I know one thing for sure - they write software which is damn near impossible to cleanly remove from a PC. That's good enough for me.
Ever tried to uninstall Norton 2005? There's a good chance the uninstaller will fail with an obscure error. So you go looking for a solution. And buried on their site you find a downloadable uninstaller for 2005 that actually works (partially).
And you notice that on the same page are links for uninstallers for 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 etc..
Do they seriously expect us to believe that there is a "bug" with their uninstaller that they haven't been able to fix in five fucking years?
Bullshit. They make it deliberately difficult to uninstall so that Joe Average will give up and just keep renewing the licence.
Worms can't move through unsupported systems. Once it hits OS X or Linux system, it can't move anywhere.
You seem to have some bizarre picture of the Internet where hosts can only reach other hosts that they are directly connected to.
An infected Linux box can reach all other Linux boxes on the Internet. Of course, it would take more scanning time to find them than it would if we were talking about Windows boxes. But so what?
One Linux box would take quite a while to infect the whole Internet on it's own. But that's not a realistic scenario. Once it's infected another host, the time taken to find others halves. And so it goes on. The time taken to find other victims is not as significant as you seem to think.
Also, check out some papers on the spread of Code Red which infected IIS servers. At the time of it's appearance there were probably more installs of Apache running on Linux on the Internet. Why no worm for them?
Their tech support line is a free call, and on the rare occasions I have had to call them I have always talked to someone who knows what they are talking about!
Maybe they need to reassign their phone techs to actually running their network then? Because blocking outbound port 25 except to their mailservers and cutting off the avalanche of spam spewing from their network would be utterly trivial.
If they are as competent as you claim, the only explanation is that they just don't give a shit how much damage their fuckwad customers are doing isn't it?
Obviously the above is a rhetorical question. They've known about the issue for years and they've been listed by SPEWS for years.
They need to spell it out for idiots like me that don't understand the jargon.
No they fucking don't! It's quite simple - if you don't like their policies or justifications don't use their fucking list. That's all it is - a list.
How retarded do you have to be to not grasp such a simple point?
So fucking what if they block people that haven't spammed? If you're not using their list it doesn't affect you.
If you're on their list and want to communicate with someone who is using their list then you're screwed. You can ask the recipient to stop using SPEWS or to whitelist you. You can just use your ISP's mail server like you're supposed to. And if your ISP's mail server is on the list, you need to find an ISP that isn't run by disgusting spam supporting fucktards.
I haven't read any comments on how the Gorillaz are the greatest animated band ever.
Discussing the greatest animated band of all time is like discussing the greatest sexually transmitted disease of all time. It's something of marginal interest which most people will find distasteful.
And seriously, Gorillaz? Were they big in America or something? Because sure as fuck they quickly disappeared into richly deserved obscurity in the UK. We don't really do novelty acts.
If you want PowerPC with more hardware flexibility then go bitch to IBM and stop whining about how Apple won't let you.
I don't. Really. I just couldn't give a shit how flexible the PPC is or isn't. It's simply not possible for me to care less.
It was merely a humourous reply to the OP who suggested that a PPC would be a better platform for overclocking. In defiance of reality.
You can go fuck yourself.
Ah, I love the sound of whining MacTards in the morning. It's even sweeter when you weren't actually trying to wind them up, because it helps to expose what a paranoid, humourless bunch they really are. Thank you for making my day.
Remember the PowerPC is not made by Apple, it's made by IBM.
No shit Sherlock. And how many people do you think have RS6000s sitting on their desk at home?
If you have a PPC CPU in a desktop machine, you have a Mac. Not counting the two people that were nostalgic, and dare I say stupid, enough to buy the new "Amiga".
Dollar for dollar, Intel is your best bet for dual core right now.. AMD's pricing for their dual core chips is outrageous because they don't have the fab capability that Intel has.
Yes, it's a troll story. But saying that AMD's pricing for their dual core chips is "outrageous" just exposes your own biases. Because the only AMD dual core chips available at the moment are Opterons. Which are server chips. Which are always more expensive than desktop chips.
