So it is a required upgrade, unless you figure out a way to move everyone to Firefox tomorrow
Why don't people just use this as an opportunity to switch to Firefox or Opera? If a whole bunch of sites are already breaking with IE7, why not just go all the way for full standards compliance? Don't most people make sites that work in Firefox/Opera and validate, then hack them for IE?
All the issues people are having are bad. But if an application is made IE6 only, what do you think is harder? Fixing it to work in IE7, or fixing it to work in Firefox? If these people are freaking out over IE7, its gonna take them decades to fix their apps for a true compliant browser... This was needed.
If I had to guess, I would say going from IE6 to IE7 would be harder than IE6 to something standards compliant. The web standards are fairly well documented by w3c. The bugs and incompatibilites in IE7 are not.
I don't see the point. I don't do web development, but I have heard the new IE is just about as bad as the old IE when it comes to standards compliance. It's just bad in different ways. So won't web developers have to throw away tons of information on IE6 incompatibility, just to figure it out all over again for IE7? Sounds like a lot of wasted time.
If security is really the issue, shouldn't they remove IE altogether?
Taking something that isn't yours is wrong in the regular world, but if you believe the posts on Slashdot, doing it on the Internet is moral and just. Apparently there is some sort of magic dichotomy in effect.
I wasn't talking about stealing. I meant more along the lines of "Here little boy, come closer to my van so I can give you some candy."
Yeah sure, they deserve it. Anyone that thinks that they might be able to download something cool from the Internet for free *deserves* to have their machine maliciously invaded and "thrashed". That's what they get for believing something that is offered to them.
People shouldn't trust free things in the regular world. Why would it magically be safer on the internet?
Also, every random grandma got cleaned out by a phishing scam also deserves it. I'm sure that dumb old bag deserved it.. couldn't she see that the url was an IP address and not really her bank?
In my opinion, she did deserve it. I don't feel bad for people who get ripped off, hurt, or killed because they're idiots. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't be bothered to educate yourself about what you're doing, you deserve it.
Re:There is no such thing as bad publicity
on
Utube Sues YouTube
·
· Score: 1
Do you realize what utube.com sells? It's not consumer goods like iPods or DVDs. It's industrial pipe and tube equipment. I would be shocked if they were getting any extra sales from the increased hits. An industrial strength lathe or shear welder isn't the kind of thing you buy on a whim while looking for videos on the internet.
Which isn't to say they don't like the extra publicity. But the image on their front page would use almost 8 terabytes (122K * 68 million) a month all by itself. I don't know what that level of hosting costs, but it's probably not cheap and it's probably a lot more expensive than what their competitors are paying.
The idea is to see if the material is being used for the "existing use." If the person with rocket fuel gets pissed off and goes crazy, maybe they'll start to use it for not so existing uses.
And how would a background check and some storage requirements change anything? If I pass a background check today, who's to say I won't go crazy tomorrow? And what about people looking to get into rocketry? They won't exactly have proof that they're going into rocketry.
I love the hell out of my freedoms. Other people in this country have freedoms too. One of those should be the freedom to walk down the street and not worry about getting blown up, whether by a terrorist or some jerk who didn't know how to properly store explosive materials. The debate about where to draw the line on our freedoms is raging right now. Please be sensible.
Give me a break. You're more likely to die from a mosquito bite than you are from either a terrorst attack or improperly stored explosives.
If nothing else, it's a stupid law because it won't do anything except inconvenience innocent people. Can you honestly see this law stopping a determined criminal? Do you think they'd just walk into the store and ask for 500 pounds of APCP? Even before this?
I've never understood how people who claim to be "competent" get viruses, trojans, and other malware. I expect it from idiots who click on every free offer or flashy banner, but it's pretty funny to hear "competent" users say they got infected. What the hell do you people do?
But on the more technical side, they have to seed the random variable with something. Whether or not it's an internal clock, I'm not sure. Either way, they have to derive a random number and it's possible that their seed isn't good enough or has too few states or is prone to being seeded at the same state, etc. Based on this information, I hate to break it to you but it is very hard to be truly random.
Just to be pedantic, they have to derive psuedo-random numbers. And although it is hard, there are dozens of algorithms that are "good enough" in 99.9% of cases. Like this one.
On the other hand, Firefox 2 went a couple weeks between RC1 and RC2. Make a comparison in scale for Firefox versus Vista, and then comparing a couple weeks to a month doesn't seem like as big of a difference. Different companies have different ways of doing things - one persons RC2 is anothers Beta, and so on.
