Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Regular customers also hate it when security (Score 1) 555

by Hmmm2000 (#36586154) Attached to: Firefox Is For "Regular" Users, Not Businesses
I have one pluggin - google toolbar - probably one of the most popular I would imagine, and it was broken -- for a security update? We are a small company of about 20 people and because of this crazy release 6 week policy and updates with no concern for plugin compatibility we had to ban firefox from the work place and go back to IE . . .

Comment: Re:Finish your sentence! (Score 1) 623

Foolish people like to convince themselves this is true, but the reality is that if you raise income tax to Reagan era levels, you will raise about $800B/year.

Our deficit is $2.2T

So the question is, where are you going to cut the other $1.4T?

So, because restoring tax rates to Reagan era levels will only erase 36% of the debt - not 100% - we should ignore that as an option - obviously.

Comment: How the exploit will be used (Score 5, Interesting) 150

by Hmmm2000 (#36077322) Attached to: New Chrome Exploit Bypasses Sandbox, ASLR and DEP
To me the most troubling part of this issue is what VUPEN does ... from their web site -- "Exclusive and sophisticated exploits for Law Enforcement Agencies". So, the reason the exploit is not being made public is so that Government agencies can use these exploits to install keyloggers or whatever they choose on whatever computer they which to target and monitor.

+ - Finders Keeps, Loser Weepers - Not in California-> 1

Submitted by Hmmm2000
Hmmm2000 (1146723) writes "At first, I thought the whole iPhone 4 reveal by Gizmodo may have been a crafty marketing ploy by Apple .. not so.
Gizmodo made headlines by purchasing a "lost" iPhone 4 prototype for $5000, and releasing all its juicy details.
However, Apple has filed a criminal complaint, and the Gizmodo editor may be in the criminal hot seat for purchasing stolen property.
Under California law, if you know the likely owner ( they did ) and dont return it, its considered stolen."

Link to Original Source

Comment: Re:Ah, well, that lets Microsoft off the hook then (Score 4, Insightful) 323

by Opportunist (#31116522) Attached to: Rootkit May Be Behind Windows Blue Screen

As much as I hate defending MS, I can't help but doing it here.

A rootkit (and that is one) in a system means that you, being software running on that system, have no chance of detecting it, at least if it has done its homework. For the patcher, those checksums might even have been correct.

It also needn't be manipulated files. Windows, as any OS that has to allow low level drivers, allows you to load non-MS ring0 drivers. Like, say, Linux. It's either that or writing a device driver for every single pesky little controller out there. Do you think MS would do that? Or even do it well?

Now, you don't need drivers for hard drives themselves, but for their controllers. And spyware is quite keen on snuggling up to those controller and "filtering" the calls between them and the OS. Now, those spyware drivers are deemed part of the I/O system (for obvious reasons, they are part of the HD controller drivers as far the OS is concerned). If that driver cannot be loaded because that patch fixes a loophole the spyware used, the OS identifies that as a critical error in the HD controller driver and cannot access the hard drive anymore. BSOD.

The very same would probably happen in Linux, in BSD, in ... whatever Apple's OS is called, I forgot. You have a driver that is deemed critical by the system that fails to load.

If you want to blame anything on MS here, it's probably that this rootkit drivers could be installed in the first place. And I honestly don't know if it's MS to blame or the user. What should MS do if the user clicks "allow" on anything he gets asked? Take away control from the user? I doubt you'd like that.

Comment: Re:I'm in favor of requiring Internet User's Licen (Score 1) 323

by Opportunist (#31116438) Attached to: Rootkit May Be Behind Windows Blue Screen

I have no idea why you get modded Flamebait, maybe because you dared to suggest something that "takes away freedoms".

Bluntly, if anything it might save our freedoms. Because, well, do you think our politicians will not use the rampart spreading infections to spin? "You cannot take care of your computer, therefore we have to limit your ability to install stuff. Only approved applications may run anymore and that way no spyware can infect your machines. And only machines that adhere to this standard may join the internet".

Watch the sheeple cheer. Yay! Finally safe and protected from those evil malware infections!

Comment: Re:Sanity (Score 0, Flamebait) 183

by drinkypoo (#31111734) Attached to: FAA Data Shows Exploding Batteries Are Rare, Small Risk

I read someplace that infant safety seats save lives at a cost of about $500,000 for each life saved. Sure, every loving parent wants their kid safe, but for that cost, you could simply drive a standard passenger car rather than an SUV

This is probably the dumbest thing anyone will say on slashdot today, and I do realize the enormity of such a statement. No SUV is the most popular vehicle on the American road. It's pretty much always a Japanese sedan. It was the Camry for a long time, and now it's the Civic. Unless it's changed again recently. A child seat is an insurance policy. There's not $500,000 available to each child seat buyer if we stop buying child seats. And since a passenger car is cheaper to purchase and operate than an SUV, your comment becomes even more nonsensical.

I go in today, and it's like the dentist is getting ready for brain surgery! It's idiotic - as if the human mouth wasn't already one of the most bacteria-laden parts of the body!

And yet, a careless dirty finger can give you gingivitis.

You're trolling right? Nobody is this dumb.

Has there been any kind of study showing that even one life was saved with all this "protection"? Somehow, I sincerely doubt it. But I still get to pay extra for all that...

And yet, your supposedly similar examples are not at all similar.

Comment: Re:This beta should be...fun? (Score 1) 182

by willy_me (#31103984) Attached to: <em>StarCraft II</em> Beta To Begin This Month

Okay, so by that logic, either it will be impossible for 2 or more people behind the same router to play multiplayer, or all of that traffic will have to go out the router, off to Blizzard, and then back into the router (meaning that there will definitely be other non-match-making servers at blizzard involved with multiplayer game action).

Skype can do this without any problems so I'm sure Blizzard can find a way to make it work. I am not sure how Skype does it but there are many ways to solve the problem.

1: Check to see if your public IP address is the same as the IP address of your opponent. If so, assume you are on the same network. Perform a broadcast on the subnet to find the private IP of your opponent.

2: Send your private IP address to the match-making server. Match-making server provides both the private and public IP addresses of your opponents. Use the private IP if your public IPs are the same.

And Skype probably uses another method altogether. The point being - it is not a difficult problem to solve.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (8) I'm on the committee and I *still* don't know what the hell #pragma is for.

Working...