So please explain how, when a dual core Opteron is cheaper (and performs better) than 2 single Opterons in an SMP config, the pricing is outrageous?
General CPU's just don't have the punch that special purpose or Fpga processors do.
And FPGAs or special purpose CPUs don't have the generality that normal CPUs have. There's also the small point about the Merrimac system not actually exisitng.
PS. Thanks for linking to Roland Piquepaille's fucking blog. He doesn't get nearly enough links on Slashdot in my opinion.
Wouldn't it be great if there were a well known action movie that featured a liquid metal protagonist of some description. That way we could all make jokes about it.
I bet it woudn't matter how many fucking people made the joke - it would just keep on getting funnier and funnier.
you must be new here, otherwise you'd know Doom 3 is a running joke since it doesn't run well on ANY computer.
Yes, that's right. It's not a case of Macs being bad for games, it's a case of John Carmack being a shitty programmer.
Seriously, I've seen some truly hilarious must-defend-chosen-platform-at-all-costs shit from Mac zealots over the years, but you take the fucking biscuit.
PS. It runs just fine on my AthlonXP 2500 with it's shitty GeForce 5700. Maybe your Mac isn't as fast as Apple led you to believe?
Does osnews.com have an RSS feed. If so, maybe Slashdot can just automatically aggregate it into the front page from now on. It might save a lot of time.
Now THAT is a good idea!
If they could also aggregate a feed from Roland Piquapelles blog, Engadget and perhaps one that carries Apple and MS press releases, there would be no need for the Slashdot editors to do any work at all. Also, if the GNAA have an RSS feed, that might add some much needed colour to the front page
Quoted from there is basically. If you want to use hand-crafted TCP/UDP packets over a raw IP connection, you must enable the Internet Connection Firewall.
I was about to reply pointing out that you had obviously meant to say, "disable the Firewall".
Then I read the Knowledgebase article.
God, that's retarded. The firewall doesn't do jack shit to block outgoing traffic anyway. Why the hell should it be safer to allow raw sockets when it's on?
Your post is as incoherent and paranoid as it is long.
The problem with what you understand as Trusted Computing is that someone else gets the keys. They can decide what your computer can run and what it can't. Obviously this is bad and justifies the acute paranoia from which you seem to be suffering.
With the Linux implementation, you get the keys. So you can sign all of the executables you normally use and tell the kernel to only run them. Anything unsigned (e.g trojans, rootkits etc..) won't run.
It's a useful security feature. It's not about the RIAA preventing you from running that Britney Spears mp3 that you downloaded from Kazaa.
Slashdot Mirror
Since many think they write most of them anyway.
I know one thing for sure - they write software which is damn near impossible to cleanly remove from a PC. That's good enough for me.
Ever tried to uninstall Norton 2005? There's a good chance the uninstaller will fail with an obscure error. So you go looking for a solution. And buried on their site you find a downloadable uninstaller for 2005 that actually works (partially).
And you notice that on the same page are links for uninstallers for 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001 etc..
Do they seriously expect us to believe that there is a "bug" with their uninstaller that they haven't been able to fix in five fucking years?
Bullshit. They make it deliberately difficult to uninstall so that Joe Average will give up and just keep renewing the licence.
And that's just criminal.
Worms can't move through unsupported systems. Once it hits OS X or Linux system, it can't move anywhere.
You seem to have some bizarre picture of the Internet where hosts can only reach other hosts that they are directly connected to.
An infected Linux box can reach all other Linux boxes on the Internet. Of course, it would take more scanning time to find them than it would if we were talking about Windows boxes. But so what?
One Linux box would take quite a while to infect the whole Internet on it's own. But that's not a realistic scenario. Once it's infected another host, the time taken to find others halves. And so it goes on. The time taken to find other victims is not as significant as you seem to think.
Also, check out some papers on the spread of Code Red which infected IIS servers. At the time of it's appearance there were probably more installs of Apache running on Linux on the Internet. Why no worm for them?
Their tech support line is a free call, and on the rare occasions I have had to call them I have always talked to someone who knows what they are talking about!
