Re firefox, what I meant was that you cannot enforce, distribute and lock in configuration changes. To be fair any restrictions on IE could be gotten around, but I do see your point that it would increase the security of a system where the user wasn't actively trying to get around the restrictions. Of course on the other hand a flaw in the IE parser that allows privilege escalation isn't going to be stopped by a policy file preventing the user from changing their homepage or whatever. The lack of a policy tool for Firefox was actually one of the top listed reasons why corporations are hesitant to standardize on Firefox. There are a couple third party tools to perform centralized management of Firefox, but the Mozilla foundation has gone on record as saying they won't officially support any of them because they don't feel it's their job to provide OS specific nanny tools. See for instance Firefox MSI and FirefoxADM
I think the origional went something along the lines of "The only really secure system, though, is one that's been unplugged, sealed in cement and dropped to the bottom of the Marianas Trench."
Arguably the purpose of long passwords is to increase the difficulty of penetrating the network from the internet, not to protect peoples machines from someone already in the building. A good password on a post-it-note is more secure then a weak one someone memorized as long as the buildings security is good. Even better is a good password on a piece of paper in your wallet.
That being said, the requirements for passwords at most places go well beyond "good" right into ludicrous (queue spaceballs "they've gone to plaid!" quote). A good password is 8 or more characters, with letters and numbers, and doesn't include personal or easily guessable information. Can optionally be changed every 30 to 90 days, but I'm not convinced that actually adds any real security.
Actually, it's a cost item that gets in the way of the money making work. That is how beancounters and upper management view it. There, fixed that for you.
I would argue that a security setup that relied on IE wasn't really a "security" setup. If it depends on the client, it's pretty much by definition not secure.
The chances of an attacker getting the password file are lower than the chances of a user doing something that will infect their computer because the user hasn't been taught correctly, so why focus on the passwords? Because getting all the users to follow basic security procedures is about as likely to happen as porcine aviation? Essentially it's taken as a given that some moron is going to compromise the system, and strong passwords are equal parts convincing upper management that you're doing something about security, and actually doing something about security that you can control. It's also about corporate CYA with the shareholders, because if your system is compromised you can always say you're following established best practices to get them off your back and let you actually investigate and figure out how to really improve security.
Really a better approach then improving passwords is to ensure that a single compromised system won't be able to do too much damage, but after that's done, enforcing stricter passwords standards will probably lead to a better gain in security then trying to pound sense into the users for the simple fact that a 2% security improvement is better returns then a theoretical 30% improvement that will never happen.
Well, to be fair they've spent ~1/10 of their life on DNF. A more likely thought would be, "I'm a third of the way through my life and this is all I have to show for it?" Of course, this also assumes that the same people are still working on it. Maybe they use it as a hazing thing or something, all the new programmers they bring on spend 6 months or a year working on DNF then get put on a project likely to see the light of day sometime in the next 3 years.
Doesn't seem like it's been that long though. I can still remember playing DN3D with my neighbor doing deathmatch games. Used to love that hologram projector in deathmatch games. Speaking of old FPS titles, anyone still remember Rise of The Triad? Think I still have a copy of the ultimate pack of that somewhere. Dog mode has got to be one of the wackiest but also coolest FPS power ups ever.
How do you play Duke Nukem 3d? It won't even run on current OSes. Do you have an 12 year old machine as well? Wasn't saying I play it now, just that I played it when it first came out, and that I still do play video games.
Yes, but only funny ones. In the case of the GP post, if it is a joke, it's most certainly not a funny one. Try looking at it again, there's nothing at all in the post to suggest it was intended as a joke.
If people older than 25 play games less than those under, it probably has more to do with remembering what good games are and actually having played them. That's not to say that there are none now, but we are in the middle of a period of over saturation. At least in my case it has more to do with just not having the free time I used to. Back in my high school days I had plenty of free time, so much so that I had a couple programming projects I worked on, in addition to getting well over 20 hours of video game playing in a week. These days, between spending time with my fiancee, work, and dealing with chores around the house I really just don't have that much time left over. What's more, I have several books I've been meaning to read, and a project I really want to work on, so there are a few games that although I've wanted to spend some time on them, they've been put on the back burner and I only get a chance to play them for a couple hours every few weeks. Makes we wish we could really add a blernsday in the middle of the week just to have more time to get caught up on things.
