I am constantly having to dig for simple crap like "crop"
I don't think I've ever inserted a picture using 2007, but that sounded like crap to me. I loaded up Word 2007, dragged a picture into the document and looked at the ribbon tabs. I saw one had a pink "Picture Tools" annotation and lo and behold, Crop is the largest button on the entire toolbar.
Here's a screenshot for anyone who would otherwise happily believe what I think is baseless complaining. http://imgur.com/9Um3d
You misunderstood the GP's post. He's expressing dismay that someone must overstep the mark, as ambiguous as it is, before proceedings can be brought and a judge can rule on whether the defendant acted unlawfully. What he's suggesting is that there ought to be a way for either the police, an independent body or perhaps an individual to identify ambiguous areas of law, that exist because of a changing world or otherwise, and seek clarification from a judge as to how the law should be interpreted.
Whether this is in fact impossible under the current system, or whether his proposal would be unworkable, I could not say.
No, it's not a user's job to give developers a way to monetise their product, but I also think we have a responsibility not to remove such methods.
I use NoScript and explicitly whitelist reputable advertising agencies. I had Adblock Plus installed for a time, but only to hide distasteful images. I rarely click on advertising, but every couple of months an advertisement will spark my curiosity. I have a hard time believing many users who install these types of addons never do the same thing. I also contribute to the websites statistics, which may or may not help a webmaster negotiate with advertisers.
I routinely ask the question, "what if everyone did it?". In the case of ad removal, there would be quite serious ill-effects: I would much prefer to consume ad-supported content than pay subscription fees.
I'm a little uncomfortable with what the NoScript author has done, but as far as I'm aware, there is no viable alternative.
It must also be pointed out that, if Microsoft were to behave in a similar fashion, many here at Slashdot would find it hard to contain their disgust.
No it isn't. It's the most subscribed channel this week and that's because the television series begun three days ago. Judging by username alone, all but two of the top 26 channels (based on subscription count) are not based on or part of traditional media.
Of course the widespread prevalence of wrongdoing doesn't excuse Microsoft's transgressions - whatever they may be, but I'm willing to bet that most of those who cut their nose off to spite their face by foregoing the use of Microsoft tools on moral grounds, are happy using banks, cars, chemicals of all kinds and are perfectly content in consuming the products of multinational corporations. The criticism Microsoft receive in certain circles is grossly disproportionate.
Microsoft is one of 59 members of the Association for Competitive Technology [1]. The only victim here is the readership of Slashdot. There is a concerted campaign here to slate Microsoft regardless of any basis in reality.
Wikileaks claims the president of the ACT has strong ties to Microsoft, but only provides the ironically named, unsourced open-access Wiki, SourceWatch[2], as evidence for this latest smear campaign.
This is not the work of Microsoft. This lobbying was perpetrated by the software industry in general. People round here fail to see, for reasons unbeknown to me, that Microsoft is not exceptionally evil as corporations go.
It's my understanding that a dialogue box appeared during installation of the router software asking if one wanted to purchase a web filtering suite. I know there are people who instinctively click the close button of unfamiliar prompts, but the fact remains that rather than explicitly clicking no, they failed to answer the question. I think the original behaviour was perfectly acceptable and if it were my decision, would only have changed it to prevent further bad press.
Software that attempts to sell you other products or have you "register" your copy and persists to do so until you instruct otherwise is par for the course these days.
A router that hijacks a small number of queries for financial gain on the other hand, is a serious breach of trust, much more so than this current controversy. Use of the word 'hijack' in the article headline was rather misleading.
By "article", I was referring to the cnet piece supposedly corroborating what was in 1s44c's post. What happened in 2003, if the cnet description is accurate, was not a breach of trust at all. Further, two "incidents" in six years hardly makes a pattern.
As aussie_a said, what you describe is in no way similar to a man-in-the-middle attack. 'MITM' refers to be the ability to eavesdrop on and forge network traffic. Fake login pages is part of 'phishing'.
Did you read the article? I hope not, because if you did, you're pretty stupid. As others have already noted, this "broken promise" only affects internal intranets. Internal intranets are in the vast majority of cases only viewed using IE, don't receive regular maintenance, and rely heavily upon backwards compatibility.
