Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:How about preventing KA? (Score 4, Insightful) 98

by bickerdyke (#47676499) Attached to: Correcting Killer Architecture

Sunshields would be a workaround and not a PREVENTION.

Prevention starts at the problem source, which is a curved, reflective surface. Making the curve non-parabolic or pointing the aperture north would have been prevention. But sunshades are rather acknowleding the problem and working around it. (Usually adding more complexity and points of failure, but that's another story)

Yes, sometimes you have to use workarounds, maybe the source of the problem might be the solution to an even bigger problem, or the new problem isn't big enough to warrant fundamental design changes, but still that's not prevention.

Comment: Re:Fire(wall) and forget (Score 1) 348

No. Exactly not. Windows and doors are like open ports. If you have them, you need to secure them. A firewall works fine in those cases.

Putting a firewall where no open ports are makes as much sense as locking non-existant doors. That makes only sense if you're expecting doors to magically appear in your house. Which for a typical windows installation, is less absurd then it may sound. But then those appearing doors are your main problem.

Comment: Re:Fire(wall) and forget (Score 3, Insightful) 348

But again. What IS the threat of network traffic to a port no one is listening on? None. What your firewall is you protecting from is NOT bad stuff from the outside. It's protecting you from the inside danger that some service suddenly opens a port which is reachable from the outside. (Hate to dig out the old Win vs. *nix, but the usual suspects for this are usually Windows servers you need to lock down first, as they're usually asuming that they're in a friendly network. On *nix machines you usually need to manually add those services one by one, as you would open the ports on your firewall)

Comment: Re: 'unreliability' (Score 1) 189

by bickerdyke (#47566285) Attached to: An Accidental Wikipedia Hoax

Spot on... Wikipedia is only as unreliable as WE are. If we see an error and don't fix it, we're part of the problem.

Bt when you encounter a lemma about a childrens book you don't know, you usually assume it's just a book you don't know! Which is usually not an error, unless you can claim to know all childrens books. (and the standard pronounciation is pretty far from the prank call like "I'm a liar" that's probably supposed to be)

Comment: Re:Anybody know? (Score 5, Insightful) 234

by bickerdyke (#47555955) Attached to: Free Copy of the Sims 2 Contains SecuROM

- Does SecuROM cause security vulnerabilities on PCs on which it is installed?

Adding a method to hide processes running on your system may be considered a security vulnerability. Such systems are usually used only by malware and legitimate software should NOT use any technology to counter the work of anti-virus software. Either your antivirus is weakend (which should be considered a security vulnerability) or "real" malware might also hide under the "invisibility cloak" set up by SecuROM to hide itself.

SecuROm may not be a security threat in itself, but it uses typical malware patterns and generally weakens your system security.

- Does SecuROM prevent applications - other than pirated copies of the game it is supposed to "protect" - from functioning on PCs on which it is installed?

OK, I'm recounting a user report on forum from years ago from the back of my memory here, so take this paragraph with a grain of salt: (may have been a similar copy protection system, if not exactly SecuROM)

I remember a user reporting a broken DVD writer. He bought a new one and replaced the "malfunctioning" drive only to find out that the new drive was also "broken". Turned out it was a DRM system that blocked the DVD writer and that user threw away a perfectly functioning DVD writer. Actual monetary damage here.

- Does SecuROM create any kind of "always on" background process that consumes resources and potentially reduces performance on PCs on which it is installed?

If it is not uninstalled with the software, it permanently eats up ressources that can't be reclaimed by the legitimate owner by uninstalling, as it is hiding itself from the computers software/process management system. (see "rootKit" in #1) As it is hidden, there is no indication that any problem showing up years after the deinstallation of a computer game (#2) might still be connected to a residual software component (read: garbage) from a casual game from a few years ago.

If the answer to any of the above is "yes" then obviously there is a fairly major problem here. If the answer to all of the above is "no", then I'm not quite sure what people are getting upset about given that we are talking about a free game (SecuROM being bundled with paid-for games is another issue entirely).

No. ESPESCIALLY for free games. Why add copy protection to free stuff anyway? It's free to begin with! No one needs or wants to "pirate" it. Unless of course you need a "pirated" copy of the game to keep the negative SecuROM effects from your system.

Comment: Re:Anybody know? (Score 1) 234

by bickerdyke (#47555919) Attached to: Free Copy of the Sims 2 Contains SecuROM

"Root your system" not as in "rooting your cellphone to get privileged access to do it's job" as your cellphone backup app or filemanager does.

"Root your system" as in applying stealth technologies used to hide malware from your antivirus software, as a so called "RootKit" (special class of malware using said stealth technologies) is doing.

And no, my video driver isn't doing that.

Comment: Re:Southwest Boarding Policies (Score 1) 928

That's interesting, but irrelevant. You don't fix disgruntled paying customers by humiliating them in front of a crowd.

[citation needed]

In what way was he "humiliated"?

Advising a passenger that non-frequent flyers can't board during frequent flyer boarding is NOT humiliation.

What's next? Someone blogging and making someones life living hell just because he was "rude" and "humiliating" by insisting that you need to buy a ticket to watch that movie in the theater?

Comment: Re:He is lucky not being labelled a terrorist... (Score 1) 928

After all, he committed several unforgivable sins in a police state:
1. Being critical of authority

And what state would thet be where you think some company clerk is "authority"?

Corporate america where they brainwashed you that it is completly ok if money has power over the weak ones?

Comment: Re: this is messed up.. but what's worse (Score 1) 928

> I think he made a huge mistake in calling out the agent by name on the internet.

What's the point of saying so-and-so is rude if it doesn't warn anyone she's rude? He wanted Southwest and everyone else to know who he was talking about.

She denied non-frequent fliers frequent fliers perks. This is anything but rude. So publishing a statement that someone is rude (on those grounds) is libel. So there's something here that would justify letting the lawyers from their leash.

On the other hand, this is nothing that couldn't have been handled well AFTER the flight.

You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken