Yep - I've done the same thing for a few people. But I will say this. If you have serious problems with IE on your machine (such as pop-up ads coming up like mad when you launch it, or crashes with error report logs coming up whenever you visit certain sites), you really should still get to the bottom of the core problem.
You can use FireFox as a good "work around", but when the user clicks on "Windows Update" to check for/get OS upgrades, it's going to still launch IE for that job, even if FireFox is set as the default browser - and the upgrades will probably fail.
Also, some of the IE crashes I've seen when people visit certain secure sites, or sites using lots of Javascript are actually due to.DLL registration problems in Windows itself. If these problems aren't hunted down and resolved, you risk having crashes in some of your other apps too.
Actually, there are still a LOT of people out there trying to make use of a system with much lower specs than 512MB of RAM and a PIII processor.
I regularly do service work for people using Pentium 2 systems, often in the 266Mhz to 333Mhz range or so, and only 64MB or 128MB in most cases.
Even when people get their shiny new P4 or AMD Athlon tower, they often decide "the old machine is still good enough to use for Internet stuff" and hang onto it.
AVG Anti-Virus happens to be one of my personal favorites, largely because it doesn't take many system resource to run. Try a copy of Norton SystemWorks 2004 or 2005, by comparison! (And frankly, most people do - simply because every office supply superstore in the country wants to sell you Norton, but you can't even buy AVG retail anyplace in the U.S.)
First off, I agree with your basic premise that "most people have a skewed perspective" of how spyware gets on their PC. Like you said, much of it *does* get in when it comes attached to "freeware" programs people elect to download and install. Unfortunately, I think it's advancing past that point as virus developers get more sophisticated. I can't absolutely prove it, but I'm seeing strong evidence that some of these "trojan horse viruses" that *do* get in via Windows security holes start downloading/installing as much spyware/malware as they can once they get in. (Basically, the virus writers figured out they can do more damage and cause more frustration by installing spyware on the box than by directly causing havock themselves!)
As for your comment on the Windows security model: The main reason "most users elect to run with Administrator rights all the time" in Windows is because it's inherently designed to encourage that behavior! When you create a new user account in XP, you're initially only given *2* choices; either be an "administrator with access to install/remove programs" or a "limited user" who can't. When you present things that way, why is it surprising MOST people opt to be "administrators"? We do, after all, usually want to be able to install software on our own PC.
When I worked in corporate I.T., we ran into BIG headaches trying to force a Windows NT environment to comply with our wishes to restrict user access. In the end, it became clear the only way to administer the NT environment in a practical manner was to give all of the users administrator rights to the local workstations. Sure, the MS technical references pay "lip service" to the idea of doing things differently - but there are simply too many "gotchas" that come up as you deploy more applications on your LAN/WAN. Windows was originally based on a single-user model where the user always had full control of the machine, and it shows....
It seems to me, there's really no advantage to merging Firewox/Thunderbird into a single product - and meanwhile, Mozilla "fills the bill" for people who *do* prefer these types of apps bundled into one program.
So much depends on your OS preference and situation.
EG. On my Apple Powerbook running OS X, I'm pretty comfortable using the built-in "Mail" application. It does all of the basics I need (even things like spam filtering) and is tightly integrated into the OS (address book, etc.). I do, however, want the benefits of a better/faster browser - so I like having FireFox on it. There'd be no reason I'd prefer Mozilla (or a TBird/FFox combo) instead, since it'd just mean loading up a larger app than I needed each time I wanted to view web pages.
On the flip-side, I could get used to a combo web/email product on my Windows box - because both Outlook Express and IE could stand being replaced, and as often as not, I seem to leave both email and web browser running at the same time anyway on this system.
IMHO, it's only a "good thing" from a relative standpoint. Sure, it's "good" that MS realizes spyware is enough of a problem that they decide to buy out someone who has already been working hard to solve the problem. (From a few recent comments I read over on ArsTechnica after they posted a spyware-testing article, Giant's product is supposedly quite good. In fact, arguably the best available right now, of the non-freeware spyware removers.)
As the parent poster pointed out though, this stuff isn't even an issue for non-Windows users. I'm using my PowerMac G5 tower right now, and it's rather nice not to have to wait while my anti-virus package loads up (further cluttering up a crowded system tray), and then having to wait while the thing does its automatic updates every day or two. No spyware/malware worries either. Just boot up and go....
I do PC on-site service calls for a living (Mac too, on the odd occasion we get them), and I can honestly say that virus/spyware issues generate the vast majority of my income right now. From that angle, I guess I should be happy there's such a big problem. But somehow I'm not... I often tell my customers about the Macintosh alternative (both the good and the bad), and at least 40% of the time or so, they decide it really sounds like it's "right up their alley" and they consider one for their next system purchase.
Call me crazy or whatever... but after 14 years of working with computers, I just feel like it should be as enjoyable an experience for people as possible. Using as much as 30% of your CPU time running background tasks like firewalls, virus scanners and anti-spyware packages seems so unnecessary....
Your example #4 is within the realms of possibility, but frankly - I think it's quite a stretch.
I've had a few classes that one might say fit this criteria (entire class was lazy/goofing off), yet I'd argue that the teacher was still partially at fault.
A good teacher should be able to handle this type of situation, just as a good salesperson should be able to handle difficult customers.
The fact remains, the class consists of a group of "customers" who paid to sit in the class for the purpose of learning. Even "lazy" people can be motivated to do surprising things if you present things the right way. I'm not saying a teacher can become a miracle worker, but if he/she isn't able to modify his/her presentations/teaching enough to get at least *one or two* students interested enough to pass the tests, then I have to wonder....
Again, recall that we're not talking about giving out A's or even B's... We're talking about giving out a C or even a D to a few people, instead of a class full of F's.
Umm... Who was arguing for the extreme opposite of banning the use of lethal force for self-defense in the home?
All I think most of us are saying is that when you're in your own home, and someone forces themselves inside and threatens you with any kind of physical harm - reponding by shooting them is most likely a *reasonable* response.
I'm not saying it should be legal to shoot some teenager who wanders onto your farmland, or climbs the fence and walks across your back yard. Certainly, you don't have good cause to shoot at a person just because they set your car alarm off in a public parking lot.
