With the increasing use of fiber-optics towards the network edge, ie in hubs, routers, into your home maybe =), then Lucent becomes much more valuable.
Any chance a, preferably Live, Video Feed could be arranged from the proceedings? If/.-readers signed up ahead of time, you could even casually throw into the proceedings that they are currently being followed by a gazillion or so people.:-)
In Apple's famous commercial, they are fighting against "Big Brother" (then IBM). It seems as though the Mac is trying to emulate that Big Brother attitude in saying that no one person deserves the credit for something, all credit goes to your glorious employer, Apple. Kinda scares ya when you think about it.
For the officially sanctioned word on this, please see MacPravda.
In this way, I find cDc to be morally ambiguous. [...] The act of developing BO and BO2K is not in itself right or wrong, but I cannot help but suspect that cDc intends harm to Microsoft. Even this in itself is not necessarily bad, since it generally accepted our society to harm competitors by discrediting them. However, implicit in this is the possibility of harming third parties -- Microsoft's customers.
This leaves out the possibility that they were trying to expose the flaws in the system to raise awareness of the issue. Or that they needed a remote administration tool because MS SMS costs a fortune. Or that it was just plain fun to write.
You see things far too much in black or white IMO.
This is basically the same question as Gun Control. It's the dilemma of whether a toolmaker can be held responsible for the uses the tool can be put to.
I think the most common result of such discussions is that the question is meaningless. In theory the toolmaker cannot be held accountable, but in practice we place limitations on toolmakers that regulate what they may and may not produce; or how, where and to whome they distribute it once made.
Take books for example. If a book -- not necessarily even a book on any "dangerous" subject! -- is the tool I use to start a mental process that will eventually lead me to start a political movement that in the short term overthrows the current government to replace it with a better system, but which in the long term will pretty much destroy my country; is the book to blame? How about the author?
Put another way, should we punish Karl Marx for writing the Communist Manifesto because he brought about the current state of what used to be the Soviet Union?
Of course, in reality we need to put restraints on certain kinds of tools, but in principle we cannot blame the toolmaker for the use the tool is put to.
Then again, in the case of Melissa and Back Orifice, the toolmaker is often the one who puts the "tool" to use and in such a way as to make the issue pretty much clear cut.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
technos wrote:
:-)
>"Hey, people really appreciated me fixing that
>timeout problem on the new Intel Pro II 10/100."
You did? Cool! Where can I get it?
Any chance a, preferably Live, Video Feed could be arranged from the proceedings? If /.-readers signed up ahead of time, you could even casually throw into the proceedings that they are currently being followed by a gazillion or so people. :-)
Then again, I wouldn't spit on the sidewalk in China either...
For the officially sanctioned word on this, please see MacPravda.
This leaves out the possibility that they were trying to expose the flaws in the system to raise awareness of the issue. Or that they needed a remote administration tool because MS SMS costs a fortune. Or that it was just plain fun to write.
You see things far too much in black or white IMO.
This is basically the same question as Gun Control. It's the dilemma of whether a toolmaker can be held responsible for the uses the tool can be put to.
I think the most common result of such discussions is that the question is meaningless. In theory the toolmaker cannot be held accountable, but in practice we place limitations on toolmakers that regulate what they may and may not produce; or how, where and to whome they distribute it once made.
Take books for example. If a book -- not necessarily even a book on any "dangerous" subject! -- is the tool I use to start a mental process that will eventually lead me to start a political movement that in the short term overthrows the current government to replace it with a better system, but which in the long term will pretty much destroy my country; is the book to blame? How about the author?
Put another way, should we punish Karl Marx for writing the Communist Manifesto because he brought about the current state of what used to be the Soviet Union?
Of course, in reality we need to put restraints on certain kinds of tools, but in principle we cannot blame the toolmaker for the use the tool is put to.
Then again, in the case of Melissa and Back Orifice, the toolmaker is often the one who puts the "tool" to use and in such a way as to make the issue pretty much clear cut. :-)