apart from this small problem I don't have any others whilst browsing so I have no real reason of going to IE7 (which I've used on other people's machines and don't particularly like) or a non-MS browser.
Are you sure you're in the right place I'm sure if you've been here long enough to have mod points you have seen plenty of reasons to not use IE6, such as IE6 was unsafe 284 days in 2006 or the lack of tabbed browsing (a feature which I thought little of until I had grown used to using it). Having separate windows for each page I've got open now bugs the hell out of me, getting in the way while I work (or play) -- this is particularly true when I'm doing research online, when I need to have many different webpages open.
Well, it depends on what aspect we're discussing. From an empire perspective, a lot of historians would argue that the US's heyday was in the 1960s; the Viet Nam war really reduced our political power in much of the world. We recovered a bit, but the collaps of the Soviet Empire pulled the rug out from underneath us, and triggered the collapse we're still trying to stave off.
From a "free nation" standpoint, I'd say that we're still much better off than we were a hundred years ago. We tend to paint the early years of the republic in a rosy light, but the disenfranchised and poor were much worse off than they are now.
Oh, FFS. It's not stealing, it's illegal filesharing.
I, for one, sympathize with the perps here. Who would begrudge the Best Buy Geeksquad drudges some cheap thrills? Besides, if they're busy sharing porn, that makes it less likely they're doing something awful to the innards of Auntie Mae's PC... I would hope.
My real feeling on this, though, are that it's all part of Best Buy's sales model. They can get a lot of customers to purchase an additional 120-gig hard drive if it comes preloaded with porn.
Also, did you notice they now sell tissues and lotion? It's all about synergistic product lines, folks.
We seem to be living at the period in American history that future peoples will point to when discussing the unraveling of our Nation.
I'll agree with you, but I'd say this period began several decades ago, when television became the primary source of political information for the electorate and the primary requisites for national leadership positions became telegenicity and demagoguery.
Quite a few historians out there have been pointing to the decline of the free American nation for some time now. It's just that the past few Congresses and Presidents have accelerated the decline.
Or Mamadou Diallo. Somewhat (OK, entirely) on a tangent, when Mamadou Diallo played for DC United, he brutally tackled the Metrostars keeper and injured him quite severely. Until Diallo began playing for the Metrostars, the chants from the ESC section of the stands whenever they played DC usually included "They shot the wrong Diallo."
At any rate, Diallo is a common name among people from West Africa; it is one of the four divisions of the Fulbe people.
So, what has your expert digging found that contradicts the words of the Global Security Team Manager at RIM?
Nothing, you're deliberately obfuscating the point. Go back to my OP, and one of the points I made was that the "average" user isn't the concern, it's the sub-average user. The basis for my OP was that the GSTM at RiM downplayed the possible risk of malware, based upon the "average user" -- you shouldn't base your response to potential security threats on the average user. Period. Of course he's going to downplay the threat -- but this is one example of malware on the Blackberry, the threat in general is there and people need to be aware of it.
if your talking point started out as "important people might have important data compromised", you shouldn't change it to "unimportant people don't have a security policy" when shown that those risks have simple solutions.
You're making an invalid assumption, that the set of important people does not intersect the set of below-average (from a security standpoint) users. There is an intersection, and it's not negligible. Of course, "important" is a relative term, but to a small home-grown business, the owner may be extremely important.
Nice try, but still not there. Let me know when you come up with something that contradicts my points, OK? It's getting tiresome deflating your red herrings, and like I said, I'd welcome the knowledge that Blackberrys truly are secure for all users.
As you point out, anything that runs software carries with it a risk of infection.
Regardless of RiM's security record and staff, there IS risk.
Furthermore, maybe you're a bit out of touch with people in a typical workplace. A Blackberry is not a computer to most people, it's an upgraded cell phone. Even people used to taking precautions when using their PC don't always use the same common sense when using their "cell phone", regardless of what it's capable of, and what it's capable of being infected by.
I am not claiming to know better than the security staff at RiM. What I am claiming to know is that no device that is capable of downloading software is risk-free, and that the below-average user is of concern, particularly to those charged with maintaining security in a corporate setting.