None of that is the issue at all. The problem is, if we're going to put the burden of proof on the innocent victim at home to show he/she really was going to be killed if he/she didn't shoot first, - we're coming ever-closer to saying people have no more right to privacy in their home than they do outdoors!
It sounds to me like you grew up with tyrannical parents, and are simply lucky to have been intelligent enough to see everything for what it was worth and grew up without doing anything stupid.
My parents were actually both teachers, and gave me plenty of guidance when I was growing up. I can remember receiving a few spankings as a kid if I was really acting up and nothing else worked - but there was no need to take "discipline" anywhere near the level of "physical abuse" to get a message across.
It sounds like your little sister behaved just like many other kids would behave if they're confronted with what feels like overly restrictive parents. They rebel... trying to push the envelope at every opportunity.
Of course your actions have very real ramifications, but this is a lesson one has to hear from their parents, but then hone into reality through their own experiences. (IMHO, when your parents try to artifically "inflate" the level of seriousness of things by using too much punishment on a regular basis, it tends to make the kid start blocking it all out. You run the risk of creating the opposite results you were expecting to get as a parent.)
Yeah... but as someone who worked in I.T. in a factory environment before, I've seen the way most portables (and even PDAs) get treated by most "field inspectors" and the like.
They're dirty, beat-up and left sitting in rather harsh environments on a regular basis.
Perhaps that's the real reason Apple hasn't been thrilled to build a pen-based tablet computer. They're all about elegance and building a machine a user can really be proud to own, and will take exceptionally good care of.
(Don't believe me? Why would their favorite system design colors be snow white and easily scratched/smudged aluminum?) I love my new Powerbook, but it'd literally get dented up and badly oxidized in days, in some of work environments I saw inspectors using their black plastic Dell laptops in where I used to work.
Absolutely! Why does everyone seem to assume that children have no rights anymore?
We talk about "setting a good example" and then we turn around and spy/eavesdrop on our own children, put all sorts of intrusive tracking devices in the electronics they use and so forth? That's not the type of example I want to set...
The premise is fairly flawed anyway. Look at this quote from the original article:
"If I know where my kids are, where they're going, how they're driving and how fast they're traveling, I can counsel them before an accident occurs. I can help protect them."
Ummm.... How is he going to "help protect them" before an accident occurs? The cellphone GPS may suddenly inform him that his teenager is driving way over the speed limit, but if the next thing that happens is he loses a signal - seems to me like it's too late and his kid just had a potentially fatal accident. If he thinks a little bit of "counseling" is going to work, he's deluded. Come on... As a teen, I heard *plenty* of lectures about driving safely and more slowly, and that was without anyone needing a tracking device to realize I wasn't always driving the local speed limit. Teens are going to do what they're going to do, and if you didn't get them to take some responsbility and be a little cautious from the start, it's way too late to fix their speeding habits when they're already out using your car.
Seems to me you'd be legally ok, but because of the methods used to obtain your programming - could theoretically have to endure going to court and prove your innocence. (Presenting proof you really do have a current premium channel subscription on cable or satellite for the channel showing the program you downloaded should do the trick.)
So often, that's the problem with these things... Despite being legally "in the right", people may feel compelled to stop a particular behavior or method of doing things simply because the fight likely required to retain their right to do so doesn't seem to be worth the time and effort.
Hmm.... that's an interesting argument you have there. I've actually never heard someone make that statement before, that a hash is a "derived work" of the original software.
Might have some validity, but I think it's still a stretch. The original point (legally speaking, anyway) of concern over "derived works" was focused on people doing slight modifications to existing code and attempting to resell it as something new and original. (EG. If I have access to the source code to Outlook Express email for Windows and I change the screen colors and default fonts, some of the wording and dialog boxes, and put the folder list on the right instead of the left, I can't run around selling it as a new email product called "MailMaster 5000 Pro".)
A hash, in and of itself, is a very small chunk of alphanumeric data that doesn't contain enough code to conclusively prove it was only able to be created by using a specific original work. (After all, I could write a small program to generate random hashes all day long and theoretically create one that happens to be identical to one made the "proper way", by generating it based on a specific file.)
Seriously, *no*, it's *nothing* like leaving a gun around for someone to use. It's this type of severely flawed analogy that brought us the silly concept of referring to copyright infringement as "piracy".
The photocopier analogy makes much more sense, because it deals with the same basic issue. You put a device out there that is capable of duplicating information, and someone comes along and makes use of it.
Guns are legally required to be registered to their owners, unlike copiers or computers, for starters. They're also capable of killing human beings due to improper use -- and last I checked, nobody was killed by their photocopier while running off copies?
Also, I'd think in the case of products like BitTorrent, it might become a factor that you never really provided a complete copy of a given work to the receiver. The way BT works, you're normally just distributing portions of a file, while other systems help distribute the other pieces. Parts of files get passed around like a dealer dealing from a deck of cards.
I know this has been stated MANY times before in various ways, but if "closed source" truly is effective in preventing malware/hacks/virii simply because the source isn't available for anyone's inspection - then why do we see all the security flaws popping up with IIS? Meanwhile Apache has comparable market-share and usage world-wide on the net as a web server, and it is considered far more secure?
By the same token, Linux and BSD have been chosen as the platform many commercial firewall/router products are based on, despite being open-source. If open-source really had a "disadvantage", security-wise, by the mere fact that it's freely available code - then wouldn't you think companies like Netgear or Cisco/Linksys would steer clear of them in security-related network appliances?
Of course "exploits are expected to come out within hours of disclosure" - but that seems like a pretty general statement to me. Far more people with malicious intent are capable of slapping together some code based on a documented flaw than figuring out a previously undiscovered flaw and exploiting it. If you disclose a Linux or BSD security flaw, I'd say it's just as likely to be exploited quickly as a Windows flaw.
Why is it people think flash doesn't fail? I've lost a fair amount of data on my Sony camera's memory stick when it started going bad and quit saving things reliably on parts of it.
You can only rewrite/erase flash so many times before it fails, and from my observations - some cards out there fail long before they should.
By your comment, I assume you won't ever consider purchasing a laptop computer of any sort either?
Probably wouldn't buy a good 35mm film or digital camera either, right?
You never know "how long its going to last" when you buy a piece of portable electronics, but you *can* make an educated guess based on the look, feel and reports of others over time, plus a little knowledge of other similar technologies.