How is it that the "big three" platforms doesn't include the biggest selling console? Well, you have to admit the Wii is a much smaller console then the other 3. It's even smaller then the previous generation of consoles, although I think it may be rather close in volume to the slim PS2.
I'm 25 now, I still play video games, and I played the original Duke Nukem 3D, along with other classics such as Doom I & II, zork, and all those old Sierra adventure games. I'm also engaged right now with a wedding date set for November, and I have a rather nice full time job that pays the bills. Saying or implying anyone over the age of 24 that plays video games has something wrong with them is rather narrow minded. Admittedly I don't play as much as I once did, but I do get a few hours a week in on average.
I think itwould be kind of tragic if did come out, actually. We'd need to find a new persistent vaporware joke.:( There's always the phantom console, but it just doesn't have that same punch that a piece of software in development for 11 years provides.
How can people honestly believe they're "on target" for a release this year when they haven't even nailed down which platforms they're going to be targeting? Now, with cross-platform libraries you can hit a couple of them at a time of course, but even then a certain degree of work needs to be done on the ports, plus all kinds of licensing and such. Sorry, this is the worlds longest running practical joke, and every gamer that believes anything about DNF without actually holding the finished product in their hands is just being suckered in by the joke.
Ok, I kind of see your point. You're coming from the perspective of "It doesn't matter which of these two makes it in, I'll be equally upset either way. So I'll vote for this guy who has no chance in hell on the off chance the winner notices this guy got a few votes". I was interpreting it more along the lines of "I really hate this guy, and I'm not particularly happy about this other guy, but the guy I really like has no chance of winning. So should I vote for the guy I don't like all that much so that the guy I really hate can't win, or should I vote for the one I really like and risk handing the election to the guy I really hate?"
Voting third party like that really only works if you actually don't care at all which of the two main parties wins the election.
Right now there are millions of Christian fundamentalists who will tell you that you are stupid to think any of these things matter because the morality of the country is going down the tubes and we're straying from God's word, and that's what will destroy us. I agree, those Christian fundamentalists probably will destroy us.
Exactly. If people don't like any of the candidates, they should vote third party. The up shot of this is that if this happens in any quantity, it can scare the winning candidates into behaving a little more responsibly. Unfortunately because of the party politics the politicians spin it as a vote for third party allows the other party to win. Then everybody basically says "I'm not going to vote third party because I'm a [x] and voting third party will just split our party and mean that [y] will win." so you still end up with only 2 real options, but now one of those options is effectively and anti-vote for whatever party you would otherwise be voting for without really having an effect on the other parties. If a large percentage of one party votes third party, then all that happens is that party gets angry and blames everyone that voted third party for "costing them the election".
Actually, I think the illegal downloading of music has surpassed the smoking of pot by an order of magnitude or two.
Forget the war on drugs...everyone knows the new millenial war is the "War on Downloads" Maybe 10 years ago, but illegal downloads aren't that big an issue outside the BS the media companies pump out to justify their legal and political campaigns (not to say those campaigns aren't a big problem, our copyright and patent systems need reform badly). I personally know more people that smoke pot then people who download movies and music illegally. The same could not be said 10 years ago of course, but things have changed and with workable (or enough for people to not care) systems like iTunes in place, a good percentage of downloads are done legally.
On the scale of problems facing our country today, your interest in not being punished for what has been agreed by society as a crime... I'd argue that "society" has not agreed that smoking marijuana is a crime, or rather I should say should be a crime. If at this time there was a flat out poll, and everyone voted honestly, I'd bet more than 50% of the US population would be in favor of legalizing marijuana. Because of the way our legal system works with regard to drugs the government can make a drug illegal by simply shifting the category it's listed under, no new laws need to be voted on or passed. For the record, I personally do not smoke (anything), but I do know a lot of people that smoke either regularly, or occasionally.
Slightly OT, but what is with the fascination with gold? I mean, it has value in manufacturing of electronics, and makes an average metal for jewelry, but aside from that I find it to be entirely over-valued. I always want to smack the hell out of economists that take about using things with "intrinsic" value for currency, and then list gold and jewels as examples. Being pretty does not add "intrinsic" value. If you want something with intrinsic value, how about a loaf of bread, or a gallon of gas. At least with the gas it has a fairly well defined energy output that can be used to perform work.
