Would you support the distribution of a game where the aim is to brutally rape as many infants as possible? What about one where the aim is to rape as many adults as possible? What about where the aim is to have sex with as many adults as possible?
Support? No. Allow? Yes, assuming of course that no one was harmed in any way in creating this (which, for example may be the case in child pornography).
I don't subscribe to the notion that works should be banned because you don't like them.
Even with child pornography, it's not always that easy. A father that rapes his daughter and puts the video in the internet is a pretty clear case.
But what about two thirteen year olds taking naked pictures of each other using their cell phones and posting them on the internet. In both cases, child pornography is produced - but the circumstances need to be analyzed closely in order not to cause even more issues.
Video games, on the other hand, as long as they're created entirely digitally in the minds of developers are easier to judge - you can be assured that noone was harmed in their creation.
And if you want to ensure that your children don't get their hands on Infant Raper VI Digital Extended Deluxe Edition, make sure they don't have admin rights on their computer and deny the execution of untrusted binaries.
Personally, I am somewhat sympathetic towards banning acts considered serious crimes in real life from being the subject of a game (by which I mean games requiring players to act out these types of crimes).
Why? They're illuminated pieces of glass or plastic. And, more importantly, noone was hurt when creating the data to illuminate said glass or plastic.
The minaret ban is perfectly okay - it's a democratic decision to set a sign against a fascist ideology disguised as religion.
It will not prevent Islam from spreading further through Europe and erode our basic values of freedom.
If you're an American, you might not understand what i'm talking about. That's because most of the muslims in America are upper-class immigrants (at least were upper-class in their home countries). While many of those are still muslims, they're not extremist and approach their religion like an educated christian and take everything with a grain of salt.
In Europe, the situation is different. The muslim immigrants here are uneducated and would kill their daughter if she had sex with a non-muslim (happens almost every week in Europe). Up until the Minaret vote, political correctness forbade from speaking about honor killings - luckily, this has now changed.
I'm also Swiss, and i disagree with you. If you don't want your kids exposed to violent games, don't buy them violent games. You can already do that today.
This ban will prevent people like me getting my hands on a legal copy of a perfectly normal video game like GTA 4. It will however not prevent your children from getting illegal copies of the game.
A good concept that i've seen in use on an embedded device.
The device ships with it's user interface completely locked. There's no possibility to login. Press a button on the device, and you can logon using default credentials - doing this will prompt you to change user and password. After doing this, the button can be used to perform a full reset of the device.
Basically, the device is secure out of the box - when logging in for the first time, you need to provide physical authentication, and afterwards you have your own user and password.
I haven't seen any downsides to this approach yet.
Firefox will run from read-only binaries on a network mounted volume, and will store its profile in a network mounted user home directory.
Great idea for laptops.
Seriously, you don't get it. Why reinvent the wheel when IE already works well, and you don't have to do much to deploy security updates?
Users aren't demanding Firefox/Chrome/whatever. Management isn't either. Developers are, but they have local admin rights and can install them if they want to.
It's my job to make sure that stuff is running well, not waste money and time deploying alternative browsers when the ones we have right now already work well.
Do a simple analysis - time & money required to deploy IE, time & money required to deploy IE _AND_ Firefox.
Everywhere else, you can buy System Builder (not to be confused with OEM licenses, though many people refer to SBE as OEM) licenses. They're pretty reasonable, around 120$ for Home Premium. The license is bound to the hardware with the first installation though (legally - technically, you can still activate other machines by calling up Microsoft).
My experiences with Citrix so far have been good - most of the issues i've had stemmed from shitty applications and the fact that those shitty applications need 32bit TS.
Well, there are different environments to consider - a really big enterprise with 10'000s of users can easily repackage software for deployment.
But lets think of smaller companies - 100 users with an IT dept consisting of one or two persons.
With Internet Explorer, providing security updates is easy, as they're the same as Windows updates - just point the clients at a WSUS server, approve the updates, and the users can install them at their leisure (until the deadline runs out). WSUS is essentially free in a Windows environment.
Now, if you want to do the same with a third party browser, you'll need to start packaging your own update - not a problem in a 50'000 people shop with a 10 person "desktop software" team.
But a big problem in a 100 person shop with a single guy that handles all aspects of IT - the free tools to do this (GPO software assignments, computer startup scripts) have severe limitations and don't work right with todays mobile users. So you'll need to purchase additional software to handle deployment - like System Center Essentials.
Of course, you already have this issue with Adobe Reader, which also needs to be patched and updated constantly and isn't easily upgraded. But the point remains: Keeping IE up to date is simple and cost effective. Keeping third party browsers up to date is expensive and requires work for each security fix.
Or are you just going to sit on your ass and bitch about it without doing anything at all to deal with it?
No one is bitching and whining. I deploy IE because it works, i can update it securely without repackaging security updates over reliable, known infrastructure (WSUS).
IE8 is good enough and doesn't require additional effort. People are whining that companies aren't using Firefox and Chrome - there's a perfectly logical explanation for that.
