Why do companies act this way? Because they're driven by small-minded thinking. The principles they seem to live by are:
Our products are superior because we are superior
If we didn't get paid for it, it cost us money
If you're not for us, you're against us
It's better to lose a customer than a shareholder
When in doubt, sue.
Rather than using beta-test criticism as a way to improve the quality of their product, they react as if someone had called their kid bad names on the playground.
I've got the impression that most security problems are due to either faulty code...
Nope. Most problems come from sloppy practices such as sharing passwords, not having a password, or leaving yourself logged in.
The best thing about forcing the kids to use 14-character passwords is that it sets the tone for their attitude. If you tell kids "Be secure!" and don't require strong passwords, they might not get the message. Require strong passwords and you don't have to tell them, they just get it.
The real problem with TFA's laundry list of practices is a false sense of security. If it takes 5 passwords to check your mail, it's really easy to think you can write whatever you want in that mail. It would also be easy to think you are safe, but then some completely new attack vector is discovered against which you have no defense - but you assume you do.
There is a case to be made for TFA's "better safe than sorry" approach. His leadership by example for his clients is good, too.
But I think a more apt cliche to apply is "pick your battles". Put your energy into protecting what you hold most dear. Don't make it hard to do the right thing. Don't waste time being 99.999% safe over some unlikely issue while possibly ignoring some more likely one altogether.
>countersuit coming that will probably cripple SCO....
That's so wrong it's right, in a vacuous sort of way. None of their lawsuits are being "thrown out", but they aren't winning them by any stretch of the imagination.
There won't be anything left of The SCO Group to "cripple" after their half of the litigation. They are dying by their own sword - the strategy of prolonging and delaying, filing multiple suits, changing their complaint periodically, etc. They are running out of money.
The case has never been about winning, IMHO, but all about the insiders milking the stock. The FUD game was just a part of that (as it certainly wasn't designed to win a lawsuit, only perhaps to achieve a lucrative settlement).
If there is anything left of The SCO Group before the countersuits or not, IBM will leave a smoking crater. At the center of the crater will be a sign, etched in Google, saying:
Herein Lies The SCO Group These fools messed with IBM, drew the ire of the Free and Open Source Software community, and brought on their own doom. Be warned.
The IBM countersuit will use, among other things, the Lanham Act to pierce the corporate veil, bringing Ralph Yarro and Darl McBride to justice. They'll all be left penniless, bankrupt, and imprisoned.
There won't be two atoms left to stack on one another.
A spreadsheet is really a simple language. Toss in the horrid formulas Microsoft, err, innovated from Lotus 1-2-3, and you have a programming environment.
It's axiomatic that every nontrivial program has at least one bug.
Your digestive system requires (and produces) various enzymes to digest different foods. Without the proper enzymatic mix, digestion is inefficient and a gaseous output results.
To get a decent methane volume, you have to vary your diet in a pathological way. Eat a sudden excess of foods you seldom eat. Try a progresson of beans - kidney beans, great whites, navy beans, blackeyed peas, and of course, the dreaded garbanzo. Mix in some onion varieties periodically. Then there are the peppers: bell peppers, jalapenos, and even habaneros are very efficient in terms of obtaining the desired output.
Stay away from rice and noodles, as these seem to lessen the effect.
I understand that certain vegetables - broccoli, cauliflower, asparagus, for example, can also have dramatic benefits if consumption is managed properly as above.
Unripe apples and certain kinds of nuts are good candidates, but I find them to quickly lose their efficacy, and so they should be either reserved for a special occasion (such as a wedding or funeral) or simply enjoyed for their non-flatulent properties.
(Victorian ghost story, ghosts are caused by alien influence, seance held to communicate with spirits, heavily rational character who has trouble coping with the new facts before him)
That's typical Dr. Who stuff. I'd be disappointed if it didn't have that kind of thing.
On the other hand, for the non-Who-fan, imagine if the original Star Trek series had just kept going on, and on, with a new cast starring in the same roles. Sort of like 60 minutes, but more realistic:-).
Now, where'd I put my sonic screwdriver? I need to brew some tea.
Microsoft realized that while they have a lot of money, they don't have an unlimited supply of political capital.
Rather than take a PR hit trying to change social policy for other companies, they chose to use their limited political capital on issues which more directly affect their ability to separate users from their money.
I'm not making fun of you, but I feel for those admin b/c nobody would make such a policy unless forced by the higher ups
Uh, not so fast. There are lots of half-clued admins out there who deal with their quarter-clued lusers by making rules, rather than with real training. So, rather than telling them to "Think of a phrase, use the first letter of each word, and add punctuation" they have these arbitrary templates, enforced expiry, and end up with sticky notes or text files.
A slightly different spin on your take is that often admins come up with a policy to impress the PHB. The boss feels secure, because the users are made uncomfortable. The unspoken principle is that if it's uncomfortable for the users, it must be really uncomfortable for the bad guys.
Security is based upon three types of authorization: 1) [password] 2) [biometrics] 3) [a key]
"Security" is whatever you want it to be. You're making the same mistake that you complain about: by making the security system too complicated, you ensure that users will find their way around it. They'll always devolve to using only one barrier.
The remarkable thing is that it has to play catch-up at all. A few short years ago, Solaris was the standard by which Linux was judged.
Actually, Solaris is more "stable" than Linux, but that's either straining at gnats or playing semantics, depending on how you look at it.
If "stability" means "not buggy" or "long up times", then either kernel is much more stable than the apps (mostly common to both) that ship with it. I've had both Solaris and Linux machine up for more than a year at a time, and both are so good I can't see much difference. Solaris always installs perfectly, every time, but I only use it on Sun hardware.
If "stability" means "not prone to change, because it's what it ought to be", then Solaris may have an edge, because Sun usually makes its changes before the official release. Sol10 should stay pretty much as it is until they EOL it.
Huh? That's absurd on its face. It may be that there ought to be no legal difference, but to claim that there is no difference at the emotional level defies logic and biology.
Men and women are different. Men and women feel different things when they are "in love". To say that gay men and women feel the same things, and that those feelings are the same as straights feel, is a logical contradiction.
The Sith get their revenge, but then hope is renewed, then the empire strikes back, then the jedi return. BTW Yoda and Obi die.
Oh, thanks for spoiling it, you insensitive clod!. I've waited almost 30 years for the series to be complete before seeing Episodes IV-V-VI, and now you've ruined it.
Just for that:
in Murder She Wrote, it's always the unnecessary character.
Dorothy was dreaming
the Psycho just likes dressing up as his dead Mother
>"High on the list of features are security enhancements...."
To Microsoft, security is a feature rather than an integral part of any program. You can't patch on security; either it's there by design or it's not.
Sadly, most people will see that they've added "security features" and be impressed. Reading that makes me cringe, knowing that I'll have to wade through a glittering morass of GUI checkboxes to turn off another paperclip.
Good Advertisers know that their ads have two audiences:
people who respond to their ads and
people who don't.
Spammers, pop-up makers, purveyors of deceptive banners, and those who use other "interesting" new ad models distinguish themselves from Good Advertisers by not caring about the opinion of the second group.
Whether something is profitable or not doesn't tell you how many people didn't like the ad. You don't know how strong a negative sentiment you're creating until next year.
Spammers don't care about next year, because there will be another sleazy product to sell then.
(Oh, will this be the five minute argument or the full half hour?)
But seriously, I meant that it doesn't take mutation during the time period studied to explain the differences. As long as *1* pretty bug survives the predatorial period when ugly bugs thrive and *1* ugly bug survives the period of low resources, their respective offsping will multiply when their traits match the environment.
For that matter, it's only guesswork to say that the traits of ugliness and prettiness got there with mutation and selection in some remote past. It makes sense, but it's supposition. TFA tries to say it's not, based on the lake study.
Slashdot Mirror
Rather than using beta-test criticism as a way to improve the quality of their product, they react as if someone had called their kid bad names on the playground.
Nope. Most problems come from sloppy practices such as sharing passwords, not having a password, or leaving yourself logged in.
The best thing about forcing the kids to use 14-character passwords is that it sets the tone for their attitude. If you tell kids "Be secure!" and don't require strong passwords, they might not get the message. Require strong passwords and you don't have to tell them, they just get it.
The real problem with TFA's laundry list of practices is a false sense of security. If it takes 5 passwords to check your mail, it's really easy to think you can write whatever you want in that mail. It would also be easy to think you are safe, but then some completely new attack vector is discovered against which you have no defense - but you assume you do.
There is a case to be made for TFA's "better safe than sorry" approach. His leadership by example for his clients is good, too.
But I think a more apt cliche to apply is "pick your battles". Put your energy into protecting what you hold most dear. Don't make it hard to do the right thing. Don't waste time being 99.999% safe over some unlikely issue while possibly ignoring some more likely one altogether.
That's just wrong. You need to get some therapy quick, cuz ... damn!
But I know there were some deleted scenes between Jabba and the Princess.
You know what they say, "Once you go Hut, you never", uh, never mind.
My appointment is at 4.
That's so wrong it's right, in a vacuous sort of way. None of their lawsuits are being "thrown out", but they aren't winning them by any stretch of the imagination.
There won't be anything left of The SCO Group to "cripple" after their half of the litigation. They are dying by their own sword - the strategy of prolonging and delaying, filing multiple suits, changing their complaint periodically, etc. They are running out of money.
The case has never been about winning, IMHO, but all about the insiders milking the stock. The FUD game was just a part of that (as it certainly wasn't designed to win a lawsuit, only perhaps to achieve a lucrative settlement).
If there is anything left of The SCO Group before the countersuits or not, IBM will leave a smoking crater. At the center of the crater will be a sign, etched in Google, saying:
The IBM countersuit will use, among other things, the Lanham Act to pierce the corporate veil, bringing Ralph Yarro and Darl McBride to justice. They'll all be left penniless, bankrupt, and imprisoned.
There won't be two atoms left to stack on one another.
Since there won't be any main characters in the TV series, it won't spoil the suspense for what happens in Episode IV, V, and VI.
Oh, wait...
State Trooper Jones: Sir, I notice you have your emergency flashers on. Can I help you with something?
Motorist: Why yes, officer, I seem to have exhausted my methane cell, and try as I might I can't recharge it. Can I have a jump?
Absolutely. Why, there are over 3 machines with 640K/2Floppy/8088 left out there, and MS-DOS is way better than Solaris on those.
Personally I never had much use for a separate OS anyway - I just boot up to my BASIC prompt and start in with the REMs and GOTOs.
A spreadsheet is really a simple language. Toss in the horrid formulas Microsoft, err, innovated from Lotus 1-2-3, and you have a programming environment.
It's axiomatic that every nontrivial program has at least one bug.
Are 10% of spreadsheets trivial?
Your digestive system requires (and produces) various enzymes to digest different foods. Without the proper enzymatic mix, digestion is inefficient and a gaseous output results.
To get a decent methane volume, you have to vary your diet in a pathological way. Eat a sudden excess of foods you seldom eat. Try a progresson of beans - kidney beans, great whites, navy beans, blackeyed peas, and of course, the dreaded garbanzo. Mix in some onion varieties periodically. Then there are the peppers: bell peppers, jalapenos, and even habaneros are very efficient in terms of obtaining the desired output.
Stay away from rice and noodles, as these seem to lessen the effect.
I understand that certain vegetables - broccoli, cauliflower, asparagus, for example, can also have dramatic benefits if consumption is managed properly as above.
Unripe apples and certain kinds of nuts are good candidates, but I find them to quickly lose their efficacy, and so they should be either reserved for a special occasion (such as a wedding or funeral) or simply enjoyed for their non-flatulent properties.
That's typical Dr. Who stuff. I'd be disappointed if it didn't have that kind of thing.
On the other hand, for the non-Who-fan, imagine if the original Star Trek series had just kept going on, and on, with a new cast starring in the same roles. Sort of like 60 minutes, but more realistic :-).
Now, where'd I put my sonic screwdriver? I need to brew some tea.
Microsoft realized that while they have a lot of money, they don't have an unlimited supply of political capital.
Rather than take a PR hit trying to change social policy for other companies, they chose to use their limited political capital on issues which more directly affect their ability to separate users from their money.
Until Paramount cancels the program.
Can we do something? Maybe if we all pledge money now, they won't cancel the shuttle after this season.
Uh, not so fast. There are lots of half-clued admins out there who deal with their quarter-clued lusers by making rules, rather than with real training. So, rather than telling them to "Think of a phrase, use the first letter of each word, and add punctuation" they have these arbitrary templates, enforced expiry, and end up with sticky notes or text files.
A slightly different spin on your take is that often admins come up with a policy to impress the PHB. The boss feels secure, because the users are made uncomfortable. The unspoken principle is that if it's uncomfortable for the users, it must be really uncomfortable for the bad guys.
"Security" is whatever you want it to be. You're making the same mistake that you complain about: by making the security system too complicated, you ensure that users will find their way around it. They'll always devolve to using only one barrier.
I think they meant "reduced risk of breasts", that is, having the blubbery, giggly kind of pectorals that come from Twinky overindulgence.
"...a dangerous idea to think that you can eat Joe Lois ...."
Joe Louis? Why would I eat a dead boxer?
Does Playboy even *have* articles?
The remarkable thing is that it has to play catch-up at all. A few short years ago, Solaris was the standard by which Linux was judged.
Actually, Solaris is more "stable" than Linux, but that's either straining at gnats or playing semantics, depending on how you look at it.
If "stability" means "not buggy" or "long up times", then either kernel is much more stable than the apps (mostly common to both) that ship with it. I've had both Solaris and Linux machine up for more than a year at a time, and both are so good I can't see much difference. Solaris always installs perfectly, every time, but I only use it on Sun hardware.
If "stability" means "not prone to change, because it's what it ought to be", then Solaris may have an edge, because Sun usually makes its changes before the official release. Sol10 should stay pretty much as it is until they EOL it.
Ask them to stand and hold their mouse. If after 30 seconds they shake it and put it down, you have your answer.
Huh? That's absurd on its face. It may be that there ought to be no legal difference, but to claim that there is no difference at the emotional level defies logic and biology.
Men and women are different. Men and women feel different things when they are "in love". To say that gay men and women feel the same things, and that those feelings are the same as straights feel, is a logical contradiction.
The people responsible for the earlier timelines have been sacked.
Oh, thanks for spoiling it, you insensitive clod!. I've waited almost 30 years for the series to be complete before seeing Episodes IV-V-VI, and now you've ruined it.
Just for that:
>"High on the list of features are security enhancements...."
To Microsoft, security is a feature rather than an integral part of any program. You can't patch on security; either it's there by design or it's not.
Sadly, most people will see that they've added "security features" and be impressed. Reading that makes me cringe, knowing that I'll have to wade through a glittering morass of GUI checkboxes to turn off another paperclip.
Both PP and GP are right and both are wrong.
Good Advertisers know that their ads have two audiences:
Spammers, pop-up makers, purveyors of deceptive banners, and those who use other "interesting" new ad models distinguish themselves from Good Advertisers by not caring about the opinion of the second group.
Whether something is profitable or not doesn't tell you how many people didn't like the ad. You don't know how strong a negative sentiment you're creating until next year.
Spammers don't care about next year, because there will be another sleazy product to sell then.
No it doesn't!
(Oh, will this be the five minute argument or the full half hour?)
But seriously, I meant that it doesn't take mutation during the time period studied to explain the differences. As long as *1* pretty bug survives the predatorial period when ugly bugs thrive and *1* ugly bug survives the period of low resources, their respective offsping will multiply when their traits match the environment.
For that matter, it's only guesswork to say that the traits of ugliness and prettiness got there with mutation and selection in some remote past. It makes sense, but it's supposition. TFA tries to say it's not, based on the lake study.