As for your ad hominem, it's not about karma. It's about a statement made by a spokesperson (which is the first tip-off that you need to look a little deeper) that didn't jibe with me. As you've pointed out, there are precautions that can be taken -- but as I've pointed out, they are not always taken.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the point you're trying to make is, "Don't worry about it -- they have very good people taking care of that" along with "Don't worry about it, Blackberrys should be locked down". As to the first, that's ridiculous -- security should be a concern for everyone, from decision-makers at the executive level down to the lowliest user, regardless of how good the scurity staff are at a vendor company. As to the second, you should never forget that a significant segment of users will not take the simplest security precautions if it inconveniences them in any way (including taking the short time necessary to change a configuration).
To make a long post short, are you just trolling, or do you have points to make that really do contradict what I'm saying, or just more ad hominems and red herrings? I'd be glad to be proven wrong, since then we could all rest assured knowing that Blackberrys are inherently secure with a zero risk of compromise.
One other note:
which is the reason they are the only type allowed by some government agencies
This has little to do with the security of Blackberrys as used by the general public. Note that those government agencies also have more staff devoted to security, policies more conducive to security, and employees more receptive to always acting in accordance with those policies.
All admins are competent? All devices are locked-down in most companies? I don't think so.
I'm not saying that the sky is falling -- I'm saying that security on these devices IS a concern, and something we need to be aware of. I'm also saying that it's wrong for Blackberry spokespeople to downplay the risk of malware on the Blackberry, as the risk is real and important (unless of course we take steps to mitigate it, which is the whole point of not downplaying the risk -- to get people to take the necessary precautions).
No, the infections typically aren't from their Blackberrys. Usually idiot user + loaded email. Sometimes it's a driveby from a sketchy site.
Using a Blackberry won't eliminate their lack of common sense, so I'm betting they could be easily tricked into installing malware on their Blackberry.
namely using a password, not letting other people use the device and only loading software from known, trusted sources,
You're ignoring two of my main points, which are:
There is a significant segment of Blackberry users to which these simple steps are not going to be followed, and A disproportionately large part of that segment consists of those to whom secure communications are most important from a corporate POV.
Robertson said an average user that maintains good [gadget] hygiene would never see the software loaded onto their device without their knowledge.'"
I think Robertson overestimates the average user. Either that, or it's not the "average user" we need to worry about -- it's the singnificant number of below-average users who could pose a problem. I know for certain that the marketroids with company-purchased Blackberrys at my company are the primary source of infections on our network.
Also, I'd like to mention that in my experience, it's often those with the most crucial conversations (ownership/upper management) are the ones who hand off their Blackberry to others for maintenance, etc. A disgruntled/bribed tech could very easily install this.
One other note -- if a user needing to take action to install malware wasn't a problem, we wouldn't see so many compromised machines.
But apparently Microsoft has found the solution to that, and is embracing the new, non-viral GPLv3!
It's still viral, they just have themselves quarantined by issuing "certificates" for Novell to fulfill -- and note that this is only for GPLv2 -- they specifically exclude GPLv3.
It's a semantics game, and it could certainly be argued that MS is indeed distributing GPL'd code via proxy. However the issue is cloudy, with a forecast of extremely heavy lawyer's bills to argue that in court.
At best, breach of contract. Even if the EULA is valid, which many aren't. Plus you have to prove that the information was obtained through "illegal" means.
Welcome to the world of the DMCA in the US. If there are security measures on the software, and you attempt to circumvent them (especially knowing that you're not supposed to have access), guess what? That's an illegal act.
I know it's a lot to ask, but RTFA. He's not claiming copyright infringement at all. Nor is he claiming patent infringement.
The suit is about use of a trademark.
Sounds like he is complaining about that people create animations that are "like" his, not merely his
Where did you pull that from? Before you put words in his mouth, why don't you bother reading what he is really complaining about? It's only a mouse-click away!
The price of gas down the street is more likely to be a factor.
That's partially true, but the price the stations pay sets the floor for retail pricing at the pump. The markup on gas is relatively constant, price volatility is due to both demand volatility and supply cost volatility.
Retail gas is not a money maker - the little convenience store is what makes money.
Exactly, which is why the wholesale cost of gas IS the primary determining factor of the retail price, particularly when there is competition. Most stations have a standard markup, so their retail rates change only when the wholesale rate changes.
Persistence The ability to get negative media coverage for his target-of-the-day The ability to get coverage of his antics His appeal to those in power (also of older generations) The ease with which his pet issue can be used as a "save the children" issue.
Again, by ignoring his strengths, you ignore what he can actually do -- which, unless countered, can have a serious effect on free speech. He's a PR machine for his side of the issue -- and even if he looks bad, the issue still sticks in the mind of voters and politicians both.