Maybe they need to reassign their phone techs to actually running their network then? Because blocking outbound port 25 except to their mailservers and cutting off the avalanche of spam spewing from their network would be utterly trivial.
If they are as competent as you claim, the only explanation is that they just don't give a shit how much damage their fuckwad customers are doing isn't it?
Obviously the above is a rhetorical question. They've known about the issue for years and they've been listed by SPEWS for years.
Geh, my bad. So many acronyms of so many blacklists.
And so few brain cells, apparently.
They need to spell it out for idiots like me that don't understand the jargon.
No they fucking don't! It's quite simple - if you don't like their policies or justifications don't use their fucking list. That's all it is - a list.
How retarded do you have to be to not grasp such a simple point?
So fucking what if they block people that haven't spammed? If you're not using their list it doesn't affect you.
If you're on their list and want to communicate with someone who is using their list then you're screwed. You can ask the recipient to stop using SPEWS or to whitelist you. You can just use your ISP's mail server like you're supposed to. And if your ISP's mail server is on the list, you need to find an ISP that isn't run by disgusting spam supporting fucktards.
Any fucking questions?
I haven't read any comments on how the Gorillaz are the greatest animated band ever.
Discussing the greatest animated band of all time is like discussing the greatest sexually transmitted disease of all time. It's something of marginal interest which most people will find distasteful.
And seriously, Gorillaz? Were they big in America or something? Because sure as fuck they quickly disappeared into richly deserved obscurity in the UK. We don't really do novelty acts.
If you want PowerPC with more hardware flexibility then go bitch to IBM and stop whining about how Apple won't let you.
I don't. Really. I just couldn't give a shit how flexible the PPC is or isn't. It's simply not possible for me to care less.
It was merely a humourous reply to the OP who suggested that a PPC would be a better platform for overclocking. In defiance of reality.
You can go fuck yourself.
Ah, I love the sound of whining MacTards in the morning. It's even sweeter when you weren't actually trying to wind them up, because it helps to expose what a paranoid, humourless bunch they really are. Thank you for making my day.
Remember the PowerPC is not made by Apple, it's made by IBM.
No shit Sherlock. And how many people do you think have RS6000s sitting on their desk at home?
If you have a PPC CPU in a desktop machine, you have a Mac. Not counting the two people that were nostalgic, and dare I say stupid, enough to buy the new "Amiga".
Wouldn't it be a lot cheaper and easier to just use a processor that doesn't get so friggin' hot? Like a PowerPC or Crusoe...
:
Not really. An overclocked Crusoe would still be slow as shit. And as for the PowerPC, I can just imagine the scenario
Ricer1: Yay! The Liquid Nitrogen cooler has got my G5 down to -180C! Time to start cranking up the multiplier!
Ricer2: Apple haven't provided a way to increase the multiplier.
Ricer1: Well never mind, just crank up the bus speed!
Ricer2: Apple haven't provided a way to increase the bus speed.
Ricer1: Shit. The condensation's just nuked my CPU. Oh well, better order another one.
Ricer2: Apple won't let you order a new CPU.
Yes, I can see that catching on in a hurry.
That would be like when a Windows box decides it can't get an IP from a DHCP server and gives itself an APIPA address (169.254.x.x) right?
Great. Because I've always found that feature MASSIVELY FUCKING USEFUL.
Dollar for dollar, Intel is your best bet for dual core right now.. AMD's pricing for their dual core chips is outrageous because they don't have the fab capability that Intel has.
Yes, it's a troll story. But saying that AMD's pricing for their dual core chips is "outrageous" just exposes your own biases. Because the only AMD dual core chips available at the moment are Opterons. Which are server chips. Which are always more expensive than desktop chips.
So please explain how, when a dual core Opteron is cheaper (and performs better) than 2 single Opterons in an SMP config, the pricing is outrageous?
General CPU's just don't have the punch that special purpose or Fpga processors do.
And FPGAs or special purpose CPUs don't have the generality that normal CPUs have. There's also the small point about the Merrimac system not actually exisitng.
