Windows 2000 has built-in support for IPSec and the ability to filter port. It's similar in function to personal firewalls except it might be a bit more difficult to configure properly.
I don't think MS would see this as a valid reason to open it's Windows source up. I'm guessing instead they'll simply tell Taiwan to go by XP which has similar functionality.
Default security settings is on a small part of the larger problem and solution.
Regarding setting default security settings, the/. community has for years been shouting this from the top of its lungs. Only now does MS get the message.
It's irresponsible on MS's part to take this long.
And given MS's checkered past with its Windows OS, it fully deserves this kind of criticism.
I think given Microsoft's failure at past attempts to secure its OS, the number of vulnerabilities in Microsoft products that are found each week, and the overall poor stability that the operating system offers I find Microsoft has earned the default cynicism and skepticism it faces.
Microsoft needs to earn my trust, I will not just give it to them.
And yes, I most certainly will give them the chance to.
When I purchase a CD what exactly am I purchasing?
Am I purchasing the right to own a copy of the CD's content or am I purchasing the CD itself and whatever is on it, is on it.
For example, I have a CD that's scratched beyond use. It simply won't play in any CD player without horrible skipping, and I'm sure I'm not the only one in this situation.
However I still own the CD. So isn't it legal for me to download from another source the content of that CD or is that illegal?
It would seem to fall under fair use and the right to making a backup copy, wouldn't it?
So if I buy one of these new, protected CDs and I can't make a backup and no one else can, what do I do when my CD is scratched beyond the ability to listen to it? Do I still have a right to the content and if so, how am I going to get it?
ADV is one of many anime distributors in the U.S.. Since ADV is the force behind this channel it would stand to reason that anime ADV has distribution rights for would air but anime ADV does not hold distribution rights would be left off the channel.
This would include many Pioneer/Ban Dai series such as Vison of Escaflowne, Cowboy Bebop, Gasaraki and Serial Experiments Lain.
It'd be a shame not to be able to see such series on an anime channel.
Some would argue that only animated films from Japan would be considered anime.
IIRC Transformers was animated in Japan and shipped over to the U.S.. I've got some bootleg copies of Transformers episodes that have only aired in Japan. That had made me always assume Transformers started out in Japan.
Thus, IMO, Transformers is anime.
But so would virtually any Disney Afternoon cartoon as Disney Japan did a lot of animation for the old Disney TV series.
Anyone know if any evidence collected from monitoring of public terminals has been used in a court case yet?
It would seem that if such a case came about there would be huge public outcry about a right to privacy ect...
Should have seen that comming with the Patriot Act? Naw. I think a lot of Americans really didn't look at what the Patriot Act did, they just believed that it would help stop terrorists and perhaps assumed their rights were safe in hand.
So a public case of that nature might snap people back into reality?
UD's video directory has file listing enabled. So point your browser over to http://www.universaldisplay.com/video/ and look through the other videos displaying this tech inaction.
There's only two videos, with copies available in varying size.
The video not linked from the site is http://www.universaldisplay.com/video/foled99.rm and shows a larger animation being displayed. However the demo-er doesn't twist or bend the display much to really show off its flexibility.
Smallest population in the U.S.. 20,000 people would hold a greater political impact there.
Land is cheap and available in large quantities.
It's in the middle of the U.S. so that if it did become a free state, there would be a lot of U.S. controlled land for an enemy (assuming the enemy wasn't the U.S. itself) to make its way through to attack. The U.S. would actually wind up protecting the state indirectly.
The large flat areas of land could lend itself to huge banks of solar and wind powered generators. This would remove any need for outside (ie. U.S.) power to be fed into the state. Who builds all that? Depends. This won't be an over-night event. Over a long period of time U.S. government funds could be put to building these alternative fuel stations and such.
Also this free-state doesn't neccessarily need to break away from the U.S.. It would simply be the Quebec of the U.S.. and hang on while ignoring the federal laws it didn't like.
But all of this is an easy 100 years off even if it were successful. 20,000 is just a tiny seed. It would need to grow and that will take a lot of time an explanation to the vast majority who will look upon this idea as being some sort of anti-American move.
Anti-American is very out of fashion at the moment, at least in the U.S.. (tic)
How can one compare movie earnings from a few years ago to today? The economy is the exact opposite today as it was a few years ago. Back in the day we all had a little extra cash to spend on the outrageous 10 bucks a pop price to watch a movie in a theater.
Now that we are in lean times of course I, and many others in a similar situation, are not going to go out to the movies as often as once was.
We're all feeling the crunch McCallum, you are not immune to it.