My iPod feels far from "disposable". In fact, I spent the $50 or so extra to extend its warranty out a couple extra years, because I intend to hang onto it a while.
If the "public airwaves" are really such a public resource, then why is it practically impossible to purchase a legal license to broadcast radio (nevermind TV) on any of them in anything resembling a major metropolitan area?
I know we're debating control of content on the receiving side of the spectrum, but that really means you have to consider the other half of the story... the broadcast side. The broadcast airwaves would only be truly subject to "public opinion" if government let go of their controls on them, and let the free market decide which broadcasters were doing a good job and which weren't!
Because it's so prohibitively expensive to start one's own TV or radio station, we've gotten into the current situation - where folks feel like they're stuck hearing/watching only what the big conglomerates want to broadcast, unless they pay extra to get the alternatives (like XM radio or cable TV).
Especially with today's technology, it's really not that costly a proposition for someone to set up their own little radio station that covers as much as a 5 to 25 mile radius. The only reason the cost is through the stratosphere is govt's insistence on outlawing most of this as "pirate radio", and guaranteeing frequencies (at a huge price) to one business per city.
I never said it was somehow "un-libertarian" to let people "pay for their smut". Your Howard Stern example would be absolutely fine by me, except for the fact that he was cited, specifically, for things other air personalities have done on TV or radio too - and gotten away with. If you're going to let govt. force someone off the air, then it should at least be determined by clearly spelled-out details, and apply to *all* parties. Not just selective enforcement.
I don't know about your statement on parenting... Having devices in a child's room doesn't have to mean anything, really. If the parent has done a good job teaching the kid and making some ground rules for usage of these things, I don't see that it matters an awful lot if they've got, say, a telephone in their bedroom?
My brother and I both grew up having our own color TV set in our bedroom - but I can't remember ever really even using it except when I was sick and lying in bed during the day. Our parents made it clear we weren't supposed to be watching TV after our bedtime - and we were too scared they might hear it or notice the flickering of the screen lighting up the edges around our door with all the other lights in the house turned off; so we didn't do it.
I never had a phone in my room, but I can't see that it would have mattered, either. My parents weren't going to spend $'s to give me my own line/number, so tying up their line was going to get noticed whether I was in my room or in the kitchen on the phone. If I didn't do my homework and got banned from using the phone, I was equally likely to get in trouble for using it no matter where the phone was.....
I also know quite a few parents who let their kid(s) have a Playstation or X-Box in their room, but find it's very good leverage to get the children doing what they want. (The threat of "I'm taking your game system away for the next month if you don't do X or Y." seems pretty useful.)
I think kids should at least get the chance to have a little private space of their own, and feel like they have some "personal technology-related property" of their own. It just needs to be tempered with the realization that these things are privileges, not "rights" - and can be revoked for bad behavior.
I was just discussing the whole "censorship of mass media" issue with a co-worker yesterday.
I feel like we're witnessing a rebellion of sorts, where TV show hosts and producers, musicians, artists, and the like are all making concerted efforts to push the boundaries of what's "decent" in broadcasting.
Whether or not this prompts niche groups with agendas to file thousands of complaints, it sends out a signal that producers of media are tired of trying to comply with FCC regulations that haven't changed with the times.
For starters, I think the current generation, as a whole, is simply not as offended by or adverse to swearing/curse words. Many of us in the "20-something and 30-something" age groups and below have decided that "words are just words" and curse words are only as "bad" as the attention we choose to artifically draw to them.
Last time I listened to a modern rock music station, for example, I was surprised to hear words edited out of at least 5 songs within an hour or two's time. In at least 3 or 4 of these cases, I had never even noticed the singer was singing a "curse word" before, except they made it obvious by chopping it out of the middle of the music.
When your listening audience is perfectly fine with a singer saying the "F word" in the middle of a song, then why should the FCC prohibit it on the radio? As always, those who don't care for it can change the station or simply listen to their own music, instead of what's served up on the radio.
I'm of the opinion that federal regulation of the media is basically unnecessary and "un-American" when you get right down to it. The people who want "clean TV" for their kids or for themselves are a large demographic, so the free market will cater to them either way. (Why do you think we have 2 Disney Channels on cable/satellite, Nickelodeon and "Nick for Kids", etc. etc.?) If the local stations keep airing things that offend big segments of their viewers, they're the ones who will lose advertising revenue eventually....
But since my rather Libertarian views are in the vast minority, I'm sure we're going to be stuck with the FCC dictating what we can/can't see on TV or hear on the radio during certain hours... That's why I'd still say, ok - fine them for obvious stunts like the Janet Jackson/Superbowl fiasco. (That sort of thing is done knowing full-well there will be punishment for it later... But sometimes people just want the "negative publicity" enough to do it anyway.) But at the very least, reconsider the "1950-esque" standards for "decency" on the radio.
Ok, perhaps "conspiracy" was a bit too harsh a word (or at least, not the best choice of wording)... but I think my general point still stands.
When you refer to the "whole DIY industry based around" the idea of building codes, I'm not quite sure I follow? What I've run across myself is quite a few DIY type books and videos on the market that give just enough general info to make someone confident enough they can tackle their own issue to dive in and give it a shot. What they *don't* usually do is detail all of the "gotchas" one might encounter during the project, and all of the building codes that might apply.
I know when I remodeled our bathroom, I really felt like I was flying by the seat of my pants, despite having Home Depot's guide to home improvement and some info I found on web sites about redoing bathroom tile, etc. I made quite a few decisions based solely on advice of a buddy who does carpentry and home remodeling projects for a living - but couldn't find much documentation to back up his recommendations. (EG. He told me to be sure to use "green board" to replace walls we knocked out when we got rid of the old tile. My books and guides never said anything about this. I would have just gone with regular drywall if he hadn't mentioned it to me. Is that "code"? Dunno... Could be, since green board is supposed to be much more moisture-proof, but I couldn't figure out for sure.)
As for my PVC pipe with the Y split coming off of it, yes - it did occur to me that the reason "code" didn't allow it is fear it would become a trap and clog. But the Y split points up at a 45 deg. angle.. not down... So logically, I'd think anything causing that to clog the pipe would have clogged a straight section of pipe too. The water is flowing down the pipe.
