I wonder what content providers will be willing to pay to keep their content from being relegated to a lower tier of service, or from being filtered altogether. After all, I'm assuming at some point in time, some content providers will start noticing drops in traffic if something like this were to become prevalent enough.
What if every web site with the words "teenage" and "Bush" close enough together in context got filtered? How would GWB reach out to america's youth then? Would government web sites get automatic preferencial tier status for throughput and downloads? The IRS too? Would all ISP need to respect such governmental site status settings?
First of all, the majoriy of users don't use Outlook with Exchange server. Those ports aren't required for those users.
Second, those who do use Exchange servers still have the option of RPC over HTTP or simply using Outlook Web Access.
In corporate settings, the majority use exchange. Turning off those ports does in fact prevent outlook from functioning complete with [bells|whistles], causing users to complain - I've done it and seen it happen. OWA lacks the rules/calendaring features that users seem to lust after. After using outlook with exchange, they don't like resorting to OWA. And, the reason I pointed out the netbios/outlook connection in the first place was that it seemed more relevant to the original subject of security ratings, as this is usually of interest to 'corporate' buyers than home users.
Thirdly, MS should have just fixed the vulnerabilities in its netbios protocol stack, or, shipped windows with those ports disabled by default. Then, if a user wants to enable filesharing, they should inform the user its a security problem to do so.
Just pointing out that 'nobody uses thing xyz' doesn't seem like a good reason not to fix a problem.
Starting Nmap 3.95 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ )
Interesting ports on windows2k:
(The 1662 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
135/tcp open msrpc
139/tcp open netbios-ssn
445/tcp open microsoft-ds
Since actually using windows requires this kind of setup, and closing these ports usually breaks things like outlook and filesharing, I'd say in such cases, windows is still a security failure. At least until the netbios protocol stack gets fixed or removed which seems unlikely.
Oh well. Humans will learn even earlier to ignore things. Sadly, we also learn to re-use behaviours that avoid punishment, and probably just become more ignorant in general.
I wonder, 100 or more years ago, how many choices life presented to people on the average, compared to now? Is it possible to have too many decisions to make in a day?
"f course you could always "fool" the system by starting your computer with your unique PIN or fingerprint and then letting another person use it"
Like your kids...
This seems like a continuation of the windows 'convienence over doing it the right way' way. Once everybody assumes that TPM is fool-proof, it will give the ID theft folks an even more powerfull tool with which to steal people's money.
Honestly, anytime anyone says 'this will be a fool-proof one-stop turnkey way to (insert any solution here)' just ask them to leave, and don't rely on whatever widget they are currently peddling.
When what you believe requires that the beliefs of others are wrong, you will be in conflict with them. In conflict with so many others, fundamentalists must feel persecuted.
Maybe its because conservatives are more hierarchical than egalitarian. This study found an assiciation between a hierarchical point of view and lowered perception of environmental risk, as well as an association between a higher perception of environmental risk and an egalitarian point of view.
Others have suggested that conservatives don't really want to hurt the environment, but rather fear the loss of status they experience when the things tied to symbols of their worldview, such as wealth and power, become directly or indirectly stigmatized as bad.
Thus, if reducing greenhouse gas emissions will make it harder to accumulate wealth, it should be avoided, if being wealthy is accepted as a measure of personal success in someone's worldview. So, they want to avoid seeing greenhouse gas as a 'bad' thing, because its associated with accumulation of wealth and power. Hence, the attempt to pretend that the climate isn't changing due to pollution.
Unfortunetly, worldviews won't change until the world changes.
"(*) Go ahead, call me a moron for not being able to get it to work. I know you want to."
Not hardly. I've found OSS software has plenty of things/features that don't work, or don't work they way you'd think. Often, its because some package is still in early stages of development. People often install a linux distro with the impression that the *entire* distro is a finshed product, which isn't the case. Installing a linux distro is a different situation with respect to where various parts of the distro are at, and can be frustrating due the amount of information that needs to be assimilated to get a perspective that helps dispell the confusion.
That said, I installed Ubuntu 5.10 on a thinkpad A22m, and I've only had one thing fail to work, minicom which doesn't talk to the serial port, and epiphany crashes from time to time (although it works). A quick laundry list of things that pretty much worked fresh out the install without a hitch:
GNOME & various preference applets as well as things like gedit, gipsc, etc.
KDE ( i did install kubuntu too )
Konquerer
Firefox
Evolution
KMail
Synaptic
Ubuntu's automatic update notifier
Aptitude
various net utilities like ping, traceroute, ssh, sshd, etc.
Bastille
Guarddog
Various xterms like Gnome-ternminal, etc.
The following I just built from source, in the most thoughtless./configure; make; sudo make install and they worked just fine also:
Ntop
mrtg
rrdtool
mrxvt
I installed OSX 10.4 on an 800MHZ iLamp, and it crashes, and the mouse occasionally stops talking with the USB port - none of which ever happened on 10.3 - so its the software. Apple QA does seem to have taken a hit lately.
I think the approach to how windows is architected is to blame for its security woes to a larger extent than 'bad' programmers. The windows way seems to be 'black box' or monolithic in its approach. Within its walls, a program has a pretty good chance at getting around where its shouldn't be able to go, even amongst threads it seems. The Unix way seems to be environment oriented - a collection of independant tools that can work together, but have their own lives apart from each others. Windows seems like a fortress (in its design, not how secure it ends up being) in that once inside the walls, one is more free to roam. Unixes seem like a city with internal security like police and homes with functional locks on the doors.
That, and what seems to be the constant push at MS for convenience over good design. As long as the corporate culture at MS follows the convenience/citidel way of building operating systems, they're going to have nothing but troubles with respect to security.
Hmm. If non-geographic TLDs were gone, wouldn't each country deterine its own participation in the DNS? Would it really suck if www.slashdot.org became www.slashdot.org.us and www.slashdot.org.ca? Don't people generally just click hyperlinks as opposed to typing them in anyway? Don't trademarks have to be registered in multiple countries? Why not the same for TLDs?
Sure, countries would really have to share in eachothers DNS, but wouldn't that work just as well as right now? For example, if you wanted people in your country to be able to resolve domain names in Canada, couldn't you just have Canada's root name servers in the list of peer nameservers (listed SOA's for that country's TLD) in your country's root nameservers? Or can't root nameservers work that way?
It seems that DNS started out with a bit of a fragmented nature, with one set of TLDs for what you are, and one set of TLDs for where you are. I think they really should have picked one way and stuck to it.
Actually, having one browser used universally everywhere, whether its FF, IE, Opera, etc., is more of a security threat. Diversity is the best time-tested defense against viruses as well as the best way to insure survival.
Good example from nature: not long ago in a lab in VA, an airborn strain of Ebola was discovered killing off the lab monkeys. The virus was confirmed to be airborn, confirmed to be killing the monkeys, and confirmed to have infected humans working with the monkeys, and show to be spreading fast (as airborn viruses tend to be). Why didn't people die in vast numbers?
Genetic diversity.
The airborn strain of Ebola only killed one species of monkey.
I hope IE never goes away, nor FF, nor Opera, nor Safari. Diversity (OS, browsers, etc) is the best defense.
"Then your outcome is the result of stupidty, illiteracy or laziness, since, as others have poointed out, the process of getting a new activation code is easy."
" Guess what? Microsoft has a whole process devoted to people who have changed their hdd and now have problems re-registering. It's been a while since I checked, but that process (or a pointer to it) used to be denoted on the page that comes up when you encounter a problem registering.
Your posting sounds a lot more like incorrect bitching about a fictional problem than a real-life experience."
As a consumer, I really don't care at all about either their excuse or what kind of hoops they want me to jump through for them. And yes, it did really happen in 'real-life'. Trying to dismiss something as fictional as a way to discredit what you don't like to hear doesn't really make much of a usefull contribution.
I'd avoid all MS software, just because I don't want to have to buy XP (apparently really means extra purchase) more than once. I went to windows update and was told there was a problem with my license code and I couldn't get updates.
I did have to replace a hard drive, and now apparently MS thinks I'm using a duplicate license code. I'm not buying their OS over again just because I had to replace a part in my computer, and I shouldn't have to play some kind of childish workaround game just because of their grand maul shitheadedness. I'm a customer who replaced a hard drive, not a pirate.
In so far as CPUs are concerned, Intel's competitors have been outperforming them for as long as Intel has had competitors. When they made the 8080, the z80 and 6809 were faster. When they made the 8088, AT&T made the faster 8086 and motorola came out with a true 16-bit chip.
Intel has always compromised performance accross the board to conserve somethings else they think might need to be conserved, usually to compensate for less-than-leading design. Sometime its pin count, sometimes its silicon, sometimes its heat, or something else that got out of hand as a result of some other design choice that cost them. With a few brief exceptions, that's been their story. They're better at selling chips than making them.
Slashdot Mirror
In the good ol' days, they would just cut off your hands. Where's Sony's HQ? Okay, maybe a few days of harsh caning...
EULA: End User Loses Always
I wonder what content providers will be willing to pay to keep their content from being relegated to a lower tier of service, or from being filtered altogether. After all, I'm assuming at some point in time, some content providers will start noticing drops in traffic if something like this were to become prevalent enough.
What if every web site with the words "teenage" and "Bush" close enough together in context got filtered? How would GWB reach out to america's youth then? Would government web sites get automatic preferencial tier status for throughput and downloads? The IRS too? Would all ISP need to respect such governmental site status settings?
What a tangle web we weave...
Breaks Outlook? That is a bit of an exagguration.
First of all, the majoriy of users don't use Outlook with Exchange server. Those ports aren't required for those users.
Second, those who do use Exchange servers still have the option of RPC over HTTP or simply using Outlook Web Access.
In corporate settings, the majority use exchange. Turning off those ports does in fact prevent outlook from functioning complete with [bells|whistles], causing users to complain - I've done it and seen it happen. OWA lacks the rules/calendaring features that users seem to lust after. After using outlook with exchange, they don't like resorting to OWA. And, the reason I pointed out the netbios/outlook connection in the first place was that it seemed more relevant to the original subject of security ratings, as this is usually of interest to 'corporate' buyers than home users.
Thirdly, MS should have just fixed the vulnerabilities in its netbios protocol stack, or, shipped windows with those ports disabled by default. Then, if a user wants to enable filesharing, they should inform the user its a security problem to do so.
Just pointing out that 'nobody uses thing xyz' doesn't seem like a good reason not to fix a problem.
$ nmap windows2k
Starting Nmap 3.95 ( http://www.insecure.org/nmap/ )
Interesting ports on windows2k:
(The 1662 ports scanned but not shown below are in state: closed)
135/tcp open msrpc
139/tcp open netbios-ssn
445/tcp open microsoft-ds
Since actually using windows requires this kind of setup, and closing these ports usually breaks things like outlook and filesharing, I'd say in such cases, windows is still a security failure. At least until the netbios protocol stack gets fixed or removed which seems unlikely.
Oh well. Humans will learn even earlier to ignore things. Sadly, we also learn to re-use behaviours that avoid punishment, and probably just become more ignorant in general.
I wonder, 100 or more years ago, how many choices life presented to people on the average, compared to now? Is it possible to have too many decisions to make in a day?
"f course you could always "fool" the system by starting your computer with your unique PIN or fingerprint and then letting another person use it"
Like your kids...
This seems like a continuation of the windows 'convienence over doing it the right way' way. Once everybody assumes that TPM is fool-proof, it will give the ID theft folks an even more powerfull tool with which to steal people's money.
Honestly, anytime anyone says 'this will be a fool-proof one-stop turnkey way to (insert any solution here)' just ask them to leave, and don't rely on whatever widget they are currently peddling.
MS and MTV. Two great tastes that taste great together. One sticks to the roof of your mouth and the other makes you break out.
I hope it can stand being dropped...
When what you believe requires that the beliefs of others are wrong, you will be in conflict with them. In conflict with so many others, fundamentalists must feel persecuted.
Science isn't about truth.
Moe is their leader.
Maybe its because conservatives are more hierarchical than egalitarian. This study found an assiciation between a hierarchical point of view and lowered perception of environmental risk, as well as an association between a higher perception of environmental risk and an egalitarian point of view.
Others have suggested that conservatives don't really want to hurt the environment, but rather fear the loss of status they experience when the things tied to symbols of their worldview, such as wealth and power, become directly or indirectly stigmatized as bad.
Thus, if reducing greenhouse gas emissions will make it harder to accumulate wealth, it should be avoided, if being wealthy is accepted as a measure of personal success in someone's worldview. So, they want to avoid seeing greenhouse gas as a 'bad' thing, because its associated with accumulation of wealth and power. Hence, the attempt to pretend that the climate isn't changing due to pollution.
Unfortunetly, worldviews won't change until the world changes.
Maybe they should target a few cruise missles at Sony, for their second DRM snafu.
After all, a rootkit is a tactic that would be attractive to some terrorist organizations...
Of course, I don't missles fired at me for running MythTV. Maybe its just a bad idea.
Not hardly. I've found OSS software has plenty of things/features that don't work, or don't work they way you'd think. Often, its because some package is still in early stages of development. People often install a linux distro with the impression that the *entire* distro is a finshed product, which isn't the case. Installing a linux distro is a different situation with respect to where various parts of the distro are at, and can be frustrating due the amount of information that needs to be assimilated to get a perspective that helps dispell the confusion.