Yeah, like I said, not all projects can go from RC to release in a couple days. Software with as many users as Firefox or Vista should probably wait a little longer. I don't use Firefox and don't follow its development too closely anymore, so I'm going to take your word, but in any case, "release candidate" has traditionally meant "possible release". If Firefox is as guilty as Microsoft, so be it.
Really though, it's just semantics and marketing. Does it really matter whether it is called RC2 or Beta4 or Omega Omicron 53alpha? In the end, it's just a product that isn't quite ready for sale. I think it's a good thing to try to fix all the serious bugs they can before boxing it up and selling it.
Well, a rose by any other name... and all that. But, yeah, it's marketing. PHB hears "RC2" and thinks "It's just about done", PHB hears "beta3" and thinks "They still have to get the bugs out." If MS is good at anything, it's marketting. Personally, I'd prefer they had all the features added and most of the known bugs out before they told me it was ready for release, but hey, that's just me.
[Disclaimer: I am a software developer (not Vista) with Microsoft, these comments are my own, and are supplied without warranty and with no rights conferred]
[Disclaimer: I've had more beer than I care to mention. All comments are my own, are probably stupid, and should probably be taken with a grain of salt:-)]
If they don't fix bugs between RC's then what, pray tell, are they supposed to be doing? Just printing the same discs over again with RC2 instead of RC1? BTW smart guy, they don't add features after RC1.
It's an RC. Release Candidate. By traditional labeling, a release candidate is a possible release. You release the RC, and in a few days/weeks/months, if no "major" bugs are found, you release it without change. Anyone who tried RC1 can tell you that it was most certainly NOT ready to release without change.
Right about now a million MS fanboys are screaming "But people found bugs, so they needed to fix them and make a new RC." But some of the bugs that were "found" and features that were missing were so glaring and obvious, there's no possible way MS expected it to be an actual release. I hate MS as much as the next guy, but they're simply not dumb enough to think RC1 could have been the real release. In the entire rest of the computing world, that's called a "beta." Like it or not, that's just the way it is.
Opera, for example, uses their final release candidate as the final release. Just check out their weekly builds. September 18 was RC1, September 19 was RC2 (with a single bug fix), and on September 21 RC2 was released as 9.02. Same build number and everything. That's how it's supposed to be.
What the hell are you talking about? The GP is right, that summary sucked. If I wanted to suffer through reading summaries written by 12 year olds, I would just read digg.
Yes they did have a live exploit. The complaint is that they didn't even try to give Mozilla foundation an opportunity to patch the bug before the released it to the black-hats (along with the white hats) at the conference.
Welcome to real life. Firefox is getting large enough to be a target. And when a piece of software is a target, people aren't going to just file a bug report when they find an exploitable bug. Look at Windows/IE. Every time you hear about a new exploit on Windows/IE, it's because it's being exploited. It'd be nice if they filed a bug report first, but you definitely can't expect it. They're black hats for a reason, you know.
Given the way that these guys are touting how Firefox is vulnerable because they were able to find a bug that they refused to warn the firefox team about (like that refusal is Firefox's fault) I wouldn't be at all surprised to find that they managed to get some funding (either direct or indirect) from Microsoftl.
That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard all week. Black hat hackers release exploits all the time without warning the software's creator. The fact you think Microsoft is involoved says a lot more about you being a Firefox Fanboy than anything else. Get a clue.
I might be willing to hire one as a code monkey to churn out boring stuff that could easily be audited, but even then only if there were no other suitable applicants.
Yes, that's exactly what you want. A *bored* (ex)black hat hacker.
Here's an idea: quit fucking whining on Slashdot, you pussy. If you're sick of Windows, stop using it. It's that fucking simple. If the software you need doesn't run on Linux/OSX/whatever complain to the manufacturer and deal with it. Complain a bunch. Let them know you really need their software on non-Microsoft platforms. Yeah, it'll be a bitch for a while, but it'll pay off in the long run.
Do you think all the software you need is just going to magically start running on Linux? If everyone uses your logic your situation will never change. You'll be locked into using Windows forever. Stop bitching on Slashdot about how much you hate Microsoft, and start bitching to the people who actually have a hand in creating the software you need. It may not be as fast and effective as you like, but it's much more effective than bitching here, and a hell of a lot less annoying.
Either way, bite the bullet, deal with it, and leave the whiny sob stories for somebody who might give a fuck. Nobody here cares.
Oh, and as for the "real world", I work for an incredibly huge company, and they use Linux. A lot. The "real world" is huge, and not all of the companies in it are as idiotic as you make them sound.
