, and the only secure one I know has no upload facility.
Windows XP has the right idea with clicking "publish to the web" or whatever nonsense they've built into the folders. But it is still too difficult.
Reading between the lines do you know what that says? It says: Linux doesn't have even minimal functionality - it sucks. Really, that's what you're saying.
Plus it is wrong. strings(), AbiWord, KWord, and StarOffice all open Word documents. Just fiddle your mailcap if you need to get them opening automagically.
What you should instead is say what is wrong with Word. How about this ...
I see you've listed 'vi'. Have you ever tried vigor? ;-)
(Read the "About" section.)
Most definately. I'm still appalled to see the C text books I was learning from still encourage use of gets() to read into fixed length buffers. And the explanation of the problems of buffer overflows was that it can cause your program to crash!
I yelled and screamed but apparantly instead using fgets() is too difficult. FWIW, fgets() is just like gets() except you can tell it a maximum number of characters to snaffle.
We need security from a DJB point of view. Every single byte accounted for. Don't go from a BIND9 or Microsoft point-of-view where you think about security when a "remote root exploit" is posted to Bugtraq.
Maybe now the first virus for .NET has been concocted Microsoft will consider security.
I've emphasised a particular part of your sentence. A bit of background from me: I have used Windows since 1993 or some ridiculously long time ago - even before Windows 95. I know Word (up to Word '97) backwards and forwards. I have tutored people (my parents, folks I know, and another person old enough to be my grandmother) in the use of those programs.
From your comment you seem to be advocating that people bend over backwards to learn something obscure. Is there such a thing as intuitive interfaces? Why does he have to spend so long changing himself to fit the mold of "standard Word user" before he can use the program?
I have to tell you that after 7 years of MS Windows and two months of Blackbox, Blackbox is a damn sight more intuitive than MS Windows. Sure it took me a couple of minutes to learn what menues popped up where, but that was getting my bearings.
Then about default settings. They shipped with the product set up for distractions. They want you to format as you type. They want you to get carried away frobbing knobs.
A lot of stuff can wait for the proofing stage. Why should it be fixed now? There isn't much advantage. It distracts your flow of thoughts. Some is OK because you may forget what you meant by "larg" later on.
That's about as far into your post as I read.
It once affected Mozilla and once affected Netscape 4 too.
Webmail suffers from leaving delicious referers in my log files. I couldn't find any [Netscape 4 style] mailbox:// urls in my referer logs sorry, but I have seen them before.
Well of course you'd have a copy of it! You're working with the source! ;-)
(Score: -1, dumbass)
My question about the Tape Archive is ... who will be daring enough to open Pandora's box of data?
(For those who didn't read the link, Pandora Berman and Brian K. Zuzga were archiving data from tapes.)
And then you can just do a fancy whizz-bang regex that matches the URL and blocks it anyway. For example my Squid rules blocks the adverts from mp3.com but don't block the servers. (I think I matched on /Ads/ - it works on other sites using that advert rotation software.)
Note that they also lose the ability to read / write their "bugs" which are on a per-server basis.
Whatever their method of adding an advert, people will still find a way to block it.
Oh great, another article written to sound like LDAP hasn't got past the experimental dabbling stage.
LDAP has had support in Netscape 4 and Mozilla for quite a while. Here's a fairly old HOWTO I wrote: How to set up LDAP in Mozilla 0.9.2.
Exactly my thought. We find it hard to understand - what about the intended recipients?
I also worry that they've just gone and given away some of our most important discoveries (eg, three cubes around a right angled triangle) for free to any hostile race, and a map of great locations to hover spacecraft over in preparation for destroying.
Good one! What clown thought that up?
;-)
(And I hope it wasn't government funding that paid for it either. Gee, my taxes going to help get myself killed.)
That's right, Doubleclick are still going to be serving up adverts. No, it is not time to remove the doubleclick entry from your hosts file.
You'll notice that on the linked page the following piece of code was included, loading an advert banner (that haven't blocked them already):
Did you know dillon_rinker is going to be born in a couple of months? Strange but true ... dillon_rinker's Mum is currently six months pregnant.
Hey buddy, take it in perspective. When they wrote the list it was right. That's why they put a date on it.
(BTW, that first paragraph was snipped from something from many years ago. It was correct when it was written.)
Ack! Bloody /. killed that comment.
Yes, it is silly seeing as this virus requires the user to run it before it will do anything. You may remember some recent flaws in several Microsoft products require you to do nothing, and exploits to some daemons also require you, the user, to do nothing.
Question ... who here has a "sandbox" user for running dodgy code? (Dodgy = untrusted, suspect, obfuscated, unvalidated)
I do. Perhaps you should go and "sudo adduser sandbox" right now.
Unless there is a local root exploit in a can being passed around, you should be able to su to that user and be safe while running dodgy code. Just make sure your permissions in various areas are locked down.
Or check out the ACLs in SE Linux.
su? Perhaps you mean sudo, because I find that I leave 'su' logged in for a bit longer than I intend.
Most definately this is the worst thing I have come across in my "evangelising" for reliable operating systems. How many times do I have to tell people that crashing is abnormal?
Crashing is abnormal. If software crashes it is broken. Take it back for a refund.
Are they stupid or just masochists? Software crashes and they lose an hours worth of data. What do they do? Oh well, let's do that again. It also destroys people's faith in software. I'm a bit cautious about using Mozilla because once in the last week it disappeared - ZAP!
Refer: Poor Code Quality Contaminates Users' Conceptual Models (useit.com; October 28, 2001)
People aren't going to get saved if they don't see the need for it. Even if they can't see the need it doesn't mean the need disappears. You need stable software. (Hmm, close parallel to another sort of evangelism.)
It wouldn't be the guy responsible for feeding the servers or administering the database responsible for this.
I'd say the editorial team who clicked the submit button a day early were the ones who will be getting a debriefing.
But then again, I haven't a clue how their organisation is structured. It might just be one guy feeding the servers, wearing the pager, doing the accounts, laying out the pages, creating artwork, writing stories, and editing.
Thanks for the explanation. I was quizzing a bit over the correct name of the eclipse.(Solar? Lunar?)
I see you also understand why the moon appears dark. :-)
Cheers.
"Far Side" sounds like something by Gary Larson. :-)
Yes, "Far Side" is a more correct term for the side of the moon furtherest from Earth. It most certaintly isn't dark - where does the other light from the Sun when there is only a "quarter moon" in the sky? And surely the "Dark Side" would be light during a lunar eclipse. :-)
The moon's orbit around its axis is the same length as its orbit around the Earth, so the same side of the moon is always facing the Earth. When you look up there at the moon, that's the same part of the Moon you always see. That's why sticking an observatory on it means they'll always be able to point out into space, but they'll still have trouble when the sun shines on them (during a "New Moon" from our perspective) and blots out its vision of the stars with interference (which I assume would be lessen by the lack of an atmosphere to scatter waves).
Flagrantly ripped from the latest DNRC newsletter: