"Everybody else pretty much agrees North Korea did it"
You misspelled "Nobody but the FBI thinks North Korea did it"
Look, the FBI won't release ANY evidence. Meanwhile half a dozen bloggers who have looked at the data have pointed out that the preponderance of evidence shows that it was an insider. Like timestamps showing the data was copied at USB 2.0 speeds, for example. How are people missing this information? Are there really THAT many people living under proverbial rocks and posting on/. ?
Obligatory "you got lucky that a n00b modded you all the way up to 5" song and dance
>And now the US' FBI has launched a rebuttal to crickets chirping on Slashdot.
Then you haven't read article after article, plain and simple.
Bruce Schneier and Marc Rogers are two sources that should have convinced you. But they didn't. Because you didn't read their summaries on this. Because you're _not_ reading "article after article."
So why does/. censor posts in gender politics threads? They do selectively run a script in some threads. In the case I'm talking about, it will ghost posts that use ess jay doubleyew (social justice warrior). They DO censor. This isn't hypothetical.
If Slashdot has a patrolbot that auto-deletes comments with the letters (ess jay double-yew) in it in gender politics threads, can't it also be made to cover a post with the N-word if it occurs a dozen times?
If only there were a way to communicate such bugs discovered in an open source piece of software to lots and lots of people. That way, many sets of eyes would surely see and then fix the issue and, in turn, communicate the fix and maybe distribute a binary for patching.
Quote from Wikipedia: "Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), held that the use of a thermal imaging, or FLIR, device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...
Is this intended to use imaging that is NOT thermal imaging so that a warrant is not required? Someone clear this up for me
You worked in a place where physicians and RNs looked down on you for having a large phone? I work in a hospital and Doctors are often the ones with large phones. Maybe it's regional (I work in Maryland)
They are an idea company and create all sorts of projects that they can't monetize right this second. So business analysts predict cataclysm and say Google is doomed. They are MBAs from a different era and cannot wrap their minds around the fact that Google's objective isn't to monetize every single thing they come up with -- they use their income to fund incredible, forward looking stuff./Not a google worshipper, by the way, but I "get" what they're doing.
Yeah. That describes me, allright. Windows 2000 without IE since 2001. People like me, who install Windows without IE, are just calling YOU left and right to figure out what to do. Because we don't have IE, and (apparently) everything breaks. From ym own site: "Most IT professionals won't actually read my process (be honest, guys; if you did, you wouldn't print half the things you post on messageboards about Windows being "unstable." First, you couldn't do it at all, the MCSEs said. Now, it'll make it unstable, the MCSEs say, without actually trying it.)"
IE always seems to be the weak point, or the HTML subsystem... Even if it
isn't, I've got instructions
on removing several subsystems from Windows that
will make it more secure.
Check out
my page on Windows patches, I think
it's a convincing argument to rip all of this stuff out of Windows. Just download
the files, drag-drop-replace, burn, and install.
Instructions for trolls:
1. reply that this cannot actually be done.
2. reply that removing IE makes Windows:
--a. unstable.
--b. less secure.
--c. disables windows update.
Far as I know gents, I'm running hard evidence that I'm right;-)
None of the exploits worked on my machine when I tried them, including the fuxored
help files that were apparently supposed to do something bad, but only gave me
an invalid help file message...
First off, I question the wisdom in including that information in Wikipedia.
As somebody else said, it's not an instruction manual.
(Already answered earlier in thread)
Sounds fair enough. You don't include instructions on removing a component
that its creator claims is vital without mentioning exactly why somebody should
do such a thing.
We did... check the discussion page. How about:
You must either be new here,
Clue: irony does not refer to something
that presses clothes. RTFA. Or in this case, RTF page cited. What's wrong with
you?! Exactly why someone should do such a thing was written and reverted.
See the discussion page.
That sounds like you answered the first question with a vague computer
security experts. That isn't good enough.
Sounds like you're replying without RTFA. That isn't good enough. This is
not a term I came up with, it's a term the Wikipedia editors came up with.
See the discussion page.
Don't make me laugh. Anybody can put up a website, it doesn't make them an
expert in whatever topic it covers.
RTF website. Since when is everyone putting up websites on how to remove IE
from Windows? Read read read read BEFORE commenting. (It's ok, I suppose...You
must be new here).
Now if they ignored the people who actually write software to perform
this function, then perhaps that's a problem. But considering your position
on the
matter so far - making an issue out of perfectly reasonable behaviour - I suspect ignoring is
just hyperbole you have introduced.
