I run the IT infastructure in a 200-unit building in a college town. We allow users to connect WAPs but I periodically have to go around and secure them. The problem isn't security, it's a simple financial issue. Running with 4 bonded T1s in 2 buildings costs a decent amount, but we prommised our users "High speed internet". We found at one point that we had almost double the number of registered users on our network, simply because people had open WAPs. Rather than having a bunch of non-tennants using the internet for free, we just enforced encryption policies. Mostly it just made more work for me...
But if this place is at all similar, in that they provide the internet itself and users are given free access as part of the "package" then I can see this making a lot of sense. I bothered to RTFA and didn't find a mention of it one way or another - but it would explain both their vested interest, and how they plan to enforce it. Tracking down an open WAP is easy if you're running the ISP. Not so if you're just (functionally) a private 3rd party.
I'd be willing to bet this is just an author that didn't bother to follow the whole story. Lots of residential units that provide free internet requuire you to not share it with non-residents. It isn't really YOUR network. You're just renting it from them.
How many times do you think your car mechanic is asked to change oil?
The fact is that the reason you go to a specialist (in this case, a help desk/tech/elitist nerd) is precisely because they HAVE seen this sort of problem before, and know how to fix it. That IS their job. You want a job where you can have an attitude? Don't work in service/support.
"...the job of all techs to continually spoon-feed them with answers to FAQs" Yeah, actually, that's pretty much it. In fact, that's WHY YOU ARE PAID BY YOUR EMPLOYER. It isn't to hog company bandwidth with.torrents, it isn't to sit smugly and lord over those who come to you with problems, it's to fix the problems, no matter how repetative they are. If someone could work through their problem in four hours, or you could do it in 10 minutes, you have to be a hell of a lot more important than them for it to be worth it. But I bet you're not.
And actually, often times it is "the computer" that decides to run the software. So yeah, SOMEONE clicked "yes" - but that doesn't mean that everyone on the corporate network did - especially not the kind of network run by techs that don't give a damn about actually improving the experience of the users. Take some personal ownership.
You know, by saying "It's the user's fault" you're following the exact same mentality that any Women's Studies major would call Rape Culture.
Think about it: Isn't the person who WRITES the software at fault? I mean...really. Why do we blame the victims? I thought we'd moved away from such an 18th centure viewpoint of crime; yet here we are, with/.-ers blaming people for being hit with malware, viruses and spam.
You won't make the average user any smarter. In fact, the only way that Windows/Apple can increase their user base is by attracting NEW customers. Every advanced user that switches to *nix gets replaced by someone very very inexperienced with computers, so that MS and Apple can maintain their volumes.
People who write malware make money at it, bottom line. If it stops being profitable, or becomes incredibly risky to try, the numbers will fall. The problem is that the world's laws are a decade behind the technology, and companies regularly get away with this. Instead of lamenting how users "should know better" why not look at the actual cause of the problem. Someone can make money off of stupid people. These are just modern-day snake oil salesmen. Make violating someones computer the same crime as their house. 10,000 computers infected? That's 10,000 counts of trespassing, burglary, or something similar. Why not? The desire is the same, the goals are the same.
No, the iPod did not come out before the Creative's "high capacity" units. Creative's large storage mp3 players were on the market for almost 18 months before the iPod was publically announced, and with an interface that was almost identical to the "revolutionary" iPod interface. At the time, Zens were available in 5 and 10GB - while the iPod was 10, 15, and later 20.
The iPod was slimer, used a li-poly battery (instead of lithium-ion, resulting in many upset users) and the "click-wheel" technology, rather than traditional buttons. Other than that, they were about the same.
And the patent for the "hierarchical" (and lets face it, really really obvious) way of organizing music on a mobile player is what they're settling on. The filing date is much earlier, though it was pushed back and re-examined many times. That whole "Artist->Album->Song" method? Creative "invented" it, and God help you if you try and use it yourself in a mobile player and subsequently gain market share over them. Nevermind that it's the fundamental way that files have been stored and sorted on computers since...well...since we left punch cards behind, slapping "mobile" on the patent makes it new! So does slapping "online" apparently...
They sued now because prior to this, they'd been in negotiations with Apple for an out-of-court settlement for patent infringement. Apple finally flat out refuesd (on the grounds that the patent was "bullshit"), and left Creative little other options for taking their slice of someone else's pie. They'll probably hope that after a bit of bad press and a seemingly losing battle, Apple will decide to settle just to get on with it. Hopefully Apple won't cave, because as much as I hate those stupid white headphones, I hate patent mongering more.
Why would you trust Google's statement of encryption and not Microsoft? I've never seen a story of Microsoft turning over someone's email account contents - though Yahoo and Google both have. (Serriously, I haven't. If there is one or more, post so we'll all know.)
The fact is that Microsoft has a lot to lose if they tell people their data is secure, when it isn't. Microsoft still runs the majority of hosting, banking, and other private and corporate servers out there. If you got "not secure" attached to the Microsoft server name, even through some "scandal" with one of MSN's services, it would destroy that trust in the server. Not "you might get a virus" un-secure, but "we told you we encrypted your data, but didn't"? The PR fallout would be enormous.
Google and Microsoft have the same interest here: Gather as much information as they LEGALLY (not rightfully, mind you, just as much as their lawyers convince them they can and still keep their ass covered) can about you, to convince their advertisers that the ads they show you are that much more effective. So who you share with, what you talk about, and what you buy. Why do you think Froogle is so critical to Google? Start tagging users as they go through the whole product pruchase cycle, and see what they do and when you can best change their minds. Not that they care why YOU bought your latest thinkgeek T-shirt, but because the more precisely they can classify you [Linux-Appologist Slashdot Database Admin], the more they can get for tthe ads they send you.
And in the end, isn't that better? If internet ads go away, we'll all have to pay for everything. And while I don't need a home loan or a bigger penis (both are big enough for now), seeing an ad that actually relates to me AND what I'm doing? that's worth not blocking....unless it plays music or talks.
It seems like Microsoft looks at a little company that DOES have some chance of winning a case, and rather than fighting it and letting some court assign a big fat award to them, just pays them off early on, when $60M seems like a big number. Burst can't sue Microsoft again, but since so much of the industry is built off of borrowed technology and ideas, they have just as valid a claim against Apple - which has a much bigger stake in the market - and is much less willing to settle. Take them to court, let the judge think that "Apple has profited illegally off of their IP" and get a big fat settlement. But where to pay for such a long, drawn-out lawsuit? Microsoft's early-on pittance.
I don't think Microsoft is nefariously "funding" the IP vultures, I think they just realized that they could get away a lot cheaper by settling early on and not having to deal with it. Most people never even heard about the MS v. Burst - but you can bet Burst will whip up a shitstorm about Apple stealing their IP and thus owing the success and health of their company's only profitable sector to Burst's crackpot IP. Apple will look bad, shares will suffer, and then Apple will settle...for more than the 2% Burst originally asked...to make it all go away.
Has anyone patented "Pulling an NTP" yet? I mean, prior art and nontriviality no longer seem to determine patentability, so someone out there with the time and money to exploit the patent system should.
I recently took my last remaining GE at the University of California, Santa Barbara. It was an Art / Architecture course, and they absolutely forbid the use of Wikipedia as a source. The paper was a 15 page research report on modern architecture, and a specific modern architect. When I listed Wikipedia in my bibliography as the source of my images of the structures discussed (the artist's website was "under construction")I was marked down significantly.
I've taken classes from several departments that specify, in the paper assignments, that wikipedia is not to be used as a "primary source" - though it can collaborate facts listed elsewhere. For many of my courses in philosophy, it has been perfectly acceptable, though largely not useful.