You're still anthropomorphizing an organization, comprised of a multitude of people who don't all share the same morals, so it breaks down, typically to the level of the lowest morals.
I chose to not pass judgment (as I'm in agreement with you for the most part), but morality is in large part contextural. I'm pretty sure you're an absolutist, and we'll never see eye-to-eye on that...
I'll stand by my belief though, that a moral action within its context can be considered amoral by those outside the context, and vice versa. That doesn't keep you or me from believing that others lack morals according to our code.
Also, I'd like to reiterate that rationality and morality are not the same thing, and bringing morality into the issue just clouds it -- since rationality is, after all, what I was originally talking about.
I think you missed my point -- companies don't have morality. And acting within the moral code of corporate management, the morally correct action is that which maximizes profit without exposing the company to undue risk.
At any rate, you're conflating rational thought with morality. Morality often entails making irrational actions within the framework for decision-making.
Note that I'm not supporting this; nor making any kind of judgment about it -- it's just the way that it is.
Oh, not personal information, you say? Just the ones and zeroes that we want access to, not the ones and zeroes that they want access to?
The information age is a double-edged sword. Just as we can make better purchasing decisions based on easily aggregated information, companies can make better lending/purchasing decisions based on easily aggregated information. Is there a correlation between credit scores and suitabilty as borrowers or tenants? Sure. Why should we fault the companies that operate more efficiently because they take that into consideration? And FWIW, your credit history (aside from bankruptcies) can be rebuilt in less than seven years.
And no, it's not impossible to live without credit, you just need to make some sacrifices. It's a question of how much you value the privacy of information you choose to make public.
You shouldn't have to pay a company to release a patch to you that they are holding for ransom.
Well, there are differences between essential patches and non-essential ones. Security holes, operating flaws, sure -- I agree with you. But a lot of other patches are to introduce more functionality or to improve efficiency, and if you choose to buy software as-is, and then go elsewhere for support -- well, then, why should you have access to those patches? You certainly aren't contributing financially to the development of them.
This is not abnormal for software companies -- if you want access to upgrades & non-essential patches, you pay for support of that software from the developer, or from authorized resellers. Pretty much an industry standard from my experience.
Who really needs psychological testing are the media outlets that continue to give this lunatic a platform.
Why is that? The media companies that give him an outlet make money off his attention-whoring -- they are acting quite rationally.
The real problem are the people who listen to, and believe, the demagogues -- in Thompson's case, because it's easier than addressing causes of violence other than cultural acceptance of it. This is particularly true of those in positions of power.
Going a little further, the problem (in the US) is that our electoral system + apathetic populace + corporate mass media == positive return on demagoguery. But I really don't want to get sidetracked down that road, so:
Jack Thompson is not a fool; he might even be unstable; but he fights for something he believes in, and does so pretty well, albeit via use of questionable methods. To belittle him is to belittle the effect he has on free speech issues wrt gaming, and that is a foolish thing to do. If you consider him an enemy, you should analyze his strengths as much as his weakneses.
SAP & Oracle both provide support for Oracle systems. So, it goes a little deeper than you would suggest, since the patches etc were then further distributed. Furthermore, the code in question went beyond the scope of the support being provided to the client.
The issue here is that SAP used underhanded (and illegal, likely) tactics to derive an advantage over a direct competitor in the support space -- they "stole" trade secrets.
Sure, it doesn't seem like a big deal, but remember that Oracle paid developers to write and test that code -- and SAP got an easy hand up in building similar patches / support mechanisms for what they address.
``Although many will see the legal teams as the cavalry in this battle, the troops that really matter are the PR special forces contingent,'' Ovum Plc analyst David Mitchell said. ``PR is where this battle will be won or lost.''
That is most certainly the case.
And now for the snark. Wtf? PR special forces? What kind of training does that require? Going seven days without using buzzspeak or powerpoint? Writing press releases and giving presentations under hostile fire?
And, most importantly, what color are their berets?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it depends on what aspect we're discussing. From an empire perspective, a lot of historians would argue that the US's heyday was in the 1960s; the Viet Nam war really reduced our political power in much of the world. We recovered a bit, but the collaps of the Soviet Empire pulled the rug out from underneath us, and triggered the collapse we're still trying to stave off.
