We obviously have a different idea of honesty. They have used the legal system to protect what is essentially a political project, and disconnected themselves from it financially so it *cannot* be stopped, no matter what happens to them. They are quite open about it. They are not allowed to make any money from TPB and won't benefit personally from this sale.
Indeed, the party is over. The site has been defeated.
This is a massive victory for the *AA organisations. There is little doubt that the site is being sold to pay off the colossal fines incurred as a result of the Pirate bay trial.
Fortunately, you are utterly, utterly wrong about this. The TPB has been set up as a legal entity in such a way that it's founders can't access that money (they were sued personally), so they won't be able (or willing) to pay the fine with it. The company buying it is essentially investing in a foundation that will develop new products.
The only possible way for P2P to succeed, and with it a free internet, is for the system to become totally and utterly decentralised. Nothing else will suffice. There can be no one site, no one client, no one port, no one encryption method that can remain to scuttle the entire project. It must be, like TCP or SMTP, an ideal which no one controls yet everyone can use. It must not be tied to a single person, or webhost, or legal system. If it is, then the weakest link in the chain will shatter under the weight it will be forced to bear.
Oddly enough, this is exactly the kind of thing they're planning to develop.
Hopefully that money will be used to help the EU Pirate Party in future elections.
I was hoping that too, but according to this interview with TPB founder Peter Sunde the money will go to a foundation which can only spend the money on new, unfunded projects, one of which will probably be a kind of distributed tracker.
Indeed. The scenario you describe is what I meant by being overwhelmed by misreported bugs. I would imagine this is a highly nontrivial problem for Microsoft, simply because of the sheer size of their userbase. But it's a problem that is amenable to having money thrown at it: more people looking at bug reports correlates pretty much directly to more bugs fixed. A decent triage system would throw out the first bug you mention for being too vague, or at least demand more detail from the user before taking it seriously, leaving the team free to concentrate on properly submitted reports.
My comment was intended for those who understand the English language.
"People attempting to buy Norton AV should be arrested; then given a choice between installing a completely locked down Linux kiosk, or have their hands and balls chopped off."
That's not an argument - (s)he gives no reason at all for this drastic suggestion. It's just vitriol. Or, to put it another way, trolling.
Not that I think the poster was trying to make an argument in the first place, or that I necessarily disagree with their idea.
I don't understand why MS-haters feel they need to try so hard: they are usually provided with more than enough rope. Today, it looks like MS has done something right - trotting out the usual flamebait is just foolish.
While I don't follow the security blogs in detail (though I'm cautious about letting Windows auto-update; I've been burned several times by misfiring fixes), I am aware of a steady drip-drip of known vulnerabilities being exploited before a patch is released. It would seem to imply the security team is overwhelmed, either by the number of misreported bugs or genuine vulnerabilities.
No need to overreact - look through my other posts on this page, I'm no kneejerk MS hater.
This discussion is about Windows security and while it's great that they fixed your bugs, other posters are claiming their reported security bugs were ignored. Since it is widely felt that they put more emphasis on user experience than security, really my post should be modded -1 Bland.
Please don't complain about how posts were modded, it's very boring. At any one time there will be more sensible mods than idiotic ones and obvious mistakes are almost always rectified.
Further thanks from this quarter, but you sort of made the GGP's point: the bugs you reported that got solved were usability bugs, not security ones. Obviously these are important too, and more important to the end user until they get pwned. MS does seem to have a problem taking security seriously. With their resources they really ought to be able to do both.
This is a thorny issue: there is no defensible reason to coerce your captive OS audience to use a particular browser when there are perfectly good alternatives out there. I would say it's unarguably an abuse of Microsoft's monopoly, except a lot of people seem not to have got it.
But a case can be made for an OS keeping itself free of malware. Where is the dividing line between features such as UAC and the Malicious Software Removal Tool, which have already been accepted as an essential part of Windows' security, and a more proactive anti-malware tool like Security Essentials - especially if it's a good as this report says?
Got a direct link? I can't download it from the UK, it seems (although we Brits are supposedly very good friends with the US). OTOH it is a beta. With positive press like this I would expect MS to get it out of beta quite soon, as they sorely need it.
The two meanings aren't that far apart: a program's default action is one it performs if the user fails to provide a required piece of input. Still, it would be cool if your bank paid your mortgage for you when you failed to meet a payment.
I would expect that email addresses stored as an image would be less subject to abuse for two reasons: First, it creates a much larger download causing a bottle neck and second, it's much more computationally intensive.
Also, the harvester bot has to identify *which* image has the email address in it.
Slashdot Mirror
ho hum, the preview has become untrustworthy, so I figured the <strike> tag would probably make it through the HTML filter. How wrong I was :-(
<yawn> o x2
Can the Slashbot please automatically append this to all such posts?
We obviously have a different idea of honesty. They have used the legal system to protect what is essentially a political project, and disconnected themselves from it financially so it *cannot* be stopped, no matter what happens to them. They are quite open about it. They are not allowed to make any money from TPB and won't benefit personally from this sale.
