You could always block this traffic in the firewall.;)
Good point. But knowing our "friends" at Redmond, they'd write it into the firewall to make sure you couldn't block it. Of course someone would find out, they'd sue, Microsoft would stall it in the courts for about 5 years before finally acquiescing, and by then it would become ubiquitous and no one would disable it voluntarily except geeks who don't trust MS.
Microsoft claims that configuring the Vista firewall to block outgoing connections from rogue applications and malware will require a varying degree of technical knowledge, depending on each user's security requirements.
Yes MS, its hard to setup properly - thats why you have to have it turned on by default
Except that your "average user" will then be trapped into allowing everything to send outbound traffic because of the constant and annoying interrupts. What it really needs to do to work properly is a link back to a database somewhere that can tell the user exactly what the program trying to send traffic is, where it comes from, and give them a head's up if the program is suspicious. If the program is suspicious, information about should be sent to the database to be logged for analysis. Mind you, this requires Microsoft to have access to your machine and send untold quantities of data back and forth, so I don't know how popular that would be with most people.
The architecture of the legacy DNS greatly helps the attackers. It creates many non-obvious dependencies between names and nameservers, and can enable unexpected nodes to exert great control over remote domains. For example, the resolution of the host www.whitehouse.gov is directly dependent on all the servers that serve the whitehouse.gov domain. There are just seven of these, one of which is a.gov.zoneedit.com. But how does a client figure out the IP address of a.gov.zoneedit.com? For that, it will have to find out the name servers for.com, one of which is a.gtld-servers.net. To figure out the IP address of a.gtld-servers.net, it needs to contact a2.nstld.com. And so on, until the search bottoms out at a root server. In all, the name www.whitehouse.gov is dependent on 40 different nameservers. A compromise in any one of these servers can be used to redirect clients under the right circumstances. The root problem here is that legacy DNS requires a transitive trust relationship, from a name to all its nameservers, and from those nameservers' names to all their nameservers, and so on. These dependencies create a dependency graph (technically it should be a directed acyclic graph culminating in the root servers, but cycles can arise in practice - legacy DNS requires manual administration, and humans make mistakes.
Meaning that until the number of dependencies can be cut to a more manageable size, it's far too easy to exploit the vulnerability at any point in the chain, and the greater the number of nameservers, the harder it would be to backtrack to the source of any problem. It's no wonder the phishers are so successful, when they can use the Internet's own structure against it.
From : There will be the Internet, and then there will be the Google Internet, superimposed on top. We'll use it without even knowing. The Google Internet will be faster, safer, and cheaper. With the advent of widespread GoogleBase (again a bit-schlepping app that can be used in a thousand ways -- most of them not even envisioned by Google) there's suddenly a new kind of marketplace for data with everything a transaction in the most literal sense as Google takes over the role of trusted third-party info-escrow agent for all world business. That's the goal.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I bring you -- Internet3: The Rise of Google
a. that quality of any description, exhibition, presentation or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomasochistic abuse when the material or performance, taken as a whole, has the following characteristics:
a. (1) the average person eighteen (18) years of age or older applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance has a predominant tendency to appeal to a prurient interest in sex to minors, and
b. (2) the average person eighteen (18) years of age or older applying contemporary community standards would find that the material or performance depicts or describes nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement or sadomasochistic abuse in a manner that is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable for minors, and
c. (3) the material or performance lacks serious literary, scientific, medical, artistic, or political value for minors, or
b. any description, exhibition, presentation or representation, in whatever form, of inappropriate violence;
So what about us "above average" people? Wouldn't we consider this bill offensive? And is there such a thing as "appropriate violence?" It doesn't surprise me that they're trying to apply such a broad brush to this, because if they can get this to pass a review by the US Supreme Court (where it will inevitably go if put into law), they will then turn around and try to apply the same logic to porn, violent movies, basically anything they don't like. As usual, I don't think it will stand for very long, although because this is Oklahoma, it might last longer than most such laws.