The updates are run automatically - all the user has to do is click "Install" when the screen pops up. If one of my co-workers is incapable of pushing a button when a screen pops up once every week or two, we made a mistake in hiring him/her.
What are you going to do when the first major OS X vulenerability does get exploited? "Sorry guys, our IT department is incompetent, so we're going to have to let you all go"?
You can argue "what-ifs" all day long, but so far there hasn't ever been a vulnerability within OS X that has been exploited on a large scale (e.g., Melissa, Code Red, Blaster, etc), and I doubt there ever will be (unless they make major changes in later versions). There's simply no business case for spending money and inconveniencing people so you can be 100% sure they're not brain-dead and neglected to press the "Install" button when it popped up in front of their face.
Hey, I'm not trying to troll, I'm just pointing out that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. At one point no vulnerabilities in Windows had been exploited either, and we all know how that turned out.
Ahh, but we do! See, my employer has one of the strictest hiring/interview processes known to man. We will never hire someone just for the sake of filling the position - the person must be the best at whatever it is they do.
I don't see why you're mentioning that. Being the best at something else doesn't say anything about how often they'll run updates on their computer.
... and we never will.
Of course not. Because you never have before. Obviously...
Grover Venkatasubramaniam. I really like to play with small toy robots in my basement. I call them the Venkatasubramaniamators, and they fight each other up the basement stairs, which I call the Venkatasubramalifters. I also like to make small, tasty pastries (I call them Venkatasubramanies) and make them talk to me, as I'm fairly lonely with a name like Grover Venkatasubramaniam.
No one in this country can ever pronounce my name right. It's not that hard: Grover Venkat-asub-raman-iam. Venkatasubramaniam.
Slashdot Mirror
Why don't people just use this as an opportunity to switch to Firefox or Opera? If a whole bunch of sites are already breaking with IE7, why not just go all the way for full standards compliance? Don't most people make sites that work in Firefox/Opera and validate, then hack them for IE?
If I had to guess, I would say going from IE6 to IE7 would be harder than IE6 to something standards compliant. The web standards are fairly well documented by w3c. The bugs and incompatibilites in IE7 are not.
I don't see the point. I don't do web development, but I have heard the new IE is just about as bad as the old IE when it comes to standards compliance. It's just bad in different ways. So won't web developers have to throw away tons of information on IE6 incompatibility, just to figure it out all over again for IE7? Sounds like a lot of wasted time.
If security is really the issue, shouldn't they remove IE altogether?
Yeah, I probably should have said "People shouldn't automatically trust ..."
I wasn't talking about stealing. I meant more along the lines of "Here little boy, come closer to my van so I can give you some candy."
People shouldn't trust free things in the regular world. Why would it magically be safer on the internet?
In my opinion, she did deserve it. I don't feel bad for people who get ripped off, hurt, or killed because they're idiots. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't be bothered to educate yourself about what you're doing, you deserve it.
Do you realize what utube.com sells? It's not consumer goods like iPods or DVDs. It's industrial pipe and tube equipment. I would be shocked if they were getting any extra sales from the increased hits. An industrial strength lathe or shear welder isn't the kind of thing you buy on a whim while looking for videos on the internet.
Which isn't to say they don't like the extra publicity. But the image on their front page would use almost 8 terabytes (122K * 68 million) a month all by itself. I don't know what that level of hosting costs, but it's probably not cheap and it's probably a lot more expensive than what their competitors are paying.
And how would a background check and some storage requirements change anything? If I pass a background check today, who's to say I won't go crazy tomorrow? And what about people looking to get into rocketry? They won't exactly have proof that they're going into rocketry.
Give me a break. You're more likely to die from a mosquito bite than you are from either a terrorst attack or improperly stored explosives.
If nothing else, it's a stupid law because it won't do anything except inconvenience innocent people. Can you honestly see this law stopping a determined criminal? Do you think they'd just walk into the store and ask for 500 pounds of APCP? Even before this?
I've never understood how people who claim to be "competent" get viruses, trojans, and other malware. I expect it from idiots who click on every free offer or flashy banner, but it's pretty funny to hear "competent" users say they got infected. What the hell do you people do?
Just to be pedantic, they have to derive psuedo-random numbers. And although it is hard, there are dozens of algorithms that are "good enough" in 99.9% of cases. Like this one.
Yeah, like I said, not all projects can go from RC to release in a couple days. Software with as many users as Firefox or Vista should probably wait a little longer. I don't use Firefox and don't follow its development too closely anymore, so I'm going to take your word, but in any case, "release candidate" has traditionally meant "possible release". If Firefox is as guilty as Microsoft, so be it.
Well, a rose by any other name... and all that. But, yeah, it's marketing. PHB hears "RC2" and thinks "It's just about done", PHB hears "beta3" and thinks "They still have to get the bugs out." If MS is good at anything, it's marketting. Personally, I'd prefer they had all the features added and most of the known bugs out before they told me it was ready for release, but hey, that's just me.
[Disclaimer: I've had more beer than I care to mention. All comments are my own, are probably stupid, and should probably be taken with a grain of salt :-)]
It's an RC. Release Candidate. By traditional labeling, a release candidate is a possible release. You release the RC, and in a few days/weeks/months, if no "major" bugs are found, you release it without change. Anyone who tried RC1 can tell you that it was most certainly NOT ready to release without change.
Right about now a million MS fanboys are screaming "But people found bugs, so they needed to fix them and make a new RC." But some of the bugs that were "found" and features that were missing were so glaring and obvious, there's no possible way MS expected it to be an actual release. I hate MS as much as the next guy, but they're simply not dumb enough to think RC1 could have been the real release. In the entire rest of the computing world, that's called a "beta." Like it or not, that's just the way it is.
Opera, for example, uses their final release candidate as the final release. Just check out their weekly builds. September 18 was RC1, September 19 was RC2 (with a single bug fix), and on September 21 RC2 was released as 9.02. Same build number and everything. That's how it's supposed to be.
What the hell are you talking about? The GP is right, that summary sucked. If I wanted to suffer through reading summaries written by 12 year olds, I would just read digg.
OMFG!!1! Microsoft ignores bug reports? Are you serious? No way!!!!
Seriously though, it's irrelevant. They weren't making a statement about patch times. They were trying to ruin people's day. That's what blackhats do.
Welcome to real life. Firefox is getting large enough to be a target. And when a piece of software is a target, people aren't going to just file a bug report when they find an exploitable bug. Look at Windows/IE. Every time you hear about a new exploit on Windows/IE, it's because it's being exploited. It'd be nice if they filed a bug report first, but you definitely can't expect it. They're black hats for a reason, you know.
That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard all week. Black hat hackers release exploits all the time without warning the software's creator. The fact you think Microsoft is involoved says a lot more about you being a Firefox Fanboy than anything else. Get a clue.
I routinely peg my download of 4.5 Mbps. So much so, I'm considering paying $15 more for 6.5 Mbps.
Until consumer grade broadband catches up to hard drive read/write speeds, it's never going to be fast enough.
Yes, that's exactly what you want. A *bored* (ex)black hat hacker.
Here's an idea: quit fucking whining on Slashdot, you pussy. If you're sick of Windows, stop using it. It's that fucking simple. If the software you need doesn't run on Linux/OSX/whatever complain to the manufacturer and deal with it. Complain a bunch. Let them know you really need their software on non-Microsoft platforms. Yeah, it'll be a bitch for a while, but it'll pay off in the long run.
Do you think all the software you need is just going to magically start running on Linux? If everyone uses your logic your situation will never change. You'll be locked into using Windows forever. Stop bitching on Slashdot about how much you hate Microsoft, and start bitching to the people who actually have a hand in creating the software you need. It may not be as fast and effective as you like, but it's much more effective than bitching here, and a hell of a lot less annoying.
Either way, bite the bullet, deal with it, and leave the whiny sob stories for somebody who might give a fuck. Nobody here cares.
Oh, and as for the "real world", I work for an incredibly huge company, and they use Linux. A lot. The "real world" is huge, and not all of the companies in it are as idiotic as you make them sound.
Damn right. Microsoft hates competition. Theirs will be the only malware slowing down those new computers. :-)
Just wait till the iWii comes out.
What are you going to do when the first major OS X vulenerability does get exploited? "Sorry guys, our IT department is incompetent, so we're going to have to let you all go"?
Hey, I'm not trying to troll, I'm just pointing out that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. At one point no vulnerabilities in Windows had been exploited either, and we all know how that turned out.
I don't see why you're mentioning that. Being the best at something else doesn't say anything about how often they'll run updates on their computer.
Of course not. Because you never have before. Obviously...
Wow. Hope you guys don't do anything important.
Mindstorms are pretty cool, but these are completely awesome. The only downside is they're a bit more expensive than Mindstorm.
No one in this country can ever pronounce my name right. It's not that hard: Grover Venkat-asub-raman-iam. Venkatasubramaniam.
God damn kids, and their seven digit /. IDs.