I recommend people do this. Keep a copy for safekeeping and archive. Then one day, when they've "upgraded" the DRM to something so restrictive that you cannot tolerate it anymore, you can remwind your software to this DRM version.
Because like it or not, new versions of software will be full of bugs (read exploitable, hackable), while older versions will be more well-crafted (read treacherous).
All of these is assuming that you do not want to trust MS. Personally, I'm undecided, but for lots of you out there, you have decided. This is the best advice I have for you.
What you are demanding, is a formal proof that the system is invulnerable to buffer exploits. If you are asking for less, then it is a half-measure that accomplishes nothing.
What if space just can't be entirely safe? Why should everything by risk free? Should the collective human race be as a toddler that hasn't left your crib?
My message didn't intend to address any points being made. It was a small list of reasons why web browsers, particularly Epiphany, could be considered well worth developing. I don't even imply I agree with all those points, it was just my natural response to a person stating "Another freaking browser?".
The point is that this is an extremely valid point, regardless of whatever motivations you have for flaming him. Free software developers do lack focus. Thank goodness there are so many gaps for a commercial distro company to come and fix the problems.
I feel that this is an extremely valid criticism that should deserve more time: Free software development lacks focus. Don't let it be a negative criticism. Take it as a chance for some enterprising guy out there with connects to money to bring focus to it!
Your argument do not address the point being made, which is the wastage of effort. All of your points can be addressed by tweaking an existing browser to suit the needs of usability, consistency and bloat.
While it may be that these ultra-low sounds cause a range of sensations in human emotion does that really prove that any and all paranormal activity can be simply explained away?
What is there to explain away, if there's nothing to explain?
The previous poster answered it better. We can take our pictures of what's out there to be what's in the past - the futher out there, the further into the past. In effect, we have a sequence of pictures of what's out there. If pictures and the ability to see, matched with rock solid theories of matter that we have tested on the labs isn't sufficient, what is?
Scientists aren't as arrogant as the "victims of science" make them out of be.
Who is more arrogant - the man who tries very hard to make a firm conclusion based on the best data available, or the man who says he can't do it and it would be futile to try?
Cars do require that the driver get licenced before they can drive. Eventually, putting a computer on the net would require such a licence too. Has nothing to do with being snobbish, everything to do with the complexity of the instrument and the competency required to use it.
In case you still didn't get it, here's the facts as the article shows: Legitimate companies use SPAM to do their business. They do this becuase sending SPAM does not cost them anything, but has rewards. So they send spam by proxy.
Putting in such a law in place opens up the case for Random Joe Luser to send fake email advertising in some companies' name. Spam by proxy. That unethical company can avoid your law by maintaining clean books, but paying Random J Luser and keeping it off the books.
This is not a solution for spam, unless there's a widespread structure in place for authenticaed SMTP.
You are just so wrong. Someone with a grudge against MS (or any other large company) can use your law against the large company. This law has EXTREMELY BAD UNINTENDED CONSEQUNCES that you have not addressed. IT CAN BE SUBVERTED by individuals or organizations having a grudge against the addressing company. Asking people to maintain good records of advertising only encourages those who want to send spam, to keep it off the books. Experience with taxes should be that way.
Your law is subject to abuse, just like any other well-intentioned, but unthoughtfully enacted law. Therefore, this law by itself, cannot accomplish anything, be it on th state level or nation level.
The CRUCIAL PROBLEM we are solving, is technological - unauthenticable SMTP. Nothing more than that. Solving this involves RFCs and the political will (who cares where it comes from?) to make everyone else do it.
I suggest you scour the various foundations and get them to fund that idea. There are many of them out there and they are smart enough to want to do it, should you present the idea cogently and coherently to them. You may get paid while doing so too. Don't get your hopes up.
I'm not going to complete the reasoning and look like a terminally radical Commie Pinko Dirtbag. Instead, YOU do that.
Indeed, and you look like someone resistant to the charms propaganda. Observe then that the way you've described that mentality, is also known as capitalism.
Slashdot Mirror
Linus has said about the DRM issue.
Zealots on both sides of the DRM debate can bite
my fleshy ass.
Because like it or not, new versions of software will be full of bugs (read exploitable, hackable), while older versions will be more well-crafted (read treacherous).
All of these is assuming that you do not want to trust MS. Personally, I'm undecided, but for lots of you out there, you have decided. This is the best advice I have for you.
"Erode competition's standing" could be OK or not OK. That really depends on what specific action is being done.
Because there can be differences in what you think is on the machine, and what it actually doing. The very definition of being hacked.
Nothing is wrong with your roof. We're just OUTDOORS. That scary, risky place.
What if space just can't be entirely safe? Why should everything by risk free? Should the collective human race be as a toddler that hasn't left your crib?
And most of the money to do either is limited by the big fat defense budgets of nations everywhere anyway.
And if you allow the words to limit your imagine, then no amount of reason will help you.
The point is that this is an extremely valid point, regardless of whatever motivations you have for flaming him. Free software developers do lack focus. Thank goodness there are so many gaps for a commercial distro company to come and fix the problems.
I feel that this is an extremely valid criticism that should deserve more time: Free software development lacks focus. Don't let it be a negative criticism. Take it as a chance for some enterprising guy out there with connects to money to bring focus to it!
Your argument do not address the point being made, which is the wastage of effort. All of your points can be addressed by tweaking an existing browser to suit the needs of usability, consistency and bloat.
What is there to explain away, if there's nothing to explain?
"Hey old man, this cell's got a gyro. What do you know?"
Old WINE and new bottles. Nothing to see here, move along folks.
Why is this insightful? Sure it is 3 lines of code, but the point of AI is to DISCOVER those rules, not put them in.
What's with this thing call "professionalism", that you think MPEG sounds professional? The software is free, the naming is quaint? So?
Scientists aren't as arrogant as the "victims of science" make them out of be.
The answer is obvious.
Cars do require that the driver get licenced before they can drive. Eventually, putting a computer on the net would require such a licence too. Has nothing to do with being snobbish, everything to do with the complexity of the instrument and the competency required to use it.
You've got to joking - she IS the cute chick.
Putting in such a law in place opens up the case for Random Joe Luser to send fake email advertising in some companies' name. Spam by proxy. That unethical company can avoid your law by maintaining clean books, but paying Random J Luser and keeping it off the books.
This is not a solution for spam, unless there's a widespread structure in place for authenticaed SMTP.
Your law is subject to abuse, just like any other well-intentioned, but unthoughtfully enacted law. Therefore, this law by itself, cannot accomplish anything, be it on th state level or nation level.
The CRUCIAL PROBLEM we are solving, is technological - unauthenticable SMTP. Nothing more than that. Solving this involves RFCs and the political will (who cares where it comes from?) to make everyone else do it.
Maybe MS could, but if it happened to you, you would not want to be in the position of having to go after that random luser.
I suggest you scour the various foundations and get them to fund that idea. There are many of them out there and they are smart enough to want to do it, should you present the idea cogently and coherently to them. You may get paid while doing so too. Don't get your hopes up.
Indeed, and you look like someone resistant to the charms propaganda. Observe then that the way you've described that mentality, is also known as capitalism.