Slashdot Mirror
I run the IT infastructure in a 200-unit building in a college town. We allow users to connect WAPs but I periodically have to go around and secure them. The problem isn't security, it's a simple financial issue. Running with 4 bonded T1s in 2 buildings costs a decent amount, but we prommised our users "High speed internet". We found at one point that we had almost double the number of registered users on our network, simply because people had open WAPs. Rather than having a bunch of non-tennants using the internet for free, we just enforced encryption policies. Mostly it just made more work for me... But if this place is at all similar, in that they provide the internet itself and users are given free access as part of the "package" then I can see this making a lot of sense. I bothered to RTFA and didn't find a mention of it one way or another - but it would explain both their vested interest, and how they plan to enforce it. Tracking down an open WAP is easy if you're running the ISP. Not so if you're just (functionally) a private 3rd party. I'd be willing to bet this is just an author that didn't bother to follow the whole story. Lots of residential units that provide free internet requuire you to not share it with non-residents. It isn't really YOUR network. You're just renting it from them.
How many times do you think your car mechanic is asked to change oil?
.torrents, it isn't to sit smugly and lord over those who come to you with problems, it's to fix the problems, no matter how repetative they are. If someone could work through their problem in four hours, or you could do it in 10 minutes, you have to be a hell of a lot more important than them for it to be worth it. But I bet you're not.
The fact is that the reason you go to a specialist (in this case, a help desk/tech/elitist nerd) is precisely because they HAVE seen this sort of problem before, and know how to fix it. That IS their job. You want a job where you can have an attitude? Don't work in service/support.
"...the job of all techs to continually spoon-feed them with answers to FAQs" Yeah, actually, that's pretty much it. In fact, that's WHY YOU ARE PAID BY YOUR EMPLOYER. It isn't to hog company bandwidth with
And actually, often times it is "the computer" that decides to run the software. So yeah, SOMEONE clicked "yes" - but that doesn't mean that everyone on the corporate network did - especially not the kind of network run by techs that don't give a damn about actually improving the experience of the users. Take some personal ownership.
You know, by saying "It's the user's fault" you're following the exact same mentality that any Women's Studies major would call Rape Culture.
/.-ers blaming people for being hit with malware, viruses and spam.
Think about it: Isn't the person who WRITES the software at fault? I mean...really. Why do we blame the victims? I thought we'd moved away from such an 18th centure viewpoint of crime; yet here we are, with
You won't make the average user any smarter. In fact, the only way that Windows/Apple can increase their user base is by attracting NEW customers. Every advanced user that switches to *nix gets replaced by someone very very inexperienced with computers, so that MS and Apple can maintain their volumes.
People who write malware make money at it, bottom line. If it stops being profitable, or becomes incredibly risky to try, the numbers will fall. The problem is that the world's laws are a decade behind the technology, and companies regularly get away with this. Instead of lamenting how users "should know better" why not look at the actual cause of the problem. Someone can make money off of stupid people. These are just modern-day snake oil salesmen. Make violating someones computer the same crime as their house. 10,000 computers infected? That's 10,000 counts of trespassing, burglary, or something similar. Why not? The desire is the same, the goals are the same.
No, the iPod did not come out before the Creative's "high capacity" units. Creative's large storage mp3 players were on the market for almost 18 months before the iPod was publically announced, and with an interface that was almost identical to the "revolutionary" iPod interface. At the time, Zens were available in 5 and 10GB - while the iPod was 10, 15, and later 20.
The iPod was slimer, used a li-poly battery (instead of lithium-ion, resulting in many upset users) and the "click-wheel" technology, rather than traditional buttons. Other than that, they were about the same.
And the patent for the "hierarchical" (and lets face it, really really obvious) way of organizing music on a mobile player is what they're settling on. The filing date is much earlier, though it was pushed back and re-examined many times. That whole "Artist->Album->Song" method? Creative "invented" it, and God help you if you try and use it yourself in a mobile player and subsequently gain market share over them. Nevermind that it's the fundamental way that files have been stored and sorted on computers since...well...since we left punch cards behind, slapping "mobile" on the patent makes it new! So does slapping "online" apparently...