Hi kids! Captain Obvious here. Let this be a lesson to you all: RTFA. Read
the links a poster puts into his Slashdot post.
Neutrality is an important part of Wikipedia.
NPV is about including the good and the bad; in THE DISCUSSION, which you
did not read, the fact that they preferred to keep scrubbing the bad out
is extensively discussed.
If you are getting people
accusing you of not being neutral, then that is a very real problem, and
whining about
it doesn't make it go away.
My post was all about... Nevermind. This is really for the benefit of others
who will one day see this archived post. Read, folks... Just read. Don't just
post, read, then post.
That only happens in a handful of cases where the truth is widely known as
well as the myth.
How about I ignore this like the Wikipedia editors and tell you that since
you did not provide links to support this, it's not a valid point? (Which it
very well could be, if you can prove that time after time, myth is moderated
higher than truth, which you assert doesn't always appear?)
In a Department of Justice case you might be familiar with, Microsoft took the position that Internet Explorer could not be removed. PROOF to the contrary is a very necessary element of the Wikipedia entry. Sure enough, the entry makes mention of removal and lists some resources, but it DOES NOT tell users how to remove IE. There are NO uninstall instructions in the entry, because it's an encyclopedia, not a support guide.
Having text subject to a moderation period for hours or maybe a day or two
in a discussion area (with some sort of indicator or flag) would be a LOT better
than instantaneous posting, IMO.
I contributed to the entry on Internet
Explorer (specifically, removing it).
A while back, some editors at Wikipedia (I'm not attributing--I'm sure this
time lack of attribution will make them happy) were
continually deleting the section on removing Internet Explorer from Windows. The kept changing criteria...
First, they wanted the passage on removing IE to say exactly who recommends
it. Then, it had to meet Neutral Point of View and attribution criteria. Then, another
Wikipedia editor asked what computer security experts recommend IE removal.
It finally ended; they deferred and named the three experts in the field.
Per the article: Nonbias is a difficult ideal to live up to. Indeed, the
most common complaint against Wikipedia is that it is unreliable; since anyone
can publish or edit any article instantly, theres nothing except the diligence of other
contributors to keep favoritism, misinformation, vandalism, or sheer stupidity out of the encyclopedias pages. I'd argue that so-called nonbias is not the problem.
The problem was that these dedicated editors were not deferring to the actual
experts (in this case, me--the guy who has a
site on removing Internet Explorer from Windows 2000, and ignoring the
creators of XPLite and nLite).
If the editors don't like something, all they have to do is claim that it violates
the holy grail Neutral Point of View and you'll have to beat them over their heads to get
your text into the Wikipedia. Moderation is a lousy way to get at the exact
truth, but eventually, it comes to light (seems to here at Slashdot, anyway).
No, obviously the truth isn't what
everyone thinks, but it would sure help with those editorial battles. An article
might have a comment that Hydrogen caused
the Hindenberg disaster, and it gets modded +5. Eventually, you can bet the
comments pointing out that it was the zeppelin's skin (paint) will also get modded +4 or +5. The key is
with the Wiki, with moderation, potential authors wouldn't have to have month-long
running debates and editorial beat-downs.
Oh, be sure to reply how: 1. Windows Update won't work! Even though I take great pains to point out the solution, I've never heard THAT one before! 2. It's really impossible to remove IE! Even though I document how to do it, I've never heard THAT one before! 3. It will make your machine unstable! I've been running IE free for 4 years and I've never heard THAT one before!
IIRC when I first saw this study (the article makes only oblique reference) PEG can be given via IV. This should be studied in the prehospital setting, so that eventually, we won't think of it as a "hospital" thing, but as a prehospital treatment modality by EMT-Intermediates and Paramedics (after all, you don't hurt your cervical spine at the hospital, you do it in the car wreck, or in that fall, or in that shallow dive...)
At least you could have done some reading before you became the 67,422nd person
to tell me this.
In either site's case, you can fine-tune what you remove so that incompatabilities
don't happen. I have found that I can't run Norton programs without IE. That's
about it. So if we want to call Norton's suite a whole heap, then I guess that's
right. (A whole heap of something, anyway...)
Slashdot Mirror
"having absolutely ZERO inside knowledge of ANYTHING related to this situation."
Except people downloaded and actually looked at the data. Zero, huh?
Go back to living under that rock, etc etc.
"Everybody else pretty much agrees North Korea did it"
You misspelled "Nobody but the FBI thinks North Korea did it"
Look, the FBI won't release ANY evidence. Meanwhile half a dozen bloggers who have looked at the data have pointed out that the preponderance of evidence shows that it was an insider. Like timestamps showing the data was copied at USB 2.0 speeds, for example. How are people missing this information? Are there really THAT many people living under proverbial rocks and posting on /. ?