The thing they all overlook is that gold just like the dollar only has value because we all agree that is has value. Since the only value of currency is what we agree to give to it, it doesn't actually matter what you use for currency.
I can't decide if this is a troll or an astute observation. I'm leaning more towards troll. Yes there are some blatantly stupid posts (mostly trolls themselves), but if you're browsing comments at 0 or higher it filters a good deal of the noise and you're left with rather well thought out and articulated comments. Really I think it's one of the main reasons to even read slashdot, as the commentary is often more informative then the article in question.
It worries me a little that he doesn't seem to know much about the problem with patents (and copyright). Admittedly they're not a real hot topic outside of the circles the technically (and lately legally to a lesser extent) inclined tend to travel in, but as a politician I'd expect at least a little knowledge. Maybe I'm expecting too much, I wouldn't be much surprised if any of the other candidates didn't have some sort of game plan vis a vis patent and copyright, although I'd still be disappointed with them.
I wonder if this isn't an indication that government is so incredibly far behind business as to be almost pointless. It's commonly accepted that we're now an information society, and our most valuable commodities are the things covered by patent and copyright. As such I'd think patent and copyright reform would be one of the hot topics, and it certainly is among businesses, but politicians seem to be almost completely in the dark about it. Those few that do seem to have an informed opinion are almost universally big business sock puppets. Are politicians too focused on Joe Sixpack, so much so that they land in office unprepared to answer the questions that really do need answering in order for our country to move forward? Now that's a question I'd like to see the politicians answer.
I don't see why... "typical" politicians avoid making commitments altogether. Ron Paul stated his stance on the issues as concisely as possible (explicitly AVOIDING the use of buzzwords and filler), and took a position on each one of them. I now know precisely what his commitment is to each of these topics, even if he didn't outline a complete, step-by-step plan on how to implement each one of them. I think these answers were completely sufficient. I would have liked a little more detail on at least the patent and copyright questions. As it is all he said could be summarized as "patents and copyright are important for encouraging innovation, but we need to be careful not to discourage small businesses and block fair use", which really isn't saying anything at all. It's effectively the official summary of why we have a USPTO in the first place. Based on that comment he could easily turn around and approve the next copyright extension bill but insist that instead of extending it another 80 years, only do 40 because that would be better for encouraging new work. It's effectively a non-answer. Now, if he had said something like "We should reduce copyright terms back to around the original limits, somewhere in the ballpark of 20 or 30 years" that would have been a real answer.
Slashdot Mirror
I think the origional went something along the lines of "The only really secure system, though, is one that's been unplugged, sealed in cement and dropped to the bottom of the Marianas Trench."
Arguably the purpose of long passwords is to increase the difficulty of penetrating the network from the internet, not to protect peoples machines from someone already in the building. A good password on a post-it-note is more secure then a weak one someone memorized as long as the buildings security is good. Even better is a good password on a piece of paper in your wallet.
That being said, the requirements for passwords at most places go well beyond "good" right into ludicrous (queue spaceballs "they've gone to plaid!" quote). A good password is 8 or more characters, with letters and numbers, and doesn't include personal or easily guessable information. Can optionally be changed every 30 to 90 days, but I'm not convinced that actually adds any real security.
I would argue that a security setup that relied on IE wasn't really a "security" setup. If it depends on the client, it's pretty much by definition not secure.
Really a better approach then improving passwords is to ensure that a single compromised system won't be able to do too much damage, but after that's done, enforcing stricter passwords standards will probably lead to a better gain in security then trying to pound sense into the users for the simple fact that a 2% security improvement is better returns then a theoretical 30% improvement that will never happen.
Well, to be fair they've spent ~1/10 of their life on DNF. A more likely thought would be, "I'm a third of the way through my life and this is all I have to show for it?" Of course, this also assumes that the same people are still working on it. Maybe they use it as a hazing thing or something, all the new programmers they bring on spend 6 months or a year working on DNF then get put on a project likely to see the light of day sometime in the next 3 years.
Doesn't seem like it's been that long though. I can still remember playing DN3D with my neighbor doing deathmatch games. Used to love that hologram projector in deathmatch games. Speaking of old FPS titles, anyone still remember Rise of The Triad? Think I still have a copy of the ultimate pack of that somewhere. Dog mode has got to be one of the wackiest but also coolest FPS power ups ever.