That said, I installed Ubuntu 5.10 on a thinkpad A22m, and I've only had one thing fail to work, minicom which doesn't talk to the serial port, and epiphany crashes from time to time (although it works). A quick laundry list of things that pretty much worked fresh out the install without a hitch:
The following I just built from source, in the most thoughtless
I installed OSX 10.4 on an 800MHZ iLamp, and it crashes, and the mouse occasionally stops talking with the USB port - none of which ever happened on 10.3 - so its the software. Apple QA does seem to have taken a hit lately.
OSS 1
OSX 0
I have to say, I think WOZ is right.
I think the approach to how windows is architected is to blame for its security woes to a larger extent than 'bad' programmers. The windows way seems to be 'black box' or monolithic in its approach. Within its walls, a program has a pretty good chance at getting around where its shouldn't be able to go, even amongst threads it seems. The Unix way seems to be environment oriented - a collection of independant tools that can work together, but have their own lives apart from each others. Windows seems like a fortress (in its design, not how secure it ends up being) in that once inside the walls, one is more free to roam. Unixes seem like a city with internal security like police and homes with functional locks on the doors.
That, and what seems to be the constant push at MS for convenience over good design. As long as the corporate culture at MS follows the convenience/citidel way of building operating systems, they're going to have nothing but troubles with respect to security.
I think he meant, like, Canada, eh...
In my day we had to carry the punch cards 5 miles through snow to the nearest reader.
uphill
fighting mountain lions.
Hmm. If non-geographic TLDs were gone, wouldn't each country deterine its own participation in the DNS? Would it really suck if www.slashdot.org became www.slashdot.org.us and www.slashdot.org.ca? Don't people generally just click hyperlinks as opposed to typing them in anyway? Don't trademarks have to be registered in multiple countries? Why not the same for TLDs?
Sure, countries would really have to share in eachothers DNS, but wouldn't that work just as well as right now? For example, if you wanted people in your country to be able to resolve domain names in Canada, couldn't you just have Canada's root name servers in the list of peer nameservers (listed SOA's for that country's TLD) in your country's root nameservers? Or can't root nameservers work that way?
It seems that DNS started out with a bit of a fragmented nature, with one set of TLDs for what you are, and one set of TLDs for where you are. I think they really should have picked one way and stuck to it.
Actually, having one browser used universally everywhere, whether its FF, IE, Opera, etc., is more of a security threat. Diversity is the best time-tested defense against viruses as well as the best way to insure survival.
Good example from nature: not long ago in a lab in VA, an airborn strain of Ebola was discovered killing off the lab monkeys. The virus was confirmed to be airborn, confirmed to be killing the monkeys, and confirmed to have infected humans working with the monkeys, and show to be spreading fast (as airborn viruses tend to be). Why didn't people die in vast numbers?
Genetic diversity.
The airborn strain of Ebola only killed one species of monkey.
I hope IE never goes away, nor FF, nor Opera, nor Safari. Diversity (OS, browsers, etc) is the best defense.
"Then your outcome is the result of stupidty, illiteracy or laziness, since, as others have poointed out, the process of getting a new activation code is easy."
Insults always miss the point.
" Guess what? Microsoft has a whole process devoted to people who have changed their hdd and now have problems re-registering. It's been a while since I checked, but that process (or a pointer to it) used to be denoted on the page that comes up when you encounter a problem registering.
Your posting sounds a lot more like incorrect bitching about a fictional problem than a real-life experience."
As a consumer, I really don't care at all about either their excuse or what kind of hoops they want me to jump through for them. And yes, it did really happen in 'real-life'. Trying to dismiss something as fictional as a way to discredit what you don't like to hear doesn't really make much of a usefull contribution.
I'd avoid all MS software, just because I don't want to have to buy XP (apparently really means extra purchase) more than once. I went to windows update and was told there was a problem with my license code and I couldn't get updates.
I did have to replace a hard drive, and now apparently MS thinks I'm using a duplicate license code. I'm not buying their OS over again just because I had to replace a part in my computer, and I shouldn't have to play some kind of childish workaround game just because of their grand maul shitheadedness. I'm a customer who replaced a hard drive, not a pirate.
That explains why IIS is in decline in terms of market share and total numbers.
In so far as CPUs are concerned, Intel's competitors have been outperforming them for as long as Intel has had competitors. When they made the 8080, the z80 and 6809 were faster. When they made the 8088, AT&T made the faster 8086 and motorola came out with a true 16-bit chip.
Intel has always compromised performance accross the board to conserve somethings else they think might need to be conserved, usually to compensate for less-than-leading design. Sometime its pin count, sometimes its silicon, sometimes its heat, or something else that got out of hand as a result of some other design choice that cost them. With a few brief exceptions, that's been their story. They're better at selling chips than making them.