Obligatory "you got lucky that a n00b modded you all the way up to 5" song and dance
>And now the US' FBI has launched a rebuttal to crickets chirping on Slashdot.
Then you haven't read article after article, plain and simple.
Bruce Schneier and Marc Rogers are two sources that should have convinced you. But they didn't. Because you didn't read their summaries on this. Because you're _not_ reading "article after article."
HOA's can be formed after you buy a home in some states. Like Texas.
In other words, you can buy a home and suddenly find yourself part of a HOA later.
But you knew that, because of your sneering "dumb motherfucker" bit.
Oh we know. We know. If you move to Texas or any other such state, you're a "dumb motherfucker."
So why does /. censor posts in gender politics threads? They do selectively run a script in some threads. In the case I'm talking about, it will ghost posts that use ess jay doubleyew (social justice warrior). They DO censor. This isn't hypothetical.
Explaining isn't supporting. You're a very strange, very very angry young man. Channel that into something productive.
[sigh]
If Slashdot has a patrolbot that auto-deletes comments with the letters (ess jay double-yew) in it in gender politics threads, can't it also be made to cover a post with the N-word if it occurs a dozen times?
If only there were a way to communicate such bugs discovered in an open source piece of software to lots and lots of people. That way, many sets of eyes would surely see and then fix the issue and, in turn, communicate the fix and maybe distribute a binary for patching.
Quote from Wikipedia: "Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27 (2001), held that the use of a thermal imaging, or FLIR, device from a public vantage point to monitor the radiation of heat from a person's home was a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and thus required a warrant."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...
Is this intended to use imaging that is NOT thermal imaging so that a warrant is not required? Someone clear this up for me
You worked in a place where physicians and RNs looked down on you for having a large phone? I work in a hospital and Doctors are often the ones with large phones. Maybe it's regional (I work in Maryland)
...but Google is built on AD REVENUE.
They are an idea company and create all sorts of projects that they can't monetize right this second. So business analysts predict cataclysm and say Google is doomed. They are MBAs from a different era and cannot wrap their minds around the fact that Google's objective isn't to monetize every single thing they come up with -- they use their income to fund incredible, forward looking stuff. /Not a google worshipper, by the way, but I "get" what they're doing.
Are you a guitarist too?
Yeah. That describes me, allright. Windows 2000 without IE since 2001. People like me, who install Windows without IE, are just calling YOU left and right to figure out what to do. Because we don't have IE, and (apparently) everything breaks. From ym own site: "Most IT professionals won't actually read my process (be honest, guys; if you did, you wouldn't print half the things you post on messageboards about Windows being "unstable." First, you couldn't do it at all, the MCSEs said. Now, it'll make it unstable, the MCSEs say, without actually trying it.)"
IE always seems to be the weak point, or the HTML subsystem... Even if it isn't, I've got instructions on removing several subsystems from Windows that will make it more secure.
Check out my page on Windows patches, I think it's a convincing argument to rip all of this stuff out of Windows. Just download the files, drag-drop-replace, burn, and install.
XP subsystem removal software here.
So remove Internet Explorer
Technical process
Automated software
Instructions for trolls:
1. reply that this cannot actually be done.
2. reply that removing IE makes Windows:
--a. unstable.
--b. less secure.
--c. disables windows update.
None of the exploits worked on my machine when I tried them, including the fuxored help files that were apparently supposed to do something bad, but only gave me an invalid help file message...
Fred Vorck
(Running Windows 2000 without IE, per my instructions)
Well, if you install Windows 2000 without it in the first place, that is.
First off, I question the wisdom in including that information in Wikipedia. As somebody else said, it's not an instruction manual.
(Already answered earlier in thread)
Sounds fair enough. You don't include instructions on removing a component that its creator claims is vital without mentioning exactly why somebody should do such a thing.
We did... check the discussion page. How about:
You must either be new here,
Clue: irony does not refer to something that presses clothes. RTFA. Or in this case, RTF page cited. What's wrong with you?! Exactly why someone should do such a thing was written and reverted. See the discussion page.
That sounds like you answered the first question with a vague computer security experts. That isn't good enough.
Sounds like you're replying without RTFA. That isn't good enough. This is not a term I came up with, it's a term the Wikipedia editors came up with. See the discussion page.
Don't make me laugh. Anybody can put up a website, it doesn't make them an expert in whatever topic it covers.
