Sigh, agreed. The Microsoft TechNet article in the link is dated 13 September 2011. AND it says that this is no longer a problem for users who installed the update, issued several days ago! So yes, this is a very misleading headline.
Regarding the content of the security advisory, it specifically says THIS (although the WebDAV site details are there after quite a bit of digging around):
"The vulnerability could allow remote code execution if a user opens a legitimate rich text format file (.rtf), text file (.txt), or Word document (.doc) that is located in the same network directory as a specially crafted dynamic link library (DLL) file. An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the local user."
Admittedly Stuxnet is on a different scale of risk than LulzSec, but both are equally visible in the media. I'm tired of endless news stories about them at this point.
Yes, it IS fantastic. Terms are defined and then different possible series of actions are all explained verbally and accompanied by a tidy flow chart, gradually building in complexity.
This is a great reference. It is definitely a good alternative for those who can't afford Git's one-day $500+ user training.
Uncommonly good post about venture capital.
Check out this comment too, by Ed Borasky (applied mathematician and media inactivist):
http://bit.ly/f7nTYp
Many other good comments, Mark S. responded to most.
I noticed it for the first time yesterday when I tried Google Shopping (against my better judgement, my mother wanted me to get her pajamas and online was easiest). Then I saw the same layout, with the wheeled cog in the upper right hand corner of my screen etc. using Chrome browser 9.0.597.94 beta running Windows 7, on GMail, Google Moderator, and Google Docs just now.
Hmmm, second thought: it seemed like Chrome browser's frequent updates have been EXTRA frequent of late. Wonder if that had anything to do with this rollout, particularly since I'm using the beta version?
It gives this error message:
"Sorry the web site not work. You should try again.
Connection to SQL server is failed. Error 1045".
And then it keeps retrying to connect. I read the Rhizome article which claims this is part of an "art project" and that they actually scraped 1 million (not merely 250,000) Facebook profiles.
I noticed that too, after reading the last paragraph about how Adobe Flash supposedly is the "safe" way, in contrast to HTML5. I even double checked to make sure I hadn't landed on the Adobe Developer Community site.
I've wondered where Quora plans to obtain monetization too. I've seen no clue of that, and the company has been in beta for six months, followed by "production" for another six-seven months up through the present.
Facebook requires you to use your real name too. Which is not a great sign, given your point about Quora!
One thing I'd mention regarding Quora, which I've used. When you answer a question, you have the option to make your answer anonymous, or, make it "not for redistribution" which means I presume no linking to it.
I don't know if that also means it is unavailable to Google search crawls, as you referred to when mentioning "site:quora.com". That doesn't show EVERYTHING I've written on Quora, but it does find almost everything!
Facebook should offer most of its features (which aren't necessarily features from the user's point-of-view) on an opt-in basis. That is the process flow for the majority of other social media and online businesses. You choose what you DO want, not eliminate all the options that you DON'T want, assuming there's been full disclosure to begin with.
So, so true. The tendency for perfectionism necessary to write code is already sufficient to instill a professional ethic as far as quality of work. Public shaming would be intolerable, I'd think.
It would be interesting to get some verification, because no one could work in this environment for very long. Regardless of compensation. The stress and associated error rates that would accompany it would've been a problem long ago for Facebook. Particularly with no QA.
I cannot imagine Facebook existing and prospering for this many years without any QA team.
I read that and checked reddit and digg and anything else similar I could think of. They all offer the same (up votes via profile). Here's my up vote for honesty from jaxn.
Regarding the content of the security advisory, it specifically says THIS (although the WebDAV site details are there after quite a bit of digging around):
"The vulnerability could allow remote code execution if a user opens a legitimate rich text format file (.rtf), text file (.txt), or Word document (.doc) that is located in the same network directory as a specially crafted dynamic link library (DLL) file. An attacker who successfully exploited this vulnerability could gain the same user rights as the local user."