I don't think the new UI and tabs are what's preventing people from upgrading to IE7/8, it's just the new rendering engine - the new UI and tabs are basically incentives to get the new rendering engine.
So i'm not seeing what such a IE6.1 would've accomplished.
Why is not there a product that will run IE6 inside a virtual machine?
There are plenty of tools to do this (MED-V, XP Mode, etc.), but there's no business case for it, except "being more secure".
This can be very hard to sell, so it's not only a technology problem but an organizational one too, because upgrading from "IE6 on XP" to "IE6 in a VM accessed by XP" or "IE6 on a TS accessed by XP" means you'll need to spend a lot of money. You'll need a very good CIO to sell this to the rest of management why this should be done. And if the CIO doesn't think this is a good idea, then there's no chance in hell that this will ever happen.
Or, why not install one of several other fantastic browsers (firefox being one of the best supported) and use ie6 for internal stuff. That didn't seem hard.
All non-Microsoft browsers suck at central configuration and central updates. You'll waste a lot of time packaging updates, something Microsoft does for you when using IE.
The only thing I am unsure of is how to force IE6 to internal sites only.
Plenty of ways. You can force it to use a proxy server through a GPO, then block everything but the internal apps on that proxy.
It should be noted though that Firefox/Chrome/Opera are not alternatives in a large environment, and the reason for this is that none of these three browsers have thought a lot about deployment.
Chrome uses it's own custom "install into userprofile" thing, which can be pretty nice for standalone computers at home without admin rights.
Firefox comes with it's own installer, but doesn't bring any update tools for large enterprises, and it doesn't use the standard MSI format.
Opera can't be updated by non-admin users either.
Not of these three browsers can be managed centrally using group policies, like IE can. Sure, there's the Frontmotion Firefox packages, but this isn't Mozilla providing them and they're not very good either.
Microsoft's WSUS has the ability to use 3rd party patches. Not one of the competitors browsers allow updates to be installed through WSUS/WU. WSUS is very popular in small-to-midsized companies where a full software deployment solution like SCCM is overkill and too expensive, but automatic distrubtion of security patches is still key to a secure work environment.
That's why i still recommend all our clients to run IE8 - because it requires less effort, is easier to keep secure (A fully patched IE8 is better than a 16 months old version of Firefox) and is preinstalled anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
If you win, you will also be a hero... History ain't written by the losers.
Support? No.
Allow? Yes, assuming of course that no one was harmed in any way in creating this (which, for example may be the case in child pornography).
I don't subscribe to the notion that works should be banned because you don't like them.
Even with child pornography, it's not always that easy. A father that rapes his daughter and puts the video in the internet is a pretty clear case.
But what about two thirteen year olds taking naked pictures of each other using their cell phones and posting them on the internet. In both cases, child pornography is produced - but the circumstances need to be analyzed closely in order not to cause even more issues.
Video games, on the other hand, as long as they're created entirely digitally in the minds of developers are easier to judge - you can be assured that noone was harmed in their creation.
And if you want to ensure that your children don't get their hands on Infant Raper VI Digital Extended Deluxe Edition, make sure they don't have admin rights on their computer and deny the execution of untrusted binaries.
You have an interesting definition of "Democracy".
Is there something wrong with the "black sheep" being pushed out?
You're not racist and equate black people with black sheep, or are you?
Why? They're illuminated pieces of glass or plastic. And, more importantly, noone was hurt when creating the data to illuminate said glass or plastic.
I always said that Switzerland needs to nukes to defend itself from Lichtenstein's agression.
You want to get rid of the direct democracy, and suffer in lobbying hell like the rest of supposed "democracies"?
At least we are able to get things done, if enough people care. Like the Minaret vote, which toppled all the Politically Correct's belief systems.
The system we have is a good thing.
If the youth doesn't vote, it's their fault. I'm 25 now, and i've voted in every election since i was 18.
The minaret ban is perfectly okay - it's a democratic decision to set a sign against a fascist ideology disguised as religion.
It will not prevent Islam from spreading further through Europe and erode our basic values of freedom.
If you're an American, you might not understand what i'm talking about. That's because most of the muslims in America are upper-class immigrants (at least were upper-class in their home countries). While many of those are still muslims, they're not extremist and approach their religion like an educated christian and take everything with a grain of salt.
In Europe, the situation is different. The muslim immigrants here are uneducated and would kill their daughter if she had sex with a non-muslim (happens almost every week in Europe). Up until the Minaret vote, political correctness forbade from speaking about honor killings - luckily, this has now changed.
I'm also Swiss, and i disagree with you. If you don't want your kids exposed to violent games, don't buy them violent games. You can already do that today.
This ban will prevent people like me getting my hands on a legal copy of a perfectly normal video game like GTA 4. It will however not prevent your children from getting illegal copies of the game.
Not really an issue, since anyone with a clean criminal record can purchase as much ammo as one wants.
Meh, a 5500 VA UPS can drive a rack full of low-end 2U servers.