Insert your own cheap shot about the drop being off due to rather poor story telling and execution for the last two Star Wars movies.
So don't blame the internet and kids with fat pipes. Try looking closer to home for the real reason things are so green right now.
Secondly, part of the point of XHTML is to keep backwards compatibility. So the ?xml declaration is kept as option since it does break certain browsers. However you're keeping the rest of the document compliant with XML. It would be trivial, if working with an XHTML document outside of an HTTP agent, to prepend the proper ?xml declaration or build it right into the application. In fact that's what most user-agents already do!
Yes but when your user agent can't access that content, the site becomes useless and obsolete.
That is Zeldman's point.
Yahoo can be accessed, but it's not the most friendly site out there. However users are willing to work past all the junk to get at the meat. But there is usability threshold at which point users will start to turn away. Zeldman is trying to point this out now before that threshold is reached.
XHTML 1 is HTML 4.01 with minor syntax changes to make it well-formed XML. But it still renders quite fine under older browsers. It may be missing some extra formatting defined through CSS, but the meaning of the content and the page's usability is maintained.
User agents have usually been programmed with the command to ignore what it doesn't really know about. This is why XHTML 1 works in as far back as Netscape 1.
Non-CSS related bugs are usually due to bad HTML, not bad browsers. The majority of which comes from missing end tags. Create well-formed XHTML and the non-CSS browser bugs disappear.
As for CSS hacks, purists say they don't want to bend-over-backwards to support buggy, legacy browsers. As web developers, I say that's our damn job.
But no real "hacks" need be employed. Framing DIV tags with another DIV tag quickly defeats the long-standing long list of IE box model bugs. The outer DIV supplies width/height dimensions, the inner DIV supplies the padding.
As for Netscape 4, which will crash when treated to certain HTML attributes, I like to move all the CSS properties that NS4 doesn't recognize to a separate stylesheet which is then imported via the @import CSS command. Netscape 4 doesn't know what to do with @import so, like a good user agent, it simply ignores it.
The only time I have run into problems creating pages that are both backwards AND forwards compatible is in complex layouts which replace TABLE tags with DIV tags for framing a page. This gets into absolute and relative positioning as well as lots of floating elements. IE especially enjoys inserting gutter space around boxes that are next to floating elements, something it should not do.
Point of all this is that it is quite easy to be both backwards and forwards compatible, even with Netscape 0.9!!. It takes a small amount of extra effort but is well worth it.
But you need a place to store the MD5s so the client can compare against the download. Obviously you can't trust MD5s from the source you are downloading the file from. So some sort of central server would have to be created to house all this. And now you give the RIAA a target.
They key would be revoked but what about any users that this key had previously signed off on? Wouldn't you have to also revoke those as well, and so on and so on?
Would hosting a web site or some other central server with checksums defeat, at least partially, the purpose of distributed networking? Plus what kind of problems would the owner of said checksum list face under the DMCA? Especially after courts have ruled linking can be illegal. Yes that's not what's going on here, but it's an example of the kind of decisions made by judges we are seeing presently.
And just how are you going to create this web of trust?
You're going to create it by deciding a user is trustworthy after a "good experience" with that user.
This requires you to have an experience with the user to begin with. For that to happen you need to make requests to the general network and request files from untrusted clients.
But how can you find a "good" new friend on the network to trust if the network is populated by "bad" users?
And what happens if a "bad" user gets into the ring of trust. This might happen, for example, if the RIAA were to hack into a p2p user and steal the user's method of authentication or find a way to spoof it. In this case, the GPG private key. Then the RIAA has an in to the "ring of trust". Once the ring of trust becomes infected, the whole ring becomes useless.
Any "ring of trust" system is not a solution to the problems presented in Mr. Chen's paper.
Slashdot Mirror
Because in a recent /. story there is reference to a recent /. poll which shows 47% of those who responded still use a Windows operating system.
/. users use Windows.
/.
Nearly half of
This would seem to validate the need to have stories about Microsoft software bugs, especially those as grevious as this, on
Q: How many [insert geek type here] does it take to screw in a light bulb?
DEC Field Service Engineer: "Missing bulb? Replace the light socket."
Windows 2000 has built-in support for IPSec and the ability to filter port. It's similar in function to personal firewalls except it might be a bit more difficult to configure properly.
I don't think MS would see this as a valid reason to open it's Windows source up. I'm guessing instead they'll simply tell Taiwan to go by XP which has similar functionality.
Default security settings is on a small part of the larger problem and solution.
/. community has for years been shouting this from the top of its lungs. Only now does MS get the message.