A legal ban on mandatory microchip implantation is pointless in a way, as the real threat is that they will become so pervasive that it will be impossible to lead a normal life (e.g. buy groceries, vote, hold a drivers license) without one.
It starts with businesses using them for employee access and security. Admittedly you don't have to work for a company that has mandated their use, but they will slowly become ubiquitous, as more companies realize the benefits of implanting employees with an id they can't lose (unlike a badge or tag). Not only will they use it for security, but you'll be able to buy your lunch in the company commisary without having to carry your money. Then, once people get used to the idea of that, they'll demand the technology be available elsewhere.
It only takes a small group to start a technological revolution. Look how the whole PC concept began. But this is one technological revolution that needs to be monitored carefully. The risk to individual privacy is too great.
I worked for OfficeMax on a couple of occasions in their Electronics department and was the authority on computers. Of ocurse their selection was not huge and it was easy to keep up with the differences between models, though usually customers were more interested in the price tags. At the time, the first GB hard drives were coming out and I couldn't imagine why someone would need all that room (can we say "software bloat" boys and girls?).
It was a considerable challenge to make the differences between machines evident to the non-computer person. Numbers are daunting and don't even go into acronyms. I made sure to stay up on things so I could anticipate the more technical users, but we hardly ever got those kind of customer. I always told the other associates that you should never try to bullsh*t the customers, but try to be helpful and remember to say "I don't know" when you don't honestly know. I found a lot of people returned to the store to buy from us simply because we treated them well, not always because we had the best price.
Of course today, you get either A) the guy out to pad his commission, who won't leave you alone, even after you make it clear you know more than he does about the machines, B) the slacker who is there to earn money because his parents cut him off and he'd rather be doing anything other than helping or customers or C) the guy who knows about 5 computer phrases and is pretty good at making up the rest as he goes along. For that eason, I order on-line now.
Software programmers are the seed corn of the Information Economy, yet America isn't producing enough. The Labor Dept. forecasts that "computer/math scientist" jobs, which include programming, will increase by 40%, from 2.5 million in 2002 to 3.5 million in 2012. Colleges aren't keeping up with demand. A 2005 survey of freshmen showed that just 1.1% planned to major in computer science, down from 3.7% in 2000.
Let's see if we can figure this out. American kids aren't going into CS -- why? Perhaps because:
Tech jobs are being outsourced overseas in a great number of cases, so getting a CS degree is not some automatic ticket to a job like it used to be and doesn't mean long term stability if you can find a job
By the age of 18, kids have been using/learning about computers and using the Internet for a while, many have developed some level of technical skill, and are possibly getting jobs without having to go through 4+ years of drudgery
Unless you're working for the biggest companies, programming is a grind. It's not glamorous, seldom exciting, and while the paychecks are nice, you sometimes end up working crazy schedules which don't allow you to enjoy the money
It is offering free telephone support to consumers in the US, Germany and Japan who decide to try it out.
Yes, that's right. You get this lovely tripod with gripping arm, absolutely free with your trial of IE7 Beta. Now, when you are stuck on interminable hold with Microsoft Tech support, you won't have to hold the phone up to your ear -- the Phone Support will do all the work! It frees up your hands so you can send hate mail to Bill Gates while still waiting for the next available tech support specialist.
Your so called absolutes are anything but, and even if they were, several are potentially contradictory, and would be prioritised differently in different cultures/situations, rendering them nonsensical.
It's culture that is to blame for these things being contradictory and nonsensical. I think killing is repugnant; I believe most people would agree that taking another person's life is wrong. Of course then the problem becomes, if someone kills someone, what do we do? Do we kill them, in contravention of our belief? And culture creates a divide at this point: in some cultures, "an eye for an eye" is a perfectly acceptable idea, while in others, the prohibition against killing is inviolate, even to balance the scales of justice. That's culture talking -- groups of people with different belief systems trying to create a common framework of justice and right is going to be inherently contradictory, because for some the solution goes against everything they believe. That does not however, invalidate the main premise.
Don't you guys just feel so good hating China so much?
I personally don't hate China. You can't hate a nation (never mind what people said about the USSR during the 50's and 60's); each nation is made up of diverse groups and not all citizens of a nation think alike. Nowhere is that truer than here in the United States.
What I hate is the Chinese government clinging to outmoded ideals and forms of control that in the end create hardship and ruin for the great bulk of the Chinese people. They treat most of their citizens like cattle -- just one example is the Chinese mining industry. The divide between the rural poor and the urban rich is a greater gulf than we have here. There is still political injustice and opinions contrary to the party line are not tolerated. Despite economic reforms, China is still a totalitarian regime.
To my way of thinking, the Chinese people deserve the same rights and privileges that I enjoy, but to get them, they will have to make the changes necessary to bring true reform. All I and others can do is urge them on and hope.
Going a little OT here, but the article gives one of the reasons for censorship as:
Controversial content has been under the spotlight recently after the widespread publicity surrounding an online video of a woman wearing high-heeled shoes stomping a cat to death.
Actually, it's that kind of thing that has to be reported and made available. It's like trying to hide under the covers -- sure, you don't see any bad things, but you don't see any good things either. More importantly, you don't get to choose what you think is "bad" and what you think is "good." I think we'd pretty much all agree there are some moral absolutes (not killing or torturing others, taking the property of others without express permission, right to worship freely, etc.), but for anything not so cut-and-dried, it's up to the individual to determine where those things reside in their moral universe.
Censorship is not just about keeping things from people, it's also about telling people what they should think or believe.
They're getting more and more backing from the government and very few people are standing up to them, and even if they do, they just settle out any way.
And yet cases are going against them, and further lawsuits are being brought against them, in their overzealous pursuit of profit:
It's not in the millions by any stretch, but as these things gain momentum, the RIAA is going to be defending itself on a thousand fronts and undoubtedly as more and more cases make their way into the headlines, they will find themselves on the losing end, as more and more people abandon CDs and pick up music for free on-line.
It's not a victory yet, but this could be the biggest blow, if it's found that RIAA members were busy fudging the evidence to get their own way. If they're in the right, why the deception? Because they know they have alosing battle on their hands unless they stack the deck. This one thing may come back to bite them hard.
During the DoJ investigation, EMI and UMG apparently misled the investigators about these activities. In the words of Judge Patel: "[T]he documents provided by Hummer provide reasonable cause to believe that the statements in the [labels' report to DoJ] were deliberately misleading, if not completely false."
The judge has ordered UMG and EMI to hand over previously withheld documents relating to the DoJ investigation, overriding the attorney-client privilege because "the court... finds reasonable cause to believe that the attorney's services were utilized in furtherance of the ongoing unlawful scheme." The labels have 30 days to comply. Stay tuned.
I suspect that right now some law firms are watching their reputations take a serious hit. The RIAA is on a rampage and at every turn they do even more damage to their reputation; this is going be another big black mark. If we wait long enough, they will destroy their own cause with all their dirty tactics and outright lies. I'm gonna get some popcorn -- this will be fun to watch.
Also, the discussion over at Google currently has a whopping 6 entries.
Much ado about nothing?
It has probably not reached epidemic proportions yet, but as a former Verizon DSL customer, it does not surprise met that their idea of SPAM filtering is to block most legitimate incoming traffic. They tend to have a brute force approach to technical problems. Their tech support has been spotty for a long time; I would sometimes get really sharp people who could scope something out in minutes, other times I wondered if the tech knew what a router was.
If this goes on long enough, you can bet there will be a pretty strong backlash and the last thing Verizon needs is egg on its face. They'd hate to see customers flocking to cable and dumping their DSL, especially if those customers take their phone service along with them.
So we have a breakdown of 3 companies, 2 switching from Linux to Windows, 1 from Windows to Linux. Is there any great wisdom to be gleaned from this? The only bit I can come up with is that you use what works best for you with the infrastructure you need to support. It's easy to say Linux will work well for everything but that's just not realistic. It's also safe to say that Microsoft sucks universally, yet there are plenty of sites running SQL Server and IIS that seem to be doing ok.
If you're smart, you analyze your needs and then add 50% for growth and ask yourself if the infrastructure and technology you plan to use can handle it. It's simpler than getting caught up in the Microsoft vs. Liunx battle for supremacy.
While not exactly a declaration of hostility, the letter is provocative given the change in relationship between Red Hat and Oracle noted by Goldman Sachs. Ellison had the first words with his statement that "they're not supporting the customers very well," now Szulik has responded.
And so the pissing contest begins. Why? Of what possible use is it? None. Look, Oracle wants in to the Linux market, so it can compete both within the open source arena and have a chance at digging into Microsoft's market share. I've said repeatedly this move is about 5 years overdue. Since it appears Oracle is not interested in Red Hat or Novell (I said appears; never let it be said Ellison couldn't change his mind in a heartbeat), they'll go after someone else, like Ubuntu. This doesn't stand to hurt Red Hat or Novell; any Linux distribution they swallow up is going to end up having its creativity choked off by the bloated development structure that is Oracle.
Move along -- nothing to care about here. We'll see how it pans out in the marketplace when and if Oracle takes the plunge. Sabre rattling at this point is just silly.
Ken Burns effect in Ajax: Use good ole DHTML and XML to whip stuff around on your screen. Or as the link says "I animate the images with random slow moves, zooms, and fades to give a pleasing version of the Ken Burns Effect without having to download Macromedia® Flash or any other heavyweight animation tools."
Great. So now I have to sit through pointless slideshows on web sites instead of pointless Flash animations. That makes things so much better. I think I'll go back to reading books.
So you feel a successful test is one that shuts down the entire airport?
Put it this way: I'd rather they shut down an airport for two hours for a false alarm than have several hundred people killed because some screener actually missed a bomb.
By bundling things the way they have, Microsoft has forced you to buy them even if you didn't want them. As such, people had less money to buy RP, Netscape, etc.
Point taken.
Yes, if MS made a car with an MS engine, they'd die a quick death. But only because there are options. If there were no other car makers out there, we'd have to buy the MS car and either buy their gas, or buy a second engine.
To run the car analogy into the ground, it is possible to put another type of engine in a car, if you're willing to go through the trouble. It's much harder to install a different type of engine in a car than load software (in most cases). Microsoft has not seen fit (yet) to prevent other vendors from being able to install their software on Windows, because it doesn't make sense. If you couldn't install RealPlayer on Windows but could in Linux, and enough people wanted RealPlayer, then Linux would be more of a threat.
As someone else mentioned, some people would have a hard time finding and/or loading an alternate player. While bundling Media Player is monopolistic, it does give the new Windows user a default media software to use, until they have the time (and ability or inclination) to find a new one more to their liking.
...but I can't see any reason this bug would be a one-time thing. Isn't it more likely that it's persistent?
Perhaps. And perhaps in the past someone has let something pass they shouldn't have precisely because this happened and they made the assumption it was a test. It's hard to say. That's the problem -- we're going on one report about one incident and the article isn't too clear on how many times this may have happened in the past.
So if they become jaded and just let anything pass assuming it's a "test" then they would fail the test.
Well, the supervisor didn't seem to know it was a test, or he wouldn't have gone to all the trouble to stop the conveyor and search for the bag. So in essence it tested not just the screener, but the screener's supervisor as well.
So I don't think this will result in them letting bombs and weapons through because they assume it's a test.
Maybe not, but never underestimate the apathetic state of the government-hired drone. I know they say they say they're picking the best people for these jobs, but in my many recent trips I've discovered a "lack of urgency" in some screeners and an "I'm in charge" attitude in a few too many for my liking.
While screening carry-on luggage, a TSA employee identified the image of a suspicious device but did not realize it was part of routine testing for security screeners because the software failed to indicate such a test was under way, Hawley said.
Willie Williams, the airport's federal security director, said the screener saw something suspicious and notified a supervisor. The two manually rechecked all the bags on the conveyor belt but could not find anything resembling what was seen on the screen, Williams said.
Put aside the software failure and I'd say this was a more successful test than the actual test. I mean, if screeners know this kind of thing is going to happen every so often and they see something suspicious, they may become a bit jaded after a while and assume it's a test, even if the indication doesn't appear. This screener took no chances and called a supervisor and then went about trying to find the device. I believe that's how the system is supposed to work.
So the software failed, but in the end it didn't really fail, because it showed someone was doing their job as they were supposed to be.
Slashdot Mirror
Good point. But knowing our "friends" at Redmond, they'd write it into the firewall to make sure you couldn't block it. Of course someone would find out, they'd sue, Microsoft would stall it in the courts for about 5 years before finally acquiescing, and by then it would become ubiquitous and no one would disable it voluntarily except geeks who don't trust MS.
On a side note, from TFA
Yes MS, its hard to setup properly - thats why you have to have it turned on by default
Except that your "average user" will then be trapped into allowing everything to send outbound traffic because of the constant and annoying interrupts. What it really needs to do to work properly is a link back to a database somewhere that can tell the user exactly what the program trying to send traffic is, where it comes from, and give them a head's up if the program is suspicious. If the program is suspicious, information about should be sent to the database to be logged for analysis. Mind you, this requires Microsoft to have access to your machine and send untold quantities of data back and forth, so I don't know how popular that would be with most people.
Meaning that until the number of dependencies can be cut to a more manageable size, it's far too easy to exploit the vulnerability at any point in the chain, and the greater the number of nameservers, the harder it would be to backtrack to the source of any problem. It's no wonder the phishers are so successful, when they can use the Internet's own structure against it.
From : There will be the Internet, and then there will be the Google Internet, superimposed on top. We'll use it without even knowing. The Google Internet will be faster, safer, and cheaper. With the advent of widespread GoogleBase (again a bit-schlepping app that can be used in a thousand ways -- most of them not even envisioned by Google) there's suddenly a new kind of marketplace for data with everything a transaction in the most literal sense as Google takes over the role of trusted third-party info-escrow agent for all world business. That's the goal.
Ladies and Gentlemen, I bring you -- Internet3: The Rise of Google
From the text of the bill:
"Harmful to minors" means:
It starts with businesses using them for employee access and security. Admittedly you don't have to work for a company that has mandated their use, but they will slowly become ubiquitous, as more companies realize the benefits of implanting employees with an id they can't lose (unlike a badge or tag). Not only will they use it for security, but you'll be able to buy your lunch in the company commisary without having to carry your money. Then, once people get used to the idea of that, they'll demand the technology be available elsewhere.
It only takes a small group to start a technological revolution. Look how the whole PC concept began. But this is one technological revolution that needs to be monitored carefully. The risk to individual privacy is too great.
I worked for OfficeMax on a couple of occasions in their Electronics department and was the authority on computers. Of ocurse their selection was not huge and it was easy to keep up with the differences between models, though usually customers were more interested in the price tags. At the time, the first GB hard drives were coming out and I couldn't imagine why someone would need all that room (can we say "software bloat" boys and girls?).
It was a considerable challenge to make the differences between machines evident to the non-computer person. Numbers are daunting and don't even go into acronyms. I made sure to stay up on things so I could anticipate the more technical users, but we hardly ever got those kind of customer. I always told the other associates that you should never try to bullsh*t the customers, but try to be helpful and remember to say "I don't know" when you don't honestly know. I found a lot of people returned to the store to buy from us simply because we treated them well, not always because we had the best price.
Of course today, you get either A) the guy out to pad his commission, who won't leave you alone, even after you make it clear you know more than he does about the machines, B) the slacker who is there to earn money because his parents cut him off and he'd rather be doing anything other than helping or customers or C) the guy who knows about 5 computer phrases and is pretty good at making up the rest as he goes along. For that eason, I order on-line now.
Let's see if we can figure this out. American kids aren't going into CS -- why? Perhaps because:
Did I leave anything out?
Yes, that's right. You get this lovely tripod with gripping arm, absolutely free with your trial of IE7 Beta. Now, when you are stuck on interminable hold with Microsoft Tech support, you won't have to hold the phone up to your ear -- the Phone Support will do all the work! It frees up your hands so you can send hate mail to Bill Gates while still waiting for the next available tech support specialist.
It's culture that is to blame for these things being contradictory and nonsensical. I think killing is repugnant; I believe most people would agree that taking another person's life is wrong. Of course then the problem becomes, if someone kills someone, what do we do? Do we kill them, in contravention of our belief? And culture creates a divide at this point: in some cultures, "an eye for an eye" is a perfectly acceptable idea, while in others, the prohibition against killing is inviolate, even to balance the scales of justice. That's culture talking -- groups of people with different belief systems trying to create a common framework of justice and right is going to be inherently contradictory, because for some the solution goes against everything they believe. That does not however, invalidate the main premise.
I personally don't hate China. You can't hate a nation (never mind what people said about the USSR during the 50's and 60's); each nation is made up of diverse groups and not all citizens of a nation think alike. Nowhere is that truer than here in the United States.
What I hate is the Chinese government clinging to outmoded ideals and forms of control that in the end create hardship and ruin for the great bulk of the Chinese people. They treat most of their citizens like cattle -- just one example is the Chinese mining industry. The divide between the rural poor and the urban rich is a greater gulf than we have here. There is still political injustice and opinions contrary to the party line are not tolerated. Despite economic reforms, China is still a totalitarian regime.
To my way of thinking, the Chinese people deserve the same rights and privileges that I enjoy, but to get them, they will have to make the changes necessary to bring true reform. All I and others can do is urge them on and hope.
Actually, it's that kind of thing that has to be reported and made available. It's like trying to hide under the covers -- sure, you don't see any bad things, but you don't see any good things either. More importantly, you don't get to choose what you think is "bad" and what you think is "good." I think we'd pretty much all agree there are some moral absolutes (not killing or torturing others, taking the property of others without express permission, right to worship freely, etc.), but for anything not so cut-and-dried, it's up to the individual to determine where those things reside in their moral universe.
Censorship is not just about keeping things from people, it's also about telling people what they should think or believe.
And yet cases are going against them, and further lawsuits are being brought against them, in their overzealous pursuit of profit:
It's not in the millions by any stretch, but as these things gain momentum, the RIAA is going to be defending itself on a thousand fronts and undoubtedly as more and more cases make their way into the headlines, they will find themselves on the losing end, as more and more people abandon CDs and pick up music for free on-line.
It's not a victory yet, but this could be the biggest blow, if it's found that RIAA members were busy fudging the evidence to get their own way. If they're in the right, why the deception? Because they know they have alosing battle on their hands unless they stack the deck. This one thing may come back to bite them hard.
The judge has ordered UMG and EMI to hand over previously withheld documents relating to the DoJ investigation, overriding the attorney-client privilege because "the court
I suspect that right now some law firms are watching their reputations take a serious hit. The RIAA is on a rampage and at every turn they do even more damage to their reputation; this is going be another big black mark. If we wait long enough, they will destroy their own cause with all their dirty tactics and outright lies. I'm gonna get some popcorn -- this will be fun to watch.
Much ado about nothing?
It has probably not reached epidemic proportions yet, but as a former Verizon DSL customer, it does not surprise met that their idea of SPAM filtering is to block most legitimate incoming traffic. They tend to have a brute force approach to technical problems. Their tech support has been spotty for a long time; I would sometimes get really sharp people who could scope something out in minutes, other times I wondered if the tech knew what a router was.
If this goes on long enough, you can bet there will be a pretty strong backlash and the last thing Verizon needs is egg on its face. They'd hate to see customers flocking to cable and dumping their DSL, especially if those customers take their phone service along with them.
Is there anything Linux can't do?
So we have a breakdown of 3 companies, 2 switching from Linux to Windows, 1 from Windows to Linux. Is there any great wisdom to be gleaned from this? The only bit I can come up with is that you use what works best for you with the infrastructure you need to support. It's easy to say Linux will work well for everything but that's just not realistic. It's also safe to say that Microsoft sucks universally, yet there are plenty of sites running SQL Server and IIS that seem to be doing ok.
If you're smart, you analyze your needs and then add 50% for growth and ask yourself if the infrastructure and technology you plan to use can handle it. It's simpler than getting caught up in the Microsoft vs. Liunx battle for supremacy.
And so the pissing contest begins. Why? Of what possible use is it? None. Look, Oracle wants in to the Linux market, so it can compete both within the open source arena and have a chance at digging into Microsoft's market share. I've said repeatedly this move is about 5 years overdue. Since it appears Oracle is not interested in Red Hat or Novell (I said appears; never let it be said Ellison couldn't change his mind in a heartbeat), they'll go after someone else, like Ubuntu. This doesn't stand to hurt Red Hat or Novell; any Linux distribution they swallow up is going to end up having its creativity choked off by the bloated development structure that is Oracle.
Move along -- nothing to care about here. We'll see how it pans out in the marketplace when and if Oracle takes the plunge. Sabre rattling at this point is just silly.
Great. So now I have to sit through pointless slideshows on web sites instead of pointless Flash animations. That makes things so much better. I think I'll go back to reading books.
Put it this way: I'd rather they shut down an airport for two hours for a false alarm than have several hundred people killed because some screener actually missed a bomb.
Point taken.
Yes, if MS made a car with an MS engine, they'd die a quick death. But only because there are options. If there were no other car makers out there, we'd have to buy the MS car and either buy their gas, or buy a second engine.To run the car analogy into the ground, it is possible to put another type of engine in a car, if you're willing to go through the trouble. It's much harder to install a different type of engine in a car than load software (in most cases). Microsoft has not seen fit (yet) to prevent other vendors from being able to install their software on Windows, because it doesn't make sense. If you couldn't install RealPlayer on Windows but could in Linux, and enough people wanted RealPlayer, then Linux would be more of a threat.
As someone else mentioned, some people would have a hard time finding and/or loading an alternate player. While bundling Media Player is monopolistic, it does give the new Windows user a default media software to use, until they have the time (and ability or inclination) to find a new one more to their liking.
Perhaps. And perhaps in the past someone has let something pass they shouldn't have precisely because this happened and they made the assumption it was a test. It's hard to say. That's the problem -- we're going on one report about one incident and the article isn't too clear on how many times this may have happened in the past.
Well, the supervisor didn't seem to know it was a test, or he wouldn't have gone to all the trouble to stop the conveyor and search for the bag. So in essence it tested not just the screener, but the screener's supervisor as well.
So I don't think this will result in them letting bombs and weapons through because they assume it's a test.Maybe not, but never underestimate the apathetic state of the government-hired drone. I know they say they say they're picking the best people for these jobs, but in my many recent trips I've discovered a "lack of urgency" in some screeners and an "I'm in charge" attitude in a few too many for my liking.
Real Player has always been able to malfunction well enough without Microsoft's help -- they just enhanced the process.
Willie Williams, the airport's federal security director, said the screener saw something suspicious and notified a supervisor. The two manually rechecked all the bags on the conveyor belt but could not find anything resembling what was seen on the screen, Williams said.
Put aside the software failure and I'd say this was a more successful test than the actual test. I mean, if screeners know this kind of thing is going to happen every so often and they see something suspicious, they may become a bit jaded after a while and assume it's a test, even if the indication doesn't appear. This screener took no chances and called a supervisor and then went about trying to find the device. I believe that's how the system is supposed to work.
So the software failed, but in the end it didn't really fail, because it showed someone was doing their job as they were supposed to be.