TPB was purposely set up so they cannot benefit financially from it.
Indeed, the party is over. The site has been defeated.
This is a massive victory for the *AA organisations. There is little doubt that the site is being sold to pay off the colossal fines incurred as a result of the Pirate bay trial.
Fortunately, you are utterly, utterly wrong about this. The TPB has been set up as a legal entity in such a way that it's founders can't access that money (they were sued personally), so they won't be able (or willing) to pay the fine with it. The company buying it is essentially investing in a foundation that will develop new products.
The only possible way for P2P to succeed, and with it a free internet, is for the system to become totally and utterly decentralised. Nothing else will suffice. There can be no one site, no one client, no one port, no one encryption method that can remain to scuttle the entire project. It must be, like TCP or SMTP, an ideal which no one controls yet everyone can use. It must not be tied to a single person, or webhost, or legal system. If it is, then the weakest link in the chain will shatter under the weight it will be forced to bear.
Oddly enough, this is exactly the kind of thing they're planning to develop.
Hopefully that money will be used to help the EU Pirate Party in future elections.
I was hoping that too, but according to this interview with TPB founder Peter Sunde the money will go to a foundation which can only spend the money on new, unfunded projects, one of which will probably be a kind of distributed tracker.
This reddit comment has more info, too.
Photoshop has become so essential that it should be in every kids grasp.
It is.
you are free to write your own plugin for flash conent playback.
Indeed. The scenario you describe is what I meant by being overwhelmed by misreported bugs. I would imagine this is a highly nontrivial problem for Microsoft, simply because of the sheer size of their userbase. But it's a problem that is amenable to having money thrown at it: more people looking at bug reports correlates pretty much directly to more bugs fixed. A decent triage system would throw out the first bug you mention for being too vague, or at least demand more detail from the user before taking it seriously, leaving the team free to concentrate on properly submitted reports.
My comment was intended for those who understand the English language.
"People attempting to buy Norton AV should be arrested; then given a choice between installing a completely locked down Linux kiosk, or have their hands and balls chopped off."
That's not an argument - (s)he gives no reason at all for this drastic suggestion. It's just vitriol. Or, to put it another way, trolling.
Not that I think the poster was trying to make an argument in the first place, or that I necessarily disagree with their idea.
Apology accepted :-)
I don't understand why MS-haters feel they need to try so hard: they are usually provided with more than enough rope. Today, it looks like MS has done something right - trotting out the usual flamebait is just foolish.
While I don't follow the security blogs in detail (though I'm cautious about letting Windows auto-update; I've been burned several times by misfiring fixes), I am aware of a steady drip-drip of known vulnerabilities being exploited before a patch is released. It would seem to imply the security team is overwhelmed, either by the number of misreported bugs or genuine vulnerabilities.
No need to overreact - look through my other posts on this page, I'm no kneejerk MS hater.
This discussion is about Windows security and while it's great that they fixed your bugs, other posters are claiming their reported security bugs were ignored. Since it is widely felt that they put more emphasis on user experience than security, really my post should be modded -1 Bland.
Well, it's easier to display a purple gorilla with Flash than Silverlight.
Please don't complain about how posts were modded, it's very boring. At any one time there will be more sensible mods than idiotic ones and obvious mistakes are almost always rectified.
Further thanks from this quarter, but you sort of made the GGP's point: the bugs you reported that got solved were usability bugs, not security ones. Obviously these are important too, and more important to the end user until they get pwned. MS does seem to have a problem taking security seriously. With their resources they really ought to be able to do both.
Please go and look up the word "argument".
This is a thorny issue: there is no defensible reason to coerce your captive OS audience to use a particular browser when there are perfectly good alternatives out there. I would say it's unarguably an abuse of Microsoft's monopoly, except a lot of people seem not to have got it.
But a case can be made for an OS keeping itself free of malware. Where is the dividing line between features such as UAC and the Malicious Software Removal Tool, which have already been accepted as an essential part of Windows' security, and a more proactive anti-malware tool like Security Essentials - especially if it's a good as this report says?
Got a direct link? I can't download it from the UK, it seems (although we Brits are supposedly very good friends with the US). OTOH it is a beta. With positive press like this I would expect MS to get it out of beta quite soon, as they sorely need it.
Can you still access www.castleargh.com?
I asked the guy who did the electrics in our loft to please make sure all the switches started in the ON position. Take that, determinism!
The two meanings aren't that far apart: a program's default action is one it performs if the user fails to provide a required piece of input. Still, it would be cool if your bank paid your mortgage for you when you failed to meet a payment.
I would expect that email addresses stored as an image would be less subject to abuse for two reasons: First, it creates a much larger download causing a bottle neck and second, it's much more computationally intensive.
Also, the harvester bot has to identify *which* image has the email address in it.
I thought their company motto was "Don't execute javascript".
All that appears to be missing is an "s" and a space. But I bet she has, on occasion, burned fish.