When it comes to electrical wiring, it's really not rocket science. It's either right or it's wrong, IMHO. Clearly, a penny in a fuse box is a "hack" and completely bypasses a safety measure. To me, that's nowhere near the same as having a non-licensed handyman swap out an old, failing fuse sub-box with something comparable, except new with a breaker in it. You're talking about what, 3 wires (common, neutral and ground) being switched out from old box to new? The biggest safety risk I'd see is the handyman electrocuting himself because he didn't take proper precautions - and frankly, that's entirely *his* problem, not mine. If he offers to do that job, I assume he knows how to perform the task safely.
IMHO, the parent poster made a VERY valid point - and folks like you are just seeking to toss it aside, with exceptions to the rule being argued as though they're the norm!
Sure, you probably don't want to see trailer parks pop up in the middle of Santa Fe, NM - but I don't think that's what the post was about at all.
Rather, I think he's trying to illustrate how thousands of ridiculous building codes for home construction contribute to pricing them out of the reach of folks who could otherwise build their own home with the help of friends and maybe a little non-union labor for the "hard parts".
As someone who barely scraped together the money to buy my first home 5 or 6 years ago - I know exactly what he means! I purchased a 50 year old place in a "so so" neighborhood by buying directly from the owner. In doing so, I got a very affordable price - but also a lot of work cut out for myself. Pipes were bad, and the kitchen badly needed remodeling. Lots of painting needed to be done too, and the driveway had to be torn out and repoured. Since I'm in an "unincorporated" area, at least the seller wasn't bound by a bunch of rules of things he *had* to fix before selling. Otherwise, he would have had to price the place high enough to cover all that work, and I wouldn't have been buying..... (EG. A couple windows had small cracks in them, which I got around to fixing a year or so after I moved in. If this place was one municipality over, the seller wouldn't have even been allowed to sell it like that.)
If you look at some of the building codes, you'll quickly realize that they ARE a conspiracy to ensure people hire licensed, union contactors for the jobs. Practically nobody else can navigate through the mess! Just with my own house repairs, I ran into at least 2 such situations.
1. A drainage pipe cracked just beneath the cement basement floor. I got a handyman to rip out the section of cast-iron pipe that broke, and he replaced it with PVC and put some cement patch around the base of the pipe where it met the floor. Later on, a union plumber informed me that my new PVC pipe didn't meet code and had to be torn out and redone! (It was perfectly fine, except the handyman used a piece of PVC with a Y split coming off of it because it was the only suitable piece he had easy access to at the time. He capped it off so it acted like a straight piece of pipe. But nope, code says you can't do that.)
2. An old sub-panel off my fuse box started going bad, so it kept blowing fuses when I tried to use my 220 volt electric dryer. The union electrician wanted BIG $'s to replace my entire panel with breakers and move the dryer over to that. For MUCH less money, I got a guy to simply replace the little sub panel with a new one with a single breaker inside it. Guess what, though? Despite that being a very suitable/workable solution, it's not "code" - because I didn't have a union electrician get permits and file paperwork in city hall stating he made changes to the electrical panel at my address. (This will probably become an issue if/when I go to sell my home to someone else - but until that time, I'm sticking with what I've got because it works great.)
You just hit on the single biggest reason I'm not sure I can ever bring myself to work for someone on salaried pay again!
Employers (and even your own co-workers) tend to form false ideas about your work ethic based on not seeing you coming in or leaving close enough to the "standard times" (8AM to 6PM or so). When your boss is doing the 8-5 shift him/herself, how's he/she to know you actually stayed until 8 or 9PM finishing up something? Sure, you can tell him/her about it - but if you're regularly working non-traditional hours, people start getting suspicious. You might be working twice as hard as most of your peers - but it doesn't matter. They start to see your reports of working those hours as " a bunch of B.S." after a while, and get mad that you're not physically present during some of the time they're in the building.
If I'm on a salary, and not doing work that requires my physical presence between specific hours, I *demand* to have flexibility in how I put in my time. (EG. If I get the tasks done, don't worry about how long I'm there!) It rarely works like that, though, in reality. So I feel much more comfortable either working as more of a contractor, or for hourly wages where my time is clearly documented someplace.
Really, I think much of the "virtual OS" market is going to remain rather stagnant, because commercial OS makers have little real interest in it.
Think about it... If you're Microsoft, for example, and you think it's worthwhile for Windows XP to run well on say, a Macintosh system, you wouldn't expend loads of effort getting it running quickly inside an emulator like Virtual PC. You'd just release a native version of "Windows XP for Macintosh"! (They could even make it "play nice" with OS X so you'd have a dual boot Mac setup.)
Since they refuse to do that, it tells me they'd rather see their product run relatively poorly on a competitor's hardware platform (though they have no problem seeing it at least run slowly on it, since that potentially sells more Windows software licenses than if the competing system can't run the OS *at all*).
I think the same is going to happen with Linux, really. The Linux advocates are going to want to see alternate OS's (like Windows) run well on top of their native Linux OS - but the makers of the commercial alternatives aren't going to care about it very much at all. They're happy enough that things like vmware exist, but that's as far as they really care. Surely, they won't go to much trouble writing custom versions of the OS's to run quickly inside Xen. If they did, they'd be legitimizing their own competition as "a better native OS to run everything from".
Well, yes - of course. But if you're a "typical user" who owns 2 or 3 machines (maybe a new desktop PC, a laptop, and an old machine you gave to the kids?), you might have learned of the hassles of having the firewall enabled from one of the computers you worked on previously - so you'd tend to think "Nope, not gonna bother turning that on!" when doing your XP upgrade on another system. Then boom, you get hacked.
Most people look at me in utter disbelief when I tell them their new machines can pick up trojan horses or spyware in under 15 minutes just by staying connected to a broadband net connection, sitting idle. It's far from "common knowledge" that things are this bad....
One problem with the built-in Windows XP firewall is by default (at least in SP1 and earlier), it seems to block the ability to share printers/folders on the local network.
At least, that's been what I've run across with a number of people's configurations. As soon as I disabled the firewall, their other computers could finally print to the shared printers or access shared files/folders they couldn't see before.
To be honest, I haven't spent a lot of time looking into this problem - because I've always just used a hardware firewall like a Linksys or Netgear, and not bothered with software firewalls at all. But if this really is the case, that could be a factor in why folks are leaving the thing disabled.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep - I've done the same thing for a few people. But I will say this. If you have serious problems with IE on your machine (such as pop-up ads coming up like mad when you launch it, or crashes with error report logs coming up whenever you visit certain sites), you really should still get to the bottom of the core problem.
.DLL registration problems in Windows itself. If these problems aren't hunted down and resolved, you risk having crashes in some of your other apps too.
You can use FireFox as a good "work around", but when the user clicks on "Windows Update" to check for/get OS upgrades, it's going to still launch IE for that job, even if FireFox is set as the default browser - and the upgrades will probably fail.
Also, some of the IE crashes I've seen when people visit certain secure sites, or sites using lots of Javascript are actually due to
Actually, there are still a LOT of people out there trying to make use of a system with much lower specs than 512MB of RAM and a PIII processor.
I regularly do service work for people using Pentium 2 systems, often in the 266Mhz to 333Mhz range or so, and only 64MB or 128MB in most cases.
Even when people get their shiny new P4 or AMD Athlon tower, they often decide "the old machine is still good enough to use for Internet stuff" and hang onto it.
AVG Anti-Virus happens to be one of my personal favorites, largely because it doesn't take many system resource to run. Try a copy of Norton SystemWorks 2004 or 2005, by comparison! (And frankly, most people do - simply because every office supply superstore in the country wants to sell you Norton, but you can't even buy AVG retail anyplace in the U.S.)
First off, I agree with your basic premise that "most people have a skewed perspective" of how spyware gets on their PC. Like you said, much of it *does* get in when it comes attached to "freeware" programs people elect to download and install. Unfortunately, I think it's advancing past that point as virus developers get more sophisticated. I can't absolutely prove it, but I'm seeing strong evidence that some of these "trojan horse viruses" that *do* get in via Windows security holes start downloading/installing as much spyware/malware as they can once they get in. (Basically, the virus writers figured out they can do more damage and cause more frustration by installing spyware on the box than by directly causing havock themselves!)
As for your comment on the Windows security model: The main reason "most users elect to run with Administrator rights all the time" in Windows is because it's inherently designed to encourage that behavior! When you create a new user account in XP, you're initially only given *2* choices; either be an "administrator with access to install/remove programs" or a "limited user" who can't. When you present things that way, why is it surprising MOST people opt to be "administrators"? We do, after all, usually want to be able to install software on our own PC.
When I worked in corporate I.T., we ran into BIG headaches trying to force a Windows NT environment to comply with our wishes to restrict user access. In the end, it became clear the only way to administer the NT environment in a practical manner was to give all of the users administrator rights to the local workstations. Sure, the MS technical references pay "lip service" to the idea of doing things differently - but there are simply too many "gotchas" that come up as you deploy more applications on your LAN/WAN. Windows was originally based on a single-user model where the user always had full control of the machine, and it shows....
It seems to me, there's really no advantage to merging Firewox/Thunderbird into a single product - and meanwhile, Mozilla "fills the bill" for people who *do* prefer these types of apps bundled into one program.
So much depends on your OS preference and situation.
EG. On my Apple Powerbook running OS X, I'm pretty comfortable using the built-in "Mail" application. It does all of the basics I need (even things like spam filtering) and is tightly integrated into the OS (address book, etc.). I do, however, want the benefits of a better/faster browser - so I like having FireFox on it. There'd be no reason I'd prefer Mozilla (or a TBird/FFox combo) instead, since it'd just mean loading up a larger app than I needed each time I wanted to view web pages.
On the flip-side, I could get used to a combo web/email product on my Windows box - because both Outlook Express and IE could stand being replaced, and as often as not, I seem to leave both email and web browser running at the same time anyway on this system.
IMHO, it's only a "good thing" from a relative standpoint. Sure, it's "good" that MS realizes spyware is enough of a problem that they decide to buy out someone who has already been working hard to solve the problem. (From a few recent comments I read over on ArsTechnica after they posted a spyware-testing article, Giant's product is supposedly quite good. In fact, arguably the best available right now, of the non-freeware spyware removers.)
As the parent poster pointed out though, this stuff isn't even an issue for non-Windows users. I'm using my PowerMac G5 tower right now, and it's rather nice not to have to wait while my anti-virus package loads up (further cluttering up a crowded system tray), and then having to wait while the thing does its automatic updates every day or two. No spyware/malware worries either. Just boot up and go....
I do PC on-site service calls for a living (Mac too, on the odd occasion we get them), and I can honestly say that virus/spyware issues generate the vast majority of my income right now. From that angle, I guess I should be happy there's such a big problem. But somehow I'm not... I often tell my customers about the Macintosh alternative (both the good and the bad), and at least 40% of the time or so, they decide it really sounds like it's "right up their alley" and they consider one for their next system purchase.
Call me crazy or whatever... but after 14 years of working with computers, I just feel like it should be as enjoyable an experience for people as possible. Using as much as 30% of your CPU time running background tasks like firewalls, virus scanners and anti-spyware packages seems so unnecessary....
Your example #4 is within the realms of possibility, but frankly - I think it's quite a stretch.
I've had a few classes that one might say fit this criteria (entire class was lazy/goofing off), yet I'd argue that the teacher was still partially at fault.
A good teacher should be able to handle this type of situation, just as a good salesperson should be able to handle difficult customers.
The fact remains, the class consists of a group of "customers" who paid to sit in the class for the purpose of learning. Even "lazy" people can be motivated to do surprising things if you present things the right way. I'm not saying a teacher can become a miracle worker, but if he/she isn't able to modify his/her presentations/teaching enough to get at least *one or two* students interested enough to pass the tests, then I have to wonder....
Again, recall that we're not talking about giving out A's or even B's... We're talking about giving out a C or even a D to a few people, instead of a class full of F's.
Umm... Who was arguing for the extreme opposite of banning the use of lethal force for self-defense in the home?
All I think most of us are saying is that when you're in your own home, and someone forces themselves inside and threatens you with any kind of physical harm - reponding by shooting them is most likely a *reasonable* response.
I'm not saying it should be legal to shoot some teenager who wanders onto your farmland, or climbs the fence and walks across your back yard. Certainly, you don't have good cause to shoot at a person just because they set your car alarm off in a public parking lot.
None of that is the issue at all. The problem is, if we're going to put the burden of proof on the innocent victim at home to show he/she really was going to be killed if he/she didn't shoot first, - we're coming ever-closer to saying people have no more right to privacy in their home than they do outdoors!
It sounds to me like you grew up with tyrannical parents, and are simply lucky to have been intelligent enough to see everything for what it was worth and grew up without doing anything stupid.
My parents were actually both teachers, and gave me plenty of guidance when I was growing up. I can remember receiving a few spankings as a kid if I was really acting up and nothing else worked - but there was no need to take "discipline" anywhere near the level of "physical abuse" to get a message across.
It sounds like your little sister behaved just like many other kids would behave if they're confronted with what feels like overly restrictive parents. They rebel... trying to push the envelope at every opportunity.
Of course your actions have very real ramifications, but this is a lesson one has to hear from their parents, but then hone into reality through their own experiences. (IMHO, when your parents try to artifically "inflate" the level of seriousness of things by using too much punishment on a regular basis, it tends to make the kid start blocking it all out. You run the risk of creating the opposite results you were expecting to get as a parent.)
Yeah... but as someone who worked in I.T. in a factory environment before, I've seen the way most portables (and even PDAs) get treated by most "field inspectors" and the like.
They're dirty, beat-up and left sitting in rather harsh environments on a regular basis.
Perhaps that's the real reason Apple hasn't been thrilled to build a pen-based tablet computer. They're all about elegance and building a machine a user can really be proud to own, and will take exceptionally good care of.
(Don't believe me? Why would their favorite system design colors be snow white and easily scratched/smudged aluminum?) I love my new Powerbook, but it'd literally get dented up and badly oxidized in days, in some of work environments I saw inspectors using their black plastic Dell laptops in where I used to work.
Absolutely! Why does everyone seem to assume that children have no rights anymore?
We talk about "setting a good example" and then we turn around and spy/eavesdrop on our own children, put all sorts of intrusive tracking devices in the electronics they use and so forth? That's not the type of example I want to set...
The premise is fairly flawed anyway. Look at this quote from the original article:
"If I know where my kids are, where they're going, how they're driving and how fast they're traveling, I can counsel them before an accident occurs. I can help protect them."
Ummm.... How is he going to "help protect them" before an accident occurs? The cellphone GPS may suddenly inform him that his teenager is driving way over the speed limit, but if the next thing that happens is he loses a signal - seems to me like it's too late and his kid just had a potentially fatal accident. If he thinks a little bit of "counseling" is going to work, he's deluded. Come on... As a teen, I heard *plenty* of lectures about driving safely and more slowly, and that was without anyone needing a tracking device to realize I wasn't always driving the local speed limit. Teens are going to do what they're going to do, and if you didn't get them to take some responsbility and be a little cautious from the start, it's way too late to fix their speeding habits when they're already out using your car.
Seems to me you'd be legally ok, but because of the methods used to obtain your programming - could theoretically have to endure going to court and prove your innocence. (Presenting proof you really do have a current premium channel subscription on cable or satellite for the channel showing the program you downloaded should do the trick.)
So often, that's the problem with these things... Despite being legally "in the right", people may feel compelled to stop a particular behavior or method of doing things simply because the fight likely required to retain their right to do so doesn't seem to be worth the time and effort.
Hmm.... that's an interesting argument you have there. I've actually never heard someone make that statement before, that a hash is a "derived work" of the original software.
Might have some validity, but I think it's still a stretch. The original point (legally speaking, anyway) of concern over "derived works" was focused on people doing slight modifications to existing code and attempting to resell it as something new and original. (EG. If I have access to the source code to Outlook Express email for Windows and I change the screen colors and default fonts, some of the wording and dialog boxes, and put the folder list on the right instead of the left, I can't run around selling it as a new email product called "MailMaster 5000 Pro".)
A hash, in and of itself, is a very small chunk of alphanumeric data that doesn't contain enough code to conclusively prove it was only able to be created by using a specific original work. (After all, I could write a small program to generate random hashes all day long and theoretically create one that happens to be identical to one made the "proper way", by generating it based on a specific file.)
Straw dummy alert!
Seriously, *no*, it's *nothing* like leaving a gun around for someone to use. It's this type of severely flawed analogy that brought us the silly concept of referring to copyright infringement as "piracy".
The photocopier analogy makes much more sense, because it deals with the same basic issue. You put a device out there that is capable of duplicating information, and someone comes along and makes use of it.
Guns are legally required to be registered to their owners, unlike copiers or computers, for starters. They're also capable of killing human beings due to improper use -- and last I checked, nobody was killed by their photocopier while running off copies?
Also, I'd think in the case of products like BitTorrent, it might become a factor that you never really provided a complete copy of a given work to the receiver. The way BT works, you're normally just distributing portions of a file, while other systems help distribute the other pieces. Parts of files get passed around like a dealer dealing from a deck of cards.
I know this has been stated MANY times before in various ways, but if "closed source" truly is effective in preventing malware/hacks/virii simply because the source isn't available for anyone's inspection - then why do we see all the security flaws popping up with IIS? Meanwhile Apache has comparable market-share and usage world-wide on the net as a web server, and it is considered far more secure?
By the same token, Linux and BSD have been chosen as the platform many commercial firewall/router products are based on, despite being open-source. If open-source really had a "disadvantage", security-wise, by the mere fact that it's freely available code - then wouldn't you think companies like Netgear or Cisco/Linksys would steer clear of them in security-related network appliances?
Of course "exploits are expected to come out within hours of disclosure" - but that seems like a pretty general statement to me. Far more people with malicious intent are capable of slapping together some code based on a documented flaw than figuring out a previously undiscovered flaw and exploiting it. If you disclose a Linux or BSD security flaw, I'd say it's just as likely to be exploited quickly as a Windows flaw.
Why is it people think flash doesn't fail?
I've lost a fair amount of data on my Sony camera's memory stick when it started going bad and quit saving things reliably on parts of it.
You can only rewrite/erase flash so many times before it fails, and from my observations - some cards out there fail long before they should.
By your comment, I assume you won't ever consider purchasing a laptop computer of any sort either?
Probably wouldn't buy a good 35mm film or digital camera either, right?
You never know "how long its going to last" when you buy a piece of portable electronics, but you *can* make an educated guess based on the look, feel and reports of others over time, plus a little knowledge of other similar technologies.
My iPod feels far from "disposable". In fact, I spent the $50 or so extra to extend its warranty out a couple extra years, because I intend to hang onto it a while.
If the "public airwaves" are really such a public resource, then why is it practically impossible to purchase a legal license to broadcast radio (nevermind TV) on any of them in anything resembling a major metropolitan area?
... the broadcast side. The broadcast airwaves would only be truly subject to "public opinion" if government let go of their controls on them, and let the free market decide which broadcasters were doing a good job and which weren't!
I know we're debating control of content on the receiving side of the spectrum, but that really means you have to consider the other half of the story
Because it's so prohibitively expensive to start one's own TV or radio station, we've gotten into the current situation - where folks feel like they're stuck hearing/watching only what the big conglomerates want to broadcast, unless they pay extra to get the alternatives (like XM radio or cable TV).
Especially with today's technology, it's really not that costly a proposition for someone to set up their own little radio station that covers as much as a 5 to 25 mile radius. The only reason the cost is through the stratosphere is govt's insistence on outlawing most of this as "pirate radio", and guaranteeing frequencies (at a huge price) to one business per city.
I never said it was somehow "un-libertarian" to let people "pay for their smut". Your Howard Stern example would be absolutely fine by me, except for the fact that he was cited, specifically, for things other air personalities have done on TV or radio too - and gotten away with. If you're going to let govt. force someone off the air, then it should at least be determined by clearly spelled-out details, and apply to *all* parties. Not just selective enforcement.
I don't know about your statement on parenting... Having devices in a child's room doesn't have to mean anything, really. If the parent has done a good job teaching the kid and making some ground rules for usage of these things, I don't see that it matters an awful lot if they've got, say, a telephone in their bedroom?
My brother and I both grew up having our own color TV set in our bedroom - but I can't remember ever really even using it except when I was sick and lying in bed during the day. Our parents made it clear we weren't supposed to be watching TV after our bedtime - and we were too scared they might hear it or notice the flickering of the screen lighting up the edges around our door with all the other lights in the house turned off; so we didn't do it.
I never had a phone in my room, but I can't see that it would have mattered, either. My parents weren't going to spend $'s to give me my own line/number, so tying up their line was going to get noticed whether I was in my room or in the kitchen on the phone. If I didn't do my homework and got banned from using the phone, I was equally likely to get in trouble for using it no matter where the phone was.....
I also know quite a few parents who let their kid(s) have a Playstation or X-Box in their room, but find it's very good leverage to get the children doing what they want. (The threat of "I'm taking your game system away for the next month if you don't do X or Y." seems pretty useful.)
I think kids should at least get the chance to have a little private space of their own, and feel like they have some "personal technology-related property" of their own. It just needs to be tempered with the realization that these things are privileges, not "rights" - and can be revoked for bad behavior.
I was just discussing the whole "censorship of mass media" issue with a co-worker yesterday.
I feel like we're witnessing a rebellion of sorts, where TV show hosts and producers, musicians, artists, and the like are all making concerted efforts to push the boundaries of what's "decent" in broadcasting.
Whether or not this prompts niche groups with agendas to file thousands of complaints, it sends out a signal that producers of media are tired of trying to comply with FCC regulations that haven't changed with the times.
For starters, I think the current generation, as a whole, is simply not as offended by or adverse to swearing/curse words. Many of us in the "20-something and 30-something" age groups and below have decided that "words are just words" and curse words are only as "bad" as the attention we choose to artifically draw to them.
Last time I listened to a modern rock music station, for example, I was surprised to hear words edited out of at least 5 songs within an hour or two's time. In at least 3 or 4 of these cases, I had never even noticed the singer was singing a "curse word" before, except they made it obvious by chopping it out of the middle of the music.
When your listening audience is perfectly fine with a singer saying the "F word" in the middle of a song, then why should the FCC prohibit it on the radio? As always, those who don't care for it can change the station or simply listen to their own music, instead of what's served up on the radio.
I'm of the opinion that federal regulation of the media is basically unnecessary and "un-American" when you get right down to it. The people who want "clean TV" for their kids or for themselves are a large demographic, so the free market will cater to them either way. (Why do you think we have 2 Disney Channels on cable/satellite, Nickelodeon and "Nick for Kids", etc. etc.?) If the local stations keep airing things that offend big segments of their viewers, they're the ones who will lose advertising revenue eventually....
But since my rather Libertarian views are in the vast minority, I'm sure we're going to be stuck with the FCC dictating what we can/can't see on TV or hear on the radio during certain hours... That's why I'd still say, ok - fine them for obvious stunts like the Janet Jackson/Superbowl fiasco. (That sort of thing is done knowing full-well there will be punishment for it later... But sometimes people just want the "negative publicity" enough to do it anyway.) But at the very least, reconsider the "1950-esque" standards for "decency" on the radio.
Ok, perhaps "conspiracy" was a bit too harsh a word (or at least, not the best choice of wording)... but I think my general point still stands.
When you refer to the "whole DIY industry based around" the idea of building codes, I'm not quite sure I follow? What I've run across myself is quite a few DIY type books and videos on the market that give just enough general info to make someone confident enough they can tackle their own issue to dive in and give it a shot. What they *don't* usually do is detail all of the "gotchas" one might encounter during the project, and all of the building codes that might apply.
I know when I remodeled our bathroom, I really felt like I was flying by the seat of my pants, despite having Home Depot's guide to home improvement and some info I found on web sites about redoing bathroom tile, etc. I made quite a few decisions based solely on advice of a buddy who does carpentry and home remodeling projects for a living - but couldn't find much documentation to back up his recommendations. (EG. He told me to be sure to use "green board" to replace walls we knocked out when we got rid of the old tile. My books and guides never said anything about this. I would have just gone with regular drywall if he hadn't mentioned it to me. Is that "code"? Dunno... Could be, since green board is supposed to be much more moisture-proof, but I couldn't figure out for sure.)
As for my PVC pipe with the Y split coming off of it, yes - it did occur to me that the reason "code" didn't allow it is fear it would become a trap and clog. But the Y split points up at a 45 deg. angle.. not down... So logically, I'd think anything causing that to clog the pipe would have clogged a straight section of pipe too. The water is flowing down the pipe.