Regarding setting default security settings, the
It's irresponsible on MS's part to take this long.
And given MS's checkered past with its Windows OS, it fully deserves this kind of criticism.
I'll believe it when I see it.
I think given Microsoft's failure at past attempts to secure its OS, the number of vulnerabilities in Microsoft products that are found each week, and the overall poor stability that the operating system offers I find Microsoft has earned the default cynicism and skepticism it faces.
Microsoft needs to earn my trust, I will not just give it to them.
And yes, I most certainly will give them the chance to.
When I purchase a CD what exactly am I purchasing?
Am I purchasing the right to own a copy of the CD's content or am I purchasing the CD itself and whatever is on it, is on it.
For example, I have a CD that's scratched beyond use. It simply won't play in any CD player without horrible skipping, and I'm sure I'm not the only one in this situation.
However I still own the CD. So isn't it legal for me to download from another source the content of that CD or is that illegal?
It would seem to fall under fair use and the right to making a backup copy, wouldn't it?
So if I buy one of these new, protected CDs and I can't make a backup and no one else can, what do I do when my CD is scratched beyond the ability to listen to it? Do I still have a right to the content and if so, how am I going to get it?
ADV is one of many anime distributors in the U.S.. Since ADV is the force behind this channel it would stand to reason that anime ADV has distribution rights for would air but anime ADV does not hold distribution rights would be left off the channel.
This would include many Pioneer/Ban Dai series such as Vison of Escaflowne, Cowboy Bebop, Gasaraki and Serial Experiments Lain.
It'd be a shame not to be able to see such series on an anime channel.
Some would argue that only animated films from Japan would be considered anime.
IIRC Transformers was animated in Japan and shipped over to the U.S.. I've got some bootleg copies of Transformers episodes that have only aired in Japan. That had made me always assume Transformers started out in Japan.
Thus, IMO, Transformers is anime.
But so would virtually any Disney Afternoon cartoon as Disney Japan did a lot of animation for the old Disney TV series.
Why left/right channel when you can use the SAP feature on your television?
Closed captioning, as you said, takes care of the rest.
Absolutely doable. ADV should seriously consider it.
Anyone know if any evidence collected from monitoring of public terminals has been used in a court case yet?
It would seem that if such a case came about there would be huge public outcry about a right to privacy ect...
Should have seen that comming with the Patriot Act? Naw. I think a lot of Americans really didn't look at what the Patriot Act did, they just believed that it would help stop terrorists and perhaps assumed their rights were safe in hand.
So a public case of that nature might snap people back into reality?
UD's video directory has file listing enabled. So point your browser over to http://www.universaldisplay.com/video/ and look through the other videos displaying this tech inaction.
There's only two videos, with copies available in varying size.
The video not linked from the site is http://www.universaldisplay.com/video/foled99.rm and shows a larger animation being displayed. However the demo-er doesn't twist or bend the display much to really show off its flexibility.
3. Seperate from the Union. To avoid federal mandates. History shows that this isn't gonna be easy. Good luck on building that military, too...
Or just get backing from a powerful country on another continent to recognize your existence when no one else does. It isn't a new idea.
UN protection too, perhaps.
Wyoming.
Smallest population in the U.S.. 20,000 people would hold a greater political impact there.
Land is cheap and available in large quantities.
It's in the middle of the U.S. so that if it did become a free state, there would be a lot of U.S. controlled land for an enemy (assuming the enemy wasn't the U.S. itself) to make its way through to attack. The U.S. would actually wind up protecting the state indirectly.
The large flat areas of land could lend itself to huge banks of solar and wind powered generators. This would remove any need for outside (ie. U.S.) power to be fed into the state. Who builds all that? Depends. This won't be an over-night event. Over a long period of time U.S. government funds could be put to building these alternative fuel stations and such.
Also this free-state doesn't neccessarily need to break away from the U.S.. It would simply be the Quebec of the U.S.. and hang on while ignoring the federal laws it didn't like.
But all of this is an easy 100 years off even if it were successful. 20,000 is just a tiny seed. It would need to grow and that will take a lot of time an explanation to the vast majority who will look upon this idea as being some sort of anti-American move.
Anti-American is very out of fashion at the moment, at least in the U.S.. (tic)
How does one view a B-2 from the back when it's flying above 20,000 feet?
At that point you're looking up at it's underside, not at it's back.
C:\> net stop messenger
The Messenger service is stopping.
The Messenger service was stopped successfully.
Then when you're up for it, just disable the service entirely from the services administration tool. It won't break any workstation functionality.
So what's next? Spam on my HP Printer?
NYC to Boston in 2 hours by car? If you're pulling that off, perhaps MacWorld is not the conference you should be attending.
How can one compare movie earnings from a few years ago to today? The economy is the exact opposite today as it was a few years ago. Back in the day we all had a little extra cash to spend on the outrageous 10 bucks a pop price to watch a movie in a theater.
Now that we are in lean times of course I, and many others in a similar situation, are not going to go out to the movies as often as once was.
We're all feeling the crunch McCallum, you are not immune to it.
Insert your own cheap shot about the drop being off due to rather poor story telling and execution for the last two Star Wars movies.
So don't blame the internet and kids with fat pipes. Try looking closer to home for the real reason things are so green right now.
Actually you can define your content-type and encoding via META tags. In fact, that's exactly what the w3 recommends you do!
Secondly, part of the point of XHTML is to keep backwards compatibility. So the ?xml declaration is kept as option since it does break certain browsers. However you're keeping the rest of the document compliant with XML. It would be trivial, if working with an XHTML document outside of an HTTP agent, to prepend the proper ?xml declaration or build it right into the application. In fact that's what most user-agents already do!
So stick with XHTML.
Yes but when your user agent can't access that content, the site becomes useless and obsolete.
That is Zeldman's point.
Yahoo can be accessed, but it's not the most friendly site out there. However users are willing to work past all the junk to get at the meat. But there is usability threshold at which point users will start to turn away. Zeldman is trying to point this out now before that threshold is reached.
XHTML 1 is HTML 4.01 with minor syntax changes to make it well-formed XML. But it still renders quite fine under older browsers. It may be missing some extra formatting defined through CSS, but the meaning of the content and the page's usability is maintained.
User agents have usually been programmed with the command to ignore what it doesn't really know about. This is why XHTML 1 works in as far back as Netscape 1.
Non-CSS related bugs are usually due to bad HTML, not bad browsers. The majority of which comes from missing end tags. Create well-formed XHTML and the non-CSS browser bugs disappear.
As for CSS hacks, purists say they don't want to bend-over-backwards to support buggy, legacy browsers. As web developers, I say that's our damn job.
But no real "hacks" need be employed. Framing DIV tags with another DIV tag quickly defeats the long-standing long list of IE box model bugs. The outer DIV supplies width/height dimensions, the inner DIV supplies the padding.
As for Netscape 4, which will crash when treated to certain HTML attributes, I like to move all the CSS properties that NS4 doesn't recognize to a separate stylesheet which is then imported via the @import CSS command. Netscape 4 doesn't know what to do with @import so, like a good user agent, it simply ignores it.
The only time I have run into problems creating pages that are both backwards AND forwards compatible is in complex layouts which replace TABLE tags with DIV tags for framing a page. This gets into absolute and relative positioning as well as lots of floating elements. IE especially enjoys inserting gutter space around boxes that are next to floating elements, something it should not do.
Point of all this is that it is quite easy to be both backwards and forwards compatible, even with Netscape 0.9!!. It takes a small amount of extra effort but is well worth it.
But you need a place to store the MD5s so the client can compare against the download. Obviously you can't trust MD5s from the source you are downloading the file from. So some sort of central server would have to be created to house all this. And now you give the RIAA a target.
They key would be revoked but what about any users that this key had previously signed off on? Wouldn't you have to also revoke those as well, and so on and so on?
Would hosting a web site or some other central server with checksums defeat, at least partially, the purpose of distributed networking? Plus what kind of problems would the owner of said checksum list face under the DMCA? Especially after courts have ruled linking can be illegal. Yes that's not what's going on here, but it's an example of the kind of decisions made by judges we are seeing presently.
I've been using tkc's player on my Zaurus for a month now and it's been solid. This is great news to hear it's under a BSD-style license.
However I still recommend Zaurus owners shell out the 10 bucks for tkc's player to help support further development of Zaurus applications.
And just how are you going to create this web of trust?
You're going to create it by deciding a user is trustworthy after a "good experience" with that user.
This requires you to have an experience with the user to begin with. For that to happen you need to make requests to the general network and request files from untrusted clients.
But how can you find a "good" new friend on the network to trust if the network is populated by "bad" users?
And what happens if a "bad" user gets into the ring of trust. This might happen, for example, if the RIAA were to hack into a p2p user and steal the user's method of authentication or find a way to spoof it. In this case, the GPG private key. Then the RIAA has an in to the "ring of trust". Once the ring of trust becomes infected, the whole ring becomes useless.
Any "ring of trust" system is not a solution to the problems presented in Mr. Chen's paper.