From a "free nation" standpoint, I'd say that we're still much better off than we were a hundred years ago. We tend to paint the early years of the republic in a rosy light, but the disenfranchised and poor were much worse off than they are now.
Oh, FFS. It's not stealing, it's illegal filesharing.
I, for one, sympathize with the perps here. Who would begrudge the Best Buy Geeksquad drudges some cheap thrills? Besides, if they're busy sharing porn, that makes it less likely they're doing something awful to the innards of Auntie Mae's PC... I would hope.
My real feeling on this, though, are that it's all part of Best Buy's sales model. They can get a lot of customers to purchase an additional 120-gig hard drive if it comes preloaded with porn.
Also, did you notice they now sell tissues and lotion? It's all about synergistic product lines, folks.
Quite a few historians out there have been pointing to the decline of the free American nation for some time now. It's just that the past few Congresses and Presidents have accelerated the decline.
Or Mamadou Diallo. Somewhat (OK, entirely) on a tangent, when Mamadou Diallo played for DC United, he brutally tackled the Metrostars keeper and injured him quite severely. Until Diallo began playing for the Metrostars, the chants from the ESC section of the stands whenever they played DC usually included "They shot the wrong Diallo."
At any rate, Diallo is a common name among people from West Africa; it is one of the four divisions of the Fulbe people.
You're making an invalid assumption, that the set of important people does not intersect the set of below-average (from a security standpoint) users. There is an intersection, and it's not negligible. Of course, "important" is a relative term, but to a small home-grown business, the owner may be extremely important.
Nice try, but still not there. Let me know when you come up with something that contradicts my points, OK? It's getting tiresome deflating your red herrings, and like I said, I'd welcome the knowledge that Blackberrys truly are secure for all users.
As you point out, anything that runs software carries with it a risk of infection.
Regardless of RiM's security record and staff, there IS risk.
Furthermore, maybe you're a bit out of touch with people in a typical workplace. A Blackberry is not a computer to most people, it's an upgraded cell phone. Even people used to taking precautions when using their PC don't always use the same common sense when using their "cell phone", regardless of what it's capable of, and what it's capable of being infected by.
I am not claiming to know better than the security staff at RiM. What I am claiming to know is that no device that is capable of downloading software is risk-free, and that the below-average user is of concern, particularly to those charged with maintaining security in a corporate setting.
As for your ad hominem, it's not about karma. It's about a statement made by a spokesperson (which is the first tip-off that you need to look a little deeper) that didn't jibe with me. As you've pointed out, there are precautions that can be taken -- but as I've pointed out, they are not always taken.
Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that the point you're trying to make is, "Don't worry about it -- they have very good people taking care of that" along with "Don't worry about it, Blackberrys should be locked down". As to the first, that's ridiculous -- security should be a concern for everyone, from decision-makers at the executive level down to the lowliest user, regardless of how good the scurity staff are at a vendor company. As to the second, you should never forget that a significant segment of users will not take the simplest security precautions if it inconveniences them in any way (including taking the short time necessary to change a configuration).
To make a long post short, are you just trolling, or do you have points to make that really do contradict what I'm saying, or just more ad hominems and red herrings? I'd be glad to be proven wrong, since then we could all rest assured knowing that Blackberrys are inherently secure with a zero risk of compromise.
One other note:This has little to do with the security of Blackberrys as used by the general public. Note that those government agencies also have more staff devoted to security, policies more conducive to security, and employees more receptive to always acting in accordance with those policies.
I'm not saying that the sky is falling -- I'm saying that security on these devices IS a concern, and something we need to be aware of. I'm also saying that it's wrong for Blackberry spokespeople to downplay the risk of malware on the Blackberry, as the risk is real and important (unless of course we take steps to mitigate it, which is the whole point of not downplaying the risk -- to get people to take the necessary precautions).
No, the infections typically aren't from their Blackberrys. Usually idiot user + loaded email. Sometimes it's a driveby from a sketchy site.
Using a Blackberry won't eliminate their lack of common sense, so I'm betting they could be easily tricked into installing malware on their Blackberry.
There is a significant segment of Blackberry users to which these simple steps are not going to be followed, and
A disproportionately large part of that segment consists of those to whom secure communications are most important from a corporate POV.
Also, I'd like to mention that in my experience, it's often those with the most crucial conversations (ownership/upper management) are the ones who hand off their Blackberry to others for maintenance, etc. A disgruntled/bribed tech could very easily install this.