Yes, since Vista there's an annoying popup.
I've seen it only once, though. The disk is still working. :)
A good concept that i've seen in use on an embedded device.
The device ships with it's user interface completely locked. There's no possibility to login. Press a button on the device, and you can logon using default credentials - doing this will prompt you to change user and password. After doing this, the button can be used to perform a full reset of the device.
Basically, the device is secure out of the box - when logging in for the first time, you need to provide physical authentication, and afterwards you have your own user and password.
I haven't seen any downsides to this approach yet.
Great idea for laptops.
Seriously, you don't get it. Why reinvent the wheel when IE already works well, and you don't have to do much to deploy security updates?
Users aren't demanding Firefox/Chrome/whatever. Management isn't either. Developers are, but they have local admin rights and can install them if they want to.
It's my job to make sure that stuff is running well, not waste money and time deploying alternative browsers when the ones we have right now already work well.
Do a simple analysis - time & money required to deploy IE, time & money required to deploy IE _AND_ Firefox.
IE wins. That's why we use it.
Only in the US, though.
Everywhere else, you can buy System Builder (not to be confused with OEM licenses, though many people refer to SBE as OEM) licenses. They're pretty reasonable, around 120$ for Home Premium. The license is bound to the hardware with the first installation though (legally - technically, you can still activate other machines by calling up Microsoft).
Why?
My experiences with Citrix so far have been good - most of the issues i've had stemmed from shitty applications and the fact that those shitty applications need 32bit TS.
Well, there are different environments to consider - a really big enterprise with 10'000s of users can easily repackage software for deployment.
But lets think of smaller companies - 100 users with an IT dept consisting of one or two persons.
With Internet Explorer, providing security updates is easy, as they're the same as Windows updates - just point the clients at a WSUS server, approve the updates, and the users can install them at their leisure (until the deadline runs out). WSUS is essentially free in a Windows environment.
Now, if you want to do the same with a third party browser, you'll need to start packaging your own update - not a problem in a 50'000 people shop with a 10 person "desktop software" team.
But a big problem in a 100 person shop with a single guy that handles all aspects of IT - the free tools to do this (GPO software assignments, computer startup scripts) have severe limitations and don't work right with todays mobile users. So you'll need to purchase additional software to handle deployment - like System Center Essentials.
Of course, you already have this issue with Adobe Reader, which also needs to be patched and updated constantly and isn't easily upgraded. But the point remains: Keeping IE up to date is simple and cost effective. Keeping third party browsers up to date is expensive and requires work for each security fix.
No one is bitching and whining. I deploy IE because it works, i can update it securely without repackaging security updates over reliable, known infrastructure (WSUS).
IE8 is good enough and doesn't require additional effort. People are whining that companies aren't using Firefox and Chrome - there's a perfectly logical explanation for that.
Read before replying. I even mentioned Frontmotion by name.
Look at the licensing terms - those are for App Compat testing, not for running production workloads.
I don't think the new UI and tabs are what's preventing people from upgrading to IE7/8, it's just the new rendering engine - the new UI and tabs are basically incentives to get the new rendering engine.
So i'm not seeing what such a IE6.1 would've accomplished.
There are plenty of tools to do this (MED-V, XP Mode, etc.), but there's no business case for it, except "being more secure".
This can be very hard to sell, so it's not only a technology problem but an organizational one too, because upgrading from "IE6 on XP" to "IE6 in a VM accessed by XP" or "IE6 on a TS accessed by XP" means you'll need to spend a lot of money. You'll need a very good CIO to sell this to the rest of management why this should be done. And if the CIO doesn't think this is a good idea, then there's no chance in hell that this will ever happen.
All non-Microsoft browsers suck at central configuration and central updates. You'll waste a lot of time packaging updates, something Microsoft does for you when using IE.
Plenty of ways. You can force it to use a proxy server through a GPO, then block everything but the internal apps on that proxy.
It should be noted though that Firefox/Chrome/Opera are not alternatives in a large environment, and the reason for this is that none of these three browsers have thought a lot about deployment.
Chrome uses it's own custom "install into userprofile" thing, which can be pretty nice for standalone computers at home without admin rights.
Firefox comes with it's own installer, but doesn't bring any update tools for large enterprises, and it doesn't use the standard MSI format.
Opera can't be updated by non-admin users either.
Not of these three browsers can be managed centrally using group policies, like IE can. Sure, there's the Frontmotion Firefox packages, but this isn't Mozilla providing them and they're not very good either.
Microsoft's WSUS has the ability to use 3rd party patches. Not one of the competitors browsers allow updates to be installed through WSUS/WU. WSUS is very popular in small-to-midsized companies where a full software deployment solution like SCCM is overkill and too expensive, but automatic distrubtion of security patches is still key to a secure work environment.
That's why i still recommend all our clients to run IE8 - because it requires less effort, is easier to keep secure (A fully patched IE8 is better than a 16 months old version of Firefox) and is preinstalled anyway.