G Scale Model Train Forum banner

21 - 29 of 29 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,510 Posts
Discussion Starter · #22 ·
I have no idea what "QT file tagging" is or what it does or how the user can set it.
Spybot's monitor has not caused any problems in other web sites.
Yes, SOME software installers place a start file entry, but if they do so on MY computer I hate them just like I would hate the contractor the built my house if he stuck extra doors in my house just so he could get in whenever he felt like it! i.e.: NOT ON MY COMPUTER!
I have seen no problems with other software that is in the middle of an install and I deny it to modify the registry or start up lists.
I have TWO version of a QT viewer presently installed on my PC. I would rather have just one, but each of the two I have will display certain .MOV files that the other one won't. Why each web site requires me to install yet another one, which then tries to make itself the primafacta "any kind'a media" player is without merit.
I won't get into the argument of whether IE is "standard" or "non-standard", I don't care, I just want web sites to recognize that they are a GUEST in my PC and they had better play nice, or I'll kick 'em out.
I have no idea what a "Hardware firewall" is. Is it not just another computer running yet another set of reconfigurable software that is yet again filtering address tags that cannot be filtered because I deliberately called for the web page to be delivered to my PC, not knowing that the said web page would attempt to install yet another copy of a program I already have and in the process alter what I want to allow my PC to do and do so without my permission.

My argument is not with QuickTime per se... it is with the unmitigated conceit that just because someone else likes it that then I must accept their vision of how my PC will work and what it will do. I won't let unknown folk come into my house to redecorate it to their likes, nor rearrange my furniture on their whim, and I will thank the QT folk the keep their @(*$*&! hand off'n my PC!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
Ok, a few points. "QT file tagging" - my bad, some. in Microsoft DOS, file associations - what resident software runs what files with specific extensions, ie .mov, .avi, .mpg, etc. This is user customizable. All of the viewers (especially media viewers), when installed, attempt to to "capture" the range of extensions they're written to handle. Sometimes the user gets a heads up that the associations are changing sometimes they don't. In any case, its a user function to be able to reassign these as desired (but not necessarily simple or uncomplicated).

In regard to the website being a guest in your computer, well, no, not quite... The internet, while fundamentally structured the same as a contained network, is not one. Think of it as a collective (the Star Trek Borg, comes to mind). When you log on, your machine joins the collective (on broadband) and participates, as a server (you have some, but not complete, control of its function as a server). You only get to regulate a certain amount of this interaction. This is why its called "the internet", not the "intranet". Networks you will be familiar with are intranets, with constrained "users" and "administrators".

On the internet, there is no "administrator". The price of admission to the internet is, to a large degree, the submission to it by your hardware. This is why people with sensitive networks do not permit internet access directly by stations in their networks. Maintaining a private intranet within the structure of the internet is very difficult.

A hardware firewall is a user configurable ROM based permissions/exclusion table built into a router that regulates the private IP network (by int'l agreement, IP 192.168.0.0 and its user assignable subnets, and the hardware default 127.0.0.0) that the router sets up between your computer and the internet (or any other IP addressable devices in your private network). Unlike software firewalls, its virtually unassailable from without, AND, is independent of the processor of any computer attached. Hence no conflicts between application software permissions and system software permissions that regularly occur.

Even if you only have one computer, if you have a broadband connection, a router with a hardware firewall (or a hardware firewall only) provides a much better protection service than any software one. The 192 IP domain address does not appear in any domain name servers serving the internet, hence internet routing protocols cannot forward to your computer without being screened by the hardware firewall. All that the internet DNS servers see is the IP address assigned to your ISP. The hardware firewall controls the access to your computer from the ISP assigned IP.

With software firewalls, the screening isn't done until the code has already arrived in the computer. This makes the computer vulnerable to code which has the ability to use the computer's processor to bypass the software firewall. This can't happen in a hardware firewall - not enough addressable processor in the router.

SV, email me the name of the vendor - you've now got me curious as to what their site is doing.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,393 Posts
Well, while I realize the reality is, it's a total waste of time in stating this because it won't change anything.