The reaction to biased anti-Microsoft stories here at Slashdot really pisses me off. Most users here are probably of above-average intelligence but the mindless, unquestioning and baseless attacks of Microsoft do sometimes make me question that assessment.
I didn't post anonymously; we'll see how objective the moderators can be. I'm not holding my breath.
Do you really think a witness to a murder should be able to refuse to testify?
Absolutely yes. I don't see why I should put myself in danger for the benefit (negligible benefit at that) of others. When the alternative is providing a false testimony that may be the only reason a guilty man walks free, I don't quite see how forced testimonies serve the justice system either.
How is that relevant? The entire premise of the article is that the number of songs or movies stolen to warrant legal consequences has dramatically increased.
So..? The ability to "hack software" is the ability to find exploits. An exploit that only you know is far more dangerous than one that circulates widely enough to reach the attention of a college lecturer.
There are public lists of unpacthced exploits. It's easy to become part of an underground community that pools their exploits.
My point being, this knowledge is incredibly easy to obtain by anyone. I'm inclined to believe that college students receiving tuition from an ethical hacker who presumably intend to gain legal employment are less of a risk to society than people who decide to Google for the latest exploits so they can exact revenge on an employer (for example) or those with truly nefarious intentions and are talented enough not to need outside tuition.
I was under the impression that all security courses worth their salt taught skills that could potentially be used maliciously. How does one learn how to be a penetration tester? What makes this case different?
Polymorphism is at least an option in most Computer Science courses. Does one really need to sit down and be taught "how to write viruses" specifically? Or can a huge amount of people who write code use their initiative and learn how to write any kind of application?
Managers at some computer-security companies have even vowed not to hire Ledin's students.
What companies? Would they want to work there anyway?
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think I've ever inserted a picture using 2007, but that sounded like crap to me. I loaded up Word 2007, dragged a picture into the document and looked at the ribbon tabs. I saw one had a pink "Picture Tools" annotation and lo and behold, Crop is the largest button on the entire toolbar.
Here's a screenshot for anyone who would otherwise happily believe what I think is baseless complaining.
http://imgur.com/9Um3d
You misunderstood the GP's post. He's expressing dismay that someone must overstep the mark, as ambiguous as it is, before proceedings can be brought and a judge can rule on whether the defendant acted unlawfully. What he's suggesting is that there ought to be a way for either the police, an independent body or perhaps an individual to identify ambiguous areas of law, that exist because of a changing world or otherwise, and seek clarification from a judge as to how the law should be interpreted.
Whether this is in fact impossible under the current system, or whether his proposal would be unworkable, I could not say.
No, it's not a user's job to give developers a way to monetise their product, but I also think we have a responsibility not to remove such methods.
I use NoScript and explicitly whitelist reputable advertising agencies. I had Adblock Plus installed for a time, but only to hide distasteful images. I rarely click on advertising, but every couple of months an advertisement will spark my curiosity. I have a hard time believing many users who install these types of addons never do the same thing. I also contribute to the websites statistics, which may or may not help a webmaster negotiate with advertisers.
I routinely ask the question, "what if everyone did it?". In the case of ad removal, there would be quite serious ill-effects: I would much prefer to consume ad-supported content than pay subscription fees.
I'm a little uncomfortable with what the NoScript author has done, but as far as I'm aware, there is no viable alternative.
It must also be pointed out that, if Microsoft were to behave in a similar fashion, many here at Slashdot would find it hard to contain their disgust.
I find it much more worrying that he likes to drink a coffee and Mountain Dew cocktail rather than one or the other.
No it isn't. It's the most subscribed channel this week and that's because the television series begun three days ago. Judging by username alone, all but two of the top 26 channels (based on subscription count) are not based on or part of traditional media.
All the available evidence points to thePowerOfGrayskull (905905).
Using a cookie, TinyURL allows you to enable previews, i.e., view where a TinyURL points to before following the link.
Except that, when bought with a PC, Windows costs a tenth of that.