They sued now because prior to this, they'd been in negotiations with Apple for an out-of-court settlement for patent infringement. Apple finally flat out refuesd (on the grounds that the patent was "bullshit"), and left Creative little other options for taking their slice of someone else's pie. They'll probably hope that after a bit of bad press and a seemingly losing battle, Apple will decide to settle just to get on with it. Hopefully Apple won't cave, because as much as I hate those stupid white headphones, I hate patent mongering more.
Why would you trust Google's statement of encryption and not Microsoft? I've never seen a story of Microsoft turning over someone's email account contents - though Yahoo and Google both have. (Serriously, I haven't. If there is one or more, post so we'll all know.)
The fact is that Microsoft has a lot to lose if they tell people their data is secure, when it isn't. Microsoft still runs the majority of hosting, banking, and other private and corporate servers out there. If you got "not secure" attached to the Microsoft server name, even through some "scandal" with one of MSN's services, it would destroy that trust in the server. Not "you might get a virus" un-secure, but "we told you we encrypted your data, but didn't"? The PR fallout would be enormous.
Google and Microsoft have the same interest here: Gather as much information as they LEGALLY (not rightfully, mind you, just as much as their lawyers convince them they can and still keep their ass covered) can about you, to convince their advertisers that the ads they show you are that much more effective. So who you share with, what you talk about, and what you buy. Why do you think Froogle is so critical to Google? Start tagging users as they go through the whole product pruchase cycle, and see what they do and when you can best change their minds. Not that they care why YOU bought your latest thinkgeek T-shirt, but because the more precisely they can classify you [Linux-Appologist Slashdot Database Admin], the more they can get for tthe ads they send you.
And in the end, isn't that better? If internet ads go away, we'll all have to pay for everything. And while I don't need a home loan or a bigger penis (both are big enough for now), seeing an ad that actually relates to me AND what I'm doing? that's worth not blocking....unless it plays music or talks.
It seems like Microsoft looks at a little company that DOES have some chance of winning a case, and rather than fighting it and letting some court assign a big fat award to them, just pays them off early on, when $60M seems like a big number. Burst can't sue Microsoft again, but since so much of the industry is built off of borrowed technology and ideas, they have just as valid a claim against Apple - which has a much bigger stake in the market - and is much less willing to settle. Take them to court, let the judge think that "Apple has profited illegally off of their IP" and get a big fat settlement. But where to pay for such a long, drawn-out lawsuit? Microsoft's early-on pittance.
I don't think Microsoft is nefariously "funding" the IP vultures, I think they just realized that they could get away a lot cheaper by settling early on and not having to deal with it. Most people never even heard about the MS v. Burst - but you can bet Burst will whip up a shitstorm about Apple stealing their IP and thus owing the success and health of their company's only profitable sector to Burst's crackpot IP. Apple will look bad, shares will suffer, and then Apple will settle...for more than the 2% Burst originally asked...to make it all go away.
Has anyone patented "Pulling an NTP" yet? I mean, prior art and nontriviality no longer seem to determine patentability, so someone out there with the time and money to exploit the patent system should.
I recently took my last remaining GE at the University of California, Santa Barbara. It was an Art / Architecture course, and they absolutely forbid the use of Wikipedia as a source. The paper was a 15 page research report on modern architecture, and a specific modern architect. When I listed Wikipedia in my bibliography as the source of my images of the structures discussed (the artist's website was "under construction")I was marked down significantly.
I've taken classes from several departments that specify, in the paper assignments, that wikipedia is not to be used as a "primary source" - though it can collaborate facts listed elsewhere. For many of my courses in philosophy, it has been perfectly acceptable, though largely not useful.