Yes, but only funny ones. In the case of the GP post, if it is a joke, it's most certainly not a funny one. Try looking at it again, there's nothing at all in the post to suggest it was intended as a joke.
I'm 25 now, I still play video games, and I played the original Duke Nukem 3D, along with other classics such as Doom I & II, zork, and all those old Sierra adventure games. I'm also engaged right now with a wedding date set for November, and I have a rather nice full time job that pays the bills. Saying or implying anyone over the age of 24 that plays video games has something wrong with them is rather narrow minded. Admittedly I don't play as much as I once did, but I do get a few hours a week in on average.
How can people honestly believe they're "on target" for a release this year when they haven't even nailed down which platforms they're going to be targeting? Now, with cross-platform libraries you can hit a couple of them at a time of course, but even then a certain degree of work needs to be done on the ports, plus all kinds of licensing and such. Sorry, this is the worlds longest running practical joke, and every gamer that believes anything about DNF without actually holding the finished product in their hands is just being suckered in by the joke.
Ok, I kind of see your point. You're coming from the perspective of "It doesn't matter which of these two makes it in, I'll be equally upset either way. So I'll vote for this guy who has no chance in hell on the off chance the winner notices this guy got a few votes". I was interpreting it more along the lines of "I really hate this guy, and I'm not particularly happy about this other guy, but the guy I really like has no chance of winning. So should I vote for the guy I don't like all that much so that the guy I really hate can't win, or should I vote for the one I really like and risk handing the election to the guy I really hate?"
Voting third party like that really only works if you actually don't care at all which of the two main parties wins the election.
Meh... *yawn*
What else are we going to do?
Forget the war on drugs...everyone knows the new millenial war is the "War on Downloads" Maybe 10 years ago, but illegal downloads aren't that big an issue outside the BS the media companies pump out to justify their legal and political campaigns (not to say those campaigns aren't a big problem, our copyright and patent systems need reform badly). I personally know more people that smoke pot then people who download movies and music illegally. The same could not be said 10 years ago of course, but things have changed and with workable (or enough for people to not care) systems like iTunes in place, a good percentage of downloads are done legally.
Slightly OT, but what is with the fascination with gold? I mean, it has value in manufacturing of electronics, and makes an average metal for jewelry, but aside from that I find it to be entirely over-valued. I always want to smack the hell out of economists that take about using things with "intrinsic" value for currency, and then list gold and jewels as examples. Being pretty does not add "intrinsic" value. If you want something with intrinsic value, how about a loaf of bread, or a gallon of gas. At least with the gas it has a fairly well defined energy output that can be used to perform work.
The thing they all overlook is that gold just like the dollar only has value because we all agree that is has value. Since the only value of currency is what we agree to give to it, it doesn't actually matter what you use for currency.
I can't decide if this is a troll or an astute observation. I'm leaning more towards troll. Yes there are some blatantly stupid posts (mostly trolls themselves), but if you're browsing comments at 0 or higher it filters a good deal of the noise and you're left with rather well thought out and articulated comments. Really I think it's one of the main reasons to even read slashdot, as the commentary is often more informative then the article in question.
It worries me a little that he doesn't seem to know much about the problem with patents (and copyright). Admittedly they're not a real hot topic outside of the circles the technically (and lately legally to a lesser extent) inclined tend to travel in, but as a politician I'd expect at least a little knowledge. Maybe I'm expecting too much, I wouldn't be much surprised if any of the other candidates didn't have some sort of game plan vis a vis patent and copyright, although I'd still be disappointed with them.
I wonder if this isn't an indication that government is so incredibly far behind business as to be almost pointless. It's commonly accepted that we're now an information society, and our most valuable commodities are the things covered by patent and copyright. As such I'd think patent and copyright reform would be one of the hot topics, and it certainly is among businesses, but politicians seem to be almost completely in the dark about it. Those few that do seem to have an informed opinion are almost universally big business sock puppets. Are politicians too focused on Joe Sixpack, so much so that they land in office unprepared to answer the questions that really do need answering in order for our country to move forward? Now that's a question I'd like to see the politicians answer.