However, the basic underlying problem is that "whoever it may be doing it", they just don't wish to honor the fact that it is MY COMPUTER and not their's. Which from their twisted perspective justifies doing whatever they can figure out how to get away with on my computer. Under the ploy of providing the user with an "enriched experience". /DesktopModules/NTForums/themes/mls/emoticons/sick.gif

Then from the "general users" side of the coin, most are both too ignorant and lazy, to be inconvenienced with learning what tools are out there and how to use them to protect and maintain control of their computer.

On another subject that has been touched on, i.e. Apple's operating system and associated programs. The truth is, their code is no more or less fraught with error and vulnerability than any other out there. There just aren't enough out there for the hackers to bother with (i.e. a very low ROI).
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,510 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
Two more points...

My computer is actually not a PART of the Internet. It is a client on the end of ONE long wire after a "DSL Modem" and a "Router" (I recognize the addresses you specified as those of that equipment). My PC knows nothing of any other members of ANY network, i.e.: it does not receive messages from one computer via one wire attached to it, destined for any other computer dangling from another wire attached to it. It sees no "in transit" messages that are not specifically addressed to it.

Revolutions and wars have been fought over dictatorial practices and invasions of sovereignty. It may take a while but Fascists will ALWAYS on the losing end. And, yes, I consider these invasions of my computer to be Fascist practices.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
297 Posts
"On another subject that has been touched on, i.e. Apple's operating system and associated programs. The truth is, their code is no more or less fraught with error and vulnerability than any other out there. There just aren't enough out there for the hackers to bother with (i.e. a very low ROI)."
------------------

Thank God for that! I'm using PCs/Windows at the office and at home these days; used PCs at my former employment at Virginia Tech for six years (with a Mac at home); and was fortunate enough to be using Macs in all the years prior to that.

My next computer will be another Mac, even if they do cost an arm and a leg. There is no better operating system made, in my opinion (and experience). I don't want Apple to dominate the market. I just want them to continue producing the great stuff they do for "the rest of us."
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,910 Posts
And, yes, I consider these invasions of my computer to be Fascist practices.





Off topic maybe, but "fascist" is the wrong word. These are not invasions at the behest of the state, they are invasions at the behest of, and in the interests if, private industry. Fascism was a political movement that consciously rejected the tenets of classical liberalism--it argued against individualism and the idea of equality, and insisted that people only reach thier full potential when submerged in the state by strong leaders. Mussolini coined the term "totalitarian" to describe the fascist state, the government. You may think I'm splitting hairs, but I'm not--if you're going to throw a term like "fascist" around, be precise. If you want to fight something, understand it fully. What you're describing might be more like old fashioned monopoly capitalism, a la Rockefeller and Standard Oil. For what it's worth, it's extremely irritating to me as well.

But what you are describing is very different from fascism. It's not state directed--Apple is not a government, it doesn't want the responsibilities of govt.

A interesting fact is that in today's world private corporations know more about me, more intimate details of what I like and desire, than Mussolini ever contemplated. People who worry about govt. surviellance ar emissing the pbig picture--Amazon.com knows more about me than any govt. ever even imagined.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,510 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 ·
Maybe the wrong word, but the net result is the same... my PC has to become a part of and submit to the whims of some entity that does not have my best interests at heart and was neither permitted nor elected by the majority to perform the actions they are doing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
733 Posts
Speaking as a professional computer geek... I prefer UNIX to any other OS this is why I use MAC OS at both home and work. I use the X.11 libs and link to the (somewhat secondhand) central computer at my office. The system at work uses BSD 4.3 (it is our own port). I have found the DARWIN kernal to be very robust. As to there being a very low Return on Investment trying to build a MAC OS virus -there I would have to agree with you. This is because "Mac People" tend to be into highly personalising their Macs in how they like the sound, vision, even the kbd. etc. Of the 25 Macs in the office I doubt there is one that is the same as mine. Even the one I use at home is set up differently to the one at the office. This is because the home environment requires things that would not be found in an office environment, such as my sons + wifes camera links -so that they can nag me!!!

regards

ralph
 
21 - 29 of 29 Posts
Top