RTF website. Since when is everyone putting up websites on how to remove IE from Windows? Read read read read BEFORE commenting. (It's ok, I suppose...You must be new here).
Now if they ignored the people who actually write software to perform this function, then perhaps that's a problem. But considering your position on the matter so far - making an issue out of perfectly reasonable behaviour - I suspect ignoring is just hyperbole you have introduced.
Hi kids! Captain Obvious here. Let this be a lesson to you all: RTFA. Read the links a poster puts into his Slashdot post.
Neutrality is an important part of Wikipedia.
NPV is about including the good and the bad; in THE DISCUSSION, which you did not read, the fact that they preferred to keep scrubbing the bad out is extensively discussed.
If you are getting people accusing you of not being neutral, then that is a very real problem, and whining about it doesn't make it go away.
My post was all about... Nevermind. This is really for the benefit of others who will one day see this archived post. Read, folks... Just read. Don't just post, read, then post.
That only happens in a handful of cases where the truth is widely known as well as the myth.
How about I ignore this like the Wikipedia editors and tell you that since you did not provide links to support this, it's not a valid point? (Which it very well could be, if you can prove that time after time, myth is moderated higher than truth, which you assert doesn't always appear?)
In a Department of Justice case you might be familiar with, Microsoft took the position that Internet Explorer could not be removed. PROOF to the contrary is a very necessary element of the Wikipedia entry. Sure enough, the entry makes mention of removal and lists some resources, but it DOES NOT tell users how to remove IE. There are NO uninstall instructions in the entry, because it's an encyclopedia, not a support guide.
Having text subject to a moderation period for hours or maybe a day or two in a discussion area (with some sort of indicator or flag) would be a LOT better than instantaneous posting, IMO.
I contributed to the entry on Internet Explorer (specifically, removing it). A while back, some editors at Wikipedia (I'm not attributing--I'm sure this time lack of attribution will make them happy) were continually deleting the section on removing Internet Explorer from Windows. The kept changing criteria... First, they wanted the passage on removing IE to say exactly who recommends it. Then, it had to meet Neutral Point of View and attribution criteria. Then, another Wikipedia editor asked what computer security experts recommend IE removal. It finally ended; they deferred and named the three experts in the field.
Per the article: Nonbias is a difficult ideal to live up to. Indeed, the most common complaint against Wikipedia is that it is unreliable; since anyone can publish or edit any article instantly, theres nothing except the diligence of other contributors to keep favoritism, misinformation, vandalism, or sheer stupidity out of the encyclopedias pages. I'd argue that so-called nonbias is not the problem.
The problem was that these dedicated editors were not deferring to the actual experts (in this case, me--the guy who has a site on removing Internet Explorer from Windows 2000, and ignoring the creators of XPLite and nLite). If the editors don't like something, all they have to do is claim that it violates the holy grail Neutral Point of View and you'll have to beat them over their heads to get your text into the Wikipedia. Moderation is a lousy way to get at the exact truth, but eventually, it comes to light (seems to here at Slashdot, anyway). No, obviously the truth isn't what everyone thinks, but it would sure help with those editorial battles. An article might have a comment that Hydrogen caused the Hindenberg disaster, and it gets modded +5. Eventually, you can bet the comments pointing out that it was the zeppelin's skin (paint) will also get modded +4 or +5. The key is with the Wiki, with moderation, potential authors wouldn't have to have month-long running debates and editorial beat-downs.
Automated
Technically detailed
Remove IE from Win2k
Remove IE from nLite
Oh, be sure to reply how:
1. Windows Update won't work! Even though I take great pains to point out the solution, I've never heard THAT one before!
2. It's really impossible to remove IE! Even though I document how to do it, I've never heard THAT one before!
3. It will make your machine unstable! I've been running IE free for 4 years and I've never heard THAT one before!
IIRC when I first saw this study (the article makes only oblique reference) PEG can be given via IV. This should be studied in the prehospital setting, so that eventually, we won't think of it as a "hospital" thing, but as a prehospital treatment modality by EMT-Intermediates and Paramedics (after all, you don't hurt your cervical spine at the hospital, you do it in the car wreck, or in that fall, or in that shallow dive...)
Freeware nLite removes IE from 2000, 2003, XP before installation
Technical Details on Reming IE from Windows 2000 before installation
At least you could have done some reading before you became the 67,422nd person to tell me this. In either site's case, you can fine-tune what you remove so that incompatabilities don't happen. I have found that I can't run Norton programs without IE. That's about it. So if we want to call Norton's suite a whole heap, then I guess that's right. (A whole heap of something, anyway...)