PS. Thanks for linking to Roland Piquepaille's fucking blog. He doesn't get nearly enough links on Slashdot in my opinion.
...is more funny comments.
Wouldn't it be great if there were a well known action movie that featured a liquid metal protagonist of some description. That way we could all make jokes about it.
I bet it woudn't matter how many fucking people made the joke - it would just keep on getting funnier and funnier.
you must be new here, otherwise you'd know Doom 3 is a running joke since it doesn't run well on ANY computer.
Yes, that's right. It's not a case of Macs being bad for games, it's a case of John Carmack being a shitty programmer.
Seriously, I've seen some truly hilarious must-defend-chosen-platform-at-all-costs shit from Mac zealots over the years, but you take the fucking biscuit.
PS. It runs just fine on my AthlonXP 2500 with it's shitty GeForce 5700. Maybe your Mac isn't as fast as Apple led you to believe?
Opera 8 already supports native SVG. Firefox is lagging behind yet again.
No, Opera supports SVGTiny. SVGTiny is to normal SVG as your penis is to everyone elses.
Hope this helps.
Does osnews.com have an RSS feed. If so, maybe Slashdot can just automatically aggregate it into the front page from now on. It might save a lot of time.
Now THAT is a good idea!
If they could also aggregate a feed from Roland Piquapelles blog, Engadget and perhaps one that carries Apple and MS press releases, there would be no need for the Slashdot editors to do any work at all. Also, if the GNAA have an RSS feed, that might add some much needed colour to the front page
Would probably cut down on the dupes as well.
It needs a complete reworking--thus the need for IPv6 with all the security hoo-ha's in play.
I don't think that IPv6 says anything about raw sockets does it?
I thought the main security feature of IPv6 is the compulsory IPSEC support.
And I do look forward to dealing with the multitude of severely fucked-up IPSEC implementations that will surely result from this requirement.
Quoted from there is basically. If you want to use hand-crafted TCP/UDP packets over a raw IP connection, you must enable the Internet Connection Firewall.
I was about to reply pointing out that you had obviously meant to say, "disable the Firewall".
Then I read the Knowledgebase article.
God, that's retarded. The firewall doesn't do jack shit to block outgoing traffic anyway. Why the hell should it be safer to allow raw sockets when it's on?
It scares me to still hear Reiser 4 being described as "having problems". Anyone knows more?
I know that you don't have to use it if it scares you so badly.
I don't think they're going to have to remove Ext2 from the kernel to make room for Reiser4.
Your post is as incoherent and paranoid as it is long.
The problem with what you understand as Trusted Computing is that someone else gets the keys. They can decide what your computer can run and what it can't. Obviously this is bad and justifies the acute paranoia from which you seem to be suffering.
With the Linux implementation, you get the keys. So you can sign all of the executables you normally use and tell the kernel to only run them. Anything unsigned (e.g trojans, rootkits etc..) won't run.
It's a useful security feature. It's not about the RIAA preventing you from running that Britney Spears mp3 that you downloaded from Kazaa.
Troll? How the fuck is this a troll?
This is the most insightful comment I've seen so far.
Did the language offend your delicate American sensibilities, dear moderators?
It would be very nice to be able to sort out those pages that have nothing but a long list of keywords on them.
And thanks to fuckers like you, pages like THIS are full of "Free IPod" links.
You can't complain about spam of any sort when you are a spammer yourself.
that most of the problems lies with using wma files, a lot of iTunes users there are happy.
I expect that most sheep are happy too. What's your fucking point?
That Apple are a charitible institution working for the greater good with no interest in profit or control of their customers?
I know their stuff is shiny, but stop fucking deluding yourself.
For the diehard fans of GPLed software , there is the GNU Hurd which can be embraced instead of Linux kernel.
Ah, yes. GNU Hurd - the OS of the future. Always has been, always will be.
Ha ha!
10 points for including meaningless technical buzzwords with no context.
10 points just for the phrase "Only time will tell if superscalar chip fabs are O(log n)..."
And 50 points for getting some fucking retard to mod you up.
Congratulations!