Of course the widespread prevalence of wrongdoing doesn't excuse Microsoft's transgressions - whatever they may be, but I'm willing to bet that most of those who cut their nose off to spite their face by foregoing the use of Microsoft tools on moral grounds, are happy using banks, cars, chemicals of all kinds and are perfectly content in consuming the products of multinational corporations. The criticism Microsoft receive in certain circles is grossly disproportionate.
Microsoft is one of 59 members of the Association for Competitive Technology
[1]. The only victim here is the readership of Slashdot. There is a concerted campaign here to slate Microsoft regardless of any basis in reality.
Wikileaks claims the president of the ACT has strong ties to Microsoft, but only provides the ironically named, unsourced open-access Wiki, SourceWatch[2], as evidence for this latest smear campaign.
This is not the work of Microsoft. This lobbying was perpetrated by the software industry in general. People round here fail to see, for reasons unbeknown to me, that Microsoft is not exceptionally evil as corporations go.
Sorry, I read "your WD Caviar" as "a WD Caviar".
Magic is rather unnecessary. A multi-terabyte Caviar already exists.
http://www.wdc.com/en/products/Products.asp?DriveID=576
Ah yes. The cnet article didn't use technical language and I seem to have made some wrong assumptions.
It's my understanding that a dialogue box appeared during installation of the router software asking if one wanted to purchase a web filtering suite. I know there are people who instinctively click the close button of unfamiliar prompts, but the fact remains that rather than explicitly clicking no, they failed to answer the question. I think the original behaviour was perfectly acceptable and if it were my decision, would only have changed it to prevent further bad press.
Software that attempts to sell you other products or have you "register" your copy and persists to do so until you instruct otherwise is par for the course these days.
A router that hijacks a small number of queries for financial gain on the other hand, is a serious breach of trust, much more so than this current controversy. Use of the word 'hijack' in the article headline was rather misleading.
By "article", I was referring to the cnet piece supposedly corroborating what was in 1s44c's post. What happened in 2003, if the cnet description is accurate, was not a breach of trust at all. Further, two "incidents" in six years hardly makes a pattern.
I'm not sure who's wrong, but your account of what Belkin did is very different from what the article states.
Objectively? Are the numbers from VG Chartz skewed?
As aussie_a said, what you describe is in no way similar to a man-in-the-middle attack. 'MITM' refers to be the ability to eavesdrop on and forge network traffic. Fake login pages is part of 'phishing'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing
Did you read the article? I hope not, because if you did, you're pretty stupid. As others have already noted, this "broken promise" only affects internal intranets. Internal intranets are in the vast majority of cases only viewed using IE, don't receive regular maintenance, and rely heavily upon backwards compatibility.
The reaction to biased anti-Microsoft stories here at Slashdot really pisses me off. Most users here are probably of above-average intelligence but the mindless, unquestioning and baseless attacks of Microsoft do sometimes make me question that assessment.
I didn't post anonymously; we'll see how objective the moderators can be. I'm not holding my breath.
How is that relevant? The entire premise of the article is that the number of songs or movies stolen to warrant legal consequences has dramatically increased.
Please share the joke we (me and chunk08) both missed.
An ignorant moderator needs to do some reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
So..? The ability to "hack software" is the ability to find exploits. An exploit that only you know is far more dangerous than one that circulates widely enough to reach the attention of a college lecturer.
There are public lists of unpacthced exploits. It's easy to become part of an underground community that pools their exploits.
My point being, this knowledge is incredibly easy to obtain by anyone. I'm inclined to believe that college students receiving tuition from an ethical hacker who presumably intend to gain legal employment are less of a risk to society than people who decide to Google for the latest exploits so they can exact revenge on an employer (for example) or those with truly nefarious intentions and are talented enough not to need outside tuition.
I was under the impression that all security courses worth their salt taught skills that could potentially be used maliciously. How does one learn how to be a penetration tester? What makes this case different?
Polymorphism is at least an option in most Computer Science courses. Does one really need to sit down and be taught "how to write viruses" specifically? Or can a huge amount of people who write code use their initiative and learn how to write any kind of application?
What companies? Would they want to work there anyway?