>Should I be able to, um, feel the wind through the, um,>windscreen ? as the faa stipulates:16. Pilots and passengers are reminded that opening doors or windows in order to touch the face of God may result in loss of cabin pressure.my guess is that the same would happen when...err...trying to "feel" the wind.also,imagine what an explosive decompression would do to your house...............and the so called "flight-attendant"

You guys realize this is only happening because the feds are fed up with virus attacks etc.And that the E.U. is riding them big time on anti-trust. See ms is a corporation who has a monopoly and feels what they say goes. But thats with all big business really. Eventually some nerdy kid will come up with something and revolutionize the way we look at pc's ,just like gates did.

"Why? So Windows flaws and bugs won't be in the headlines."That's your opinion, Elrond, but you are wrong. The reason Ballmer said that is because these folks find bugs in Windows and start publicly announcing them before Microsoft can release a fix. What Ballmer was saying is that he would like for them to keep quiet so that hackers wouldn't take advantage of holes before they can be plugged.I find it fascinating that so many folks who I have seen in this forum for years getting a LOT of enjoyment out of a Microsoft product using DirectX (a Microsoft technology) and posting on a Windows machine (another Microsoft technology), yet they continually bash Microsoft for not being worth a dime as a company.From an objective standpoint, something is fishy.Jim

"The reason Ballmer said that is because these folks find bugs in Windows and start publicly announcing them before Microsoft can release a fix. What Ballmer was saying is that he would like for them to keep quiet so that hackers wouldn't take advantage of holes before they can be plugged."I agree... that's the way I perceived Ballmer's statement."I find it fascinating that so many folks who I have seen in this forum for years getting a LOT of enjoyment out of a Microsoft product using DirectX (a Microsoft technology) and posting on a Windows machine (another Microsoft technology), yet they continually bash Microsoft for not being worth a dime as a company."And the other viable choices are?"From an objective standpoint, something is fishy."Yep... your position is cyrstal clear.

"And the other viable choices are?"There are plenty of choices. If you deem them unworthy of use, then that makes your insistent criticism of Microsoft even more suspect. Personally, I am very tired of it. I'm not sure when we transitioned in this country (assuming US) from admiring those who are successful to despising them, but it was a tragic move for our society.Jim

"There are plenty of choices. If you deem them unworthy of use, then that makes your insistent criticism of Microsoft even more suspect. Personally, I am very tired of it. I'm not sure when we transitioned in this country (assuming US) from admiring those who are successful to despising them, but it was a tragic move for our society."Just another objective observation, Jim: That choices issue... it includes choosing another country if you're so unhappy with "the tragic move of our society".Nice that you believe your opinions of Microsoft are the only ones that matter. Somewhat of a lack of objectivity there, though.

Yet another ad hominem attack, Greg? That's a sure sign that your position is not a strong one.Even sadder still is your prompting me to choose another country. If Washington had taken advice from you, we'd be sipping tea at noon and serving the Queen.It's clear that you're playing dirty pool here. I think I'm done.Jim

Hi Jim,Actually, its not my opinion. Its conclusion based on long standing evidence of the majority of the worlds top independent security professionals. While most prefer a "grace period" of informing a vendor for a short amount of time before going public (and most usually provide vendors such as Microsoft just that), Microsoft wants all their bugs kept under the lid until they get to making a patch if they see fit - on their timetable. This is exactly how the "old" days worked before Full Disclosure became the norm, where the underground took advantage of that closed information to break into system left and right.Its public record that Microsoft has been futilely pushing for years exactly what I named it above: Security Through Obscurity (I promise I didn't pick that phrase out of a hat :-)). The majority of large corporations are in favor of this method (with a few notable exceptions) but not, you'll note, the top independent security professionals of the world. That tells one most of what one needs to know right there.As I stated above, not announcing security holes when they are found, even before a patch, leaves systems vulnerable until said patch is released (if ever). Without the knowledge of the security hole, its impossible to protect a system or even test vulnerable systems via other means while waiting for a fix, because the customer has no idea there IS a hole. This leaves a system fully vulnerable to any of those who actually know about the hole... Often the underground of security criminals.Might I suggest you read up on these issues? They've been beaten to death over the past few years and there is a ton of material available to you on the net. A good start might be this article from Bruce Schneier, head of Counterpane Internet Security - . Another huge resource on this topic can be found in the [link:online.securityfocus.com/archive/1|BugTraq mailing list archive]. Or, you could simply search for [link:www.google.com/search?num=50&q=%22Security+Through+Obscurity%22+and+%22Full+Disclosure%22]"Security Through Obscurity" and "Full Disclosure" at google or your favorite search engine.Take care,Elrond

"I think I'm done."What's the matter, Jim, having difficulty handling too much objectivity?

Hey!They are doing PR... increasing their image!!, what I need only fix, fix and fixes for my hoby!

>>As you might know, this practice is called Security through Obscurity. It is a wholly flawed and discredited practice that has few valid arguments, but mainly benefits public perception of a company that employees it. It does not work because people can't take precautions to protect their systems where they are vulnerable while the flaw goes unpatched. Using this type of non-security, criminals out there have free reign to exploit those flaws while customers are fully ignorant of whats happening (trojans being installed, key loggers being installed, etc, etc, etc).<< Elrond,I don't follow your argument here. When did it become the role of the operating system's developer to provide system security? I can understand the need to pressure Microsoft to fix flaws and exploits in a timely manner but to require them to provide system security is certainly a stretch.May I point out that there are legitimate uses for remote access trojans and that keyloggers like [a href=http://www.spectorsoft.com/products/eBlaster_Windows/entry.asp?affil=1200]eBlaster[/a] and [a href=http://www.trueactive.com/default.asp]TrueActive[/a] are entirely legal?

>>Just to keep the flamers away, I'm sure you meant they haven't been worthy of much respect when it comes to security, and not all aspects of Microsoft. If that is the case, I agree to an extent. I do believe the situation has gotten so bad that they will indeed make some much needed changes now that have not been done to date (such as supplying all consumer versions of Windows with minimal services enabled and built-in protection such as firewalls enabled - sooner rather than later).<

It is your opinion, Elrond, and I am aware that many others hold the same opinion. I am also aware that there are many out there who believe that Microsoft is the great satan and has no desire to release secure software. I happen to know that is absolutely not the case. I appreciate the courtesy and informity of your reply to me. I just happen to disagree with you. :)Jim

More brilliant contributions from the kiddy crowd. Enjoy your crippled software.

Its the role of the OS vendor to provide system security because its the bugs in their software that require system security. No bugs, no need for security to block exploits of those bugs. Its a simple product liability (as well as image and trust) issue for the vendors. Thats a very universal understanding, so I'm finding it hard to clearly see any argument you're making.Let me point you to an article on Full Disclosure vs Security Through Obscurity in the Crypto-Gram Newsletter that might explain the issues much better than I ever could. In particular for what you might (?) be seeking an answer to, read The Inevitability of Security Vulnerabilities section.Take care,Elrond