When it comes to electrical wiring, it's really not rocket science. It's either right or it's wrong, IMHO. Clearly, a penny in a fuse box is a "hack" and completely bypasses a safety measure. To me, that's nowhere near the same as having a non-licensed handyman swap out an old, failing fuse sub-box with something comparable, except new with a breaker in it. You're talking about what, 3 wires (common, neutral and ground) being switched out from old box to new? The biggest safety risk I'd see is the handyman electrocuting himself because he didn't take proper precautions - and frankly, that's entirely *his* problem, not mine. If he offers to do that job, I assume he knows how to perform the task safely.
IMHO, the parent poster made a VERY valid point - and folks like you are just seeking to toss it aside, with exceptions to the rule being argued as though they're the norm!
Sure, you probably don't want to see trailer parks pop up in the middle of Santa Fe, NM - but I don't think that's what the post was about at all.
Rather, I think he's trying to illustrate how thousands of ridiculous building codes for home construction contribute to pricing them out of the reach of folks who could otherwise build their own home with the help of friends and maybe a little non-union labor for the "hard parts".
As someone who barely scraped together the money to buy my first home 5 or 6 years ago - I know exactly what he means! I purchased a 50 year old place in a "so so" neighborhood by buying directly from the owner. In doing so, I got a very affordable price - but also a lot of work cut out for myself. Pipes were bad, and the kitchen badly needed remodeling. Lots of painting needed to be done too, and the driveway had to be torn out and repoured. Since I'm in an "unincorporated" area, at least the seller wasn't bound by a bunch of rules of things he *had* to fix before selling. Otherwise, he would have had to price the place high enough to cover all that work, and I wouldn't have been buying..... (EG. A couple windows had small cracks in them, which I got around to fixing a year or so after I moved in. If this place was one municipality over, the seller wouldn't have even been allowed to sell it like that.)
If you look at some of the building codes, you'll quickly realize that they ARE a conspiracy to ensure people hire licensed, union contactors for the jobs. Practically nobody else can navigate through the mess! Just with my own house repairs, I ran into at least 2 such situations.
1. A drainage pipe cracked just beneath the cement basement floor. I got a handyman to rip out the section of cast-iron pipe that broke, and he replaced it with PVC and put some cement patch around the base of the pipe where it met the floor. Later on, a union plumber informed me that my new PVC pipe didn't meet code and had to be torn out and redone! (It was perfectly fine, except the handyman used a piece of PVC with a Y split coming off of it because it was the only suitable piece he had easy access to at the time. He capped it off so it acted like a straight piece of pipe. But nope, code says you can't do that.)
2. An old sub-panel off my fuse box started going bad, so it kept blowing fuses when I tried to use my 220 volt electric dryer. The union electrician wanted BIG $'s to replace my entire panel with breakers and move the dryer over to that. For MUCH less money, I got a guy to simply replace the little sub panel with a new one with a single breaker inside it. Guess what, though? Despite that being a very suitable/workable solution, it's not "code" - because I didn't have a union electrician get permits and file paperwork in city hall stating he made changes to the electrical panel at my address. (This will probably become an issue if/when I go to sell my home to someone else - but until that time, I'm sticking with what I've got because it works great.)
You just hit on the single biggest reason I'm not sure I can ever bring myself to work for someone on salaried pay again!
Employers (and even your own co-workers) tend to form false ideas about your work ethic based on not seeing you coming in or leaving close enough to the "standard times" (8AM to 6PM or so). When your boss is doing the 8-5 shift him/herself, how's he/she to know you actually stayed until 8 or 9PM finishing up something? Sure, you can tell him/her about it - but if you're regularly working non-traditional hours, people start getting suspicious. You might be working twice as hard as most of your peers - but it doesn't matter. They start to see your reports of working those hours as " a bunch of B.S." after a while, and get mad that you're not physically present during some of the time they're in the building.
If I'm on a salary, and not doing work that requires my physical presence between specific hours, I *demand* to have flexibility in how I put in my time. (EG. If I get the tasks done, don't worry about how long I'm there!) It rarely works like that, though, in reality. So I feel much more comfortable either working as more of a contractor, or for hourly wages where my time is clearly documented someplace.
Really, I think much of the "virtual OS" market is going to remain rather stagnant, because commercial OS makers have little real interest in it.
Think about it... If you're Microsoft, for example, and you think it's worthwhile for Windows XP to run well on say, a Macintosh system, you wouldn't expend loads of effort getting it running quickly inside an emulator like Virtual PC. You'd just release a native version of "Windows XP for Macintosh"! (They could even make it "play nice" with OS X so you'd have a dual boot Mac setup.)
Since they refuse to do that, it tells me they'd rather see their product run relatively poorly on a competitor's hardware platform (though they have no problem seeing it at least run slowly on it, since that potentially sells more Windows software licenses than if the competing system can't run the OS *at all*).
I think the same is going to happen with Linux, really. The Linux advocates are going to want to see alternate OS's (like Windows) run well on top of their native Linux OS - but the makers of the commercial alternatives aren't going to care about it very much at all. They're happy enough that things like vmware exist, but that's as far as they really care. Surely, they won't go to much trouble writing custom versions of the OS's to run quickly inside Xen. If they did, they'd be legitimizing their own competition as "a better native OS to run everything from".
Well, yes - of course. But if you're a "typical user" who owns 2 or 3 machines (maybe a new desktop PC, a laptop, and an old machine you gave to the kids?), you might have learned of the hassles of having the firewall enabled from one of the computers you worked on previously - so you'd tend to think "Nope, not gonna bother turning that on!" when doing your XP upgrade on another system. Then boom, you get hacked.
Most people look at me in utter disbelief when I tell them their new machines can pick up trojan horses or spyware in under 15 minutes just by staying connected to a broadband net connection, sitting idle. It's far from "common knowledge" that things are this bad....
One problem with the built-in Windows XP firewall is by default (at least in SP1 and earlier), it seems to block the ability to share printers/folders on the local network.
At least, that's been what I've run across with a number of people's configurations. As soon as I disabled the firewall, their other computers could finally print to the shared printers or access shared files/folders they couldn't see before.
To be honest, I haven't spent a lot of time looking into this problem - because I've always just used a hardware firewall like a Linksys or Netgear, and not bothered with software firewalls at all. But if this really is the case, that could be a factor in why folks are leaving the thing disabled.