One other note -- if a user needing to take action to install malware wasn't a problem, we wouldn't see so many compromised machines.
It's a semantics game, and it could certainly be argued that MS is indeed distributing GPL'd code via proxy. However the issue is cloudy, with a forecast of extremely heavy lawyer's bills to argue that in court.
The suit is about use of a trademark.
Where did you pull that from? Before you put words in his mouth, why don't you bother reading what he is really complaining about? It's only a mouse-click away!
Thanks for the insight.
FWIW, my experience in gas pricing is limited to discussions with the owner of 2 gas stations in NJ.
Exactly, which is why the wholesale cost of gas IS the primary determining factor of the retail price, particularly when there is competition. Most stations have a standard markup, so their retail rates change only when the wholesale rate changes.
Persistence
The ability to get negative media coverage for his target-of-the-day
The ability to get coverage of his antics
His appeal to those in power (also of older generations)
The ease with which his pet issue can be used as a "save the children" issue.
Again, by ignoring his strengths, you ignore what he can actually do -- which, unless countered, can have a serious effect on free speech. He's a PR machine for his side of the issue -- and even if he looks bad, the issue still sticks in the mind of voters and politicians both.
You're still anthropomorphizing an organization, comprised of a multitude of people who don't all share the same morals, so it breaks down, typically to the level of the lowest morals.
I chose to not pass judgment (as I'm in agreement with you for the most part), but morality is in large part contextural. I'm pretty sure you're an absolutist, and we'll never see eye-to-eye on that...
I'll stand by my belief though, that a moral action within its context can be considered amoral by those outside the context, and vice versa. That doesn't keep you or me from believing that others lack morals according to our code.
Also, I'd like to reiterate that rationality and morality are not the same thing, and bringing morality into the issue just clouds it -- since rationality is, after all, what I was originally talking about.
I think you missed my point -- companies don't have morality. And acting within the moral code of corporate management, the morally correct action is that which maximizes profit without exposing the company to undue risk.
At any rate, you're conflating rational thought with morality. Morality often entails making irrational actions within the framework for decision-making.
Note that I'm not supporting this; nor making any kind of judgment about it -- it's just the way that it is.
I thought information wants to be free?
Oh, not personal information, you say? Just the ones and zeroes that we want access to, not the ones and zeroes that they want access to?
The information age is a double-edged sword. Just as we can make better purchasing decisions based on easily aggregated information, companies can make better lending/purchasing decisions based on easily aggregated information. Is there a correlation between credit scores and suitabilty as borrowers or tenants? Sure. Why should we fault the companies that operate more efficiently because they take that into consideration? And FWIW, your credit history (aside from bankruptcies) can be rebuilt in less than seven years.
And no, it's not impossible to live without credit, you just need to make some sacrifices. It's a question of how much you value the privacy of information you choose to make public.
This is not abnormal for software companies -- if you want access to upgrades & non-essential patches, you pay for support of that software from the developer, or from authorized resellers. Pretty much an industry standard from my experience.
The real problem are the people who listen to, and believe, the demagogues -- in Thompson's case, because it's easier than addressing causes of violence other than cultural acceptance of it. This is particularly true of those in positions of power.
Going a little further, the problem (in the US) is that our electoral system + apathetic populace + corporate mass media == positive return on demagoguery. But I really don't want to get sidetracked down that road, so:
Jack Thompson is not a fool; he might even be unstable; but he fights for something he believes in, and does so pretty well, albeit via use of questionable methods. To belittle him is to belittle the effect he has on free speech issues wrt gaming, and that is a foolish thing to do. If you consider him an enemy, you should analyze his strengths as much as his weakneses.
SAP & Oracle both provide support for Oracle systems. So, it goes a little deeper than you would suggest, since the patches etc were then further distributed. Furthermore, the code in question went beyond the scope of the support being provided to the client.
The issue here is that SAP used underhanded (and illegal, likely) tactics to derive an advantage over a direct competitor in the support space -- they "stole" trade secrets.
Sure, it doesn't seem like a big deal, but remember that Oracle paid developers to write and test that code -- and SAP got an easy hand up in building similar patches / support mechanisms for what they address.
FTA (emphasis mine):That is most certainly the case.
And now for the snark. Wtf? PR special forces? What kind of training does that require? Going seven days without using buzzspeak or powerpoint? Writing press releases and giving presentations under hostile fire?
And, most importantly, what color are their berets?