It will most certainly affect any writeable permanent redirected shares, AKA mapped drives, since the whole point of mapped drives is to create something that looks like a regular local storage volume. It will *probably* walk the local network and affect nay shares it can access. But - why take the chance? Always assume it will affect anything it could possibly write to.
No, the MS-PL does not say that. The MS-LPL ("Limited Permissive License" - hah) says that. And what it says is basically "You can use stuff we release under this license only under Windows. You are not allowed to include this in code that executes on a platform other than Windows." It all rests in the interpretation of that little word "run", and Microsoft's interpretation is always all-inclusive, i.e. by "run" they don't mean "it can execute", they mean "it exclusively executes".
Business is a useful art. Agreed. Economics is a science. Agreed under reserve. BUT: Granted above, then A better argument against business method patents is that they do not serve the common good. define "common good", since you stated Economics is a science, patents are an economic issue, and you are trying to bring forth arguments.
As for md5... with only 32bits, it should've came up with repetitive hashes in end anyways? Where'd you come up with the "32 bits" thing? It's 128. I guess since the article explains some issues against md5 security, the only answer would be to trust the source that is supplying the hash in the first place? That's always been the case. Coming down to the fact that a system is only as secure as its user? Oversimplfied. A system is only as secure as its weakest component (and yes, that's oversimplified too).
Thermal depolymerization does not yield high-grade oil and it costs a lot to produce (or, rather, recycle) oil that way. Probably in excess of $70 a barrel. Just as the oil shale cooking, it's economically undesirable as long as there are richer sources around - after all, why would anyone ever exploit a technology that returns $30 profit for a barrel if one could someohow get control of one that returns $50 a barrel?
And what do you propose - not bothering even about raising awareness about the symptom, since raising awareness about the cause has been going on for years with less than stellar result? ISC is at least doing *something*.
I posted about how much gentoo config handling sucks in the last slashdot story about gentoo, and I'll keep doing so until they do something to fix it.
They have, about 2 years ago. You just didn't happen to be, how should I put it... Informed?:)
Use dispatch-conf, and voila, your psychiatric bill should diminish considerably (because we're definitely in agreement on etc-update sucking bigtime.)
Actually, if I can ask a serious question, does multi-core work the same way as multi-processor? (ie. Two procs isn't twice is fast, but closer to 1.5x...) Essentially, yes. And if it is essentially the same, will this not inevitably lead to far denser blade servers? (Ie. Two 8-core chips on blade as opposed to two one-core chips on a blade.) Obviously, yes.
If you have XP Service Pack 2, and are behind a router, the ICMP vulernability is a non-issue. Your router responds to pings, not your computer. You probably mean "behind a NAT gateway using an IP number fom the Private Address range". If you're using a publicly routable IP number your host may happily respond to ICMP echo requests. If you use Mozilla Firefox, the IE vulnerability is a non-issue as well. You probably mean "if you use Mozilla Firefox and unless you're absolutely sure you don't and won't, ever, use the zillion other applications that embed mshtml.dll".
Generally though - patching is important even if you don't actively use the affected components. Security is not an on/off thing, it's about minimizing risk exposure. Why leave a potential hole unpatched? You never know when the existence of that hole may come back later and bite you in the ass when you least suspect it. Take it from someone who's been there:).
Then don't patch it. Nobody's forcing you to, since you can just not go to the Windows Update site, and can turn off Automatic Updates. Just don't be surprised if things break later:). Patching systems is a fact of life, under any operating system under the sun.
If a CSS standard falls on browser designers to implement, and no one implements it, was it really "the standard?" You're using the word "standard" with two different meanings in a single sentence there - classic fallacy. The "standard" in "CSS standard" refers to a formal document published by an standardization body. It's the ideal that the browsers should aim for. The "standard" in the question part refers to a de facto standard. It's the current state of the art.
IANAL, but I don't think it's possible to "libel a community". The legal concept requires an entity to be the subject of libel - be it an individual, a corporation, an institution, etc. I.e., there must be an injured party, and a mindshare community can't be a party.
For example, if I called the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution a bunch of scumbags that will prostitute their writing skills to anyone paying them any little amount of money (in other words, cheap whores), that would be libel - not that I would call them that, or deary me, I would never, tsk, tsk:). But if I said that think thanks are mostly immoral institutions (which is analoguous to what they're doing with their FUD articles), that would not be libel.
If with laser technology A it costs me 4 cents to produce some laser, and with laser technology B it costs me 6 cents, then technology B is expensive since I'm losing 2 cents on each unit.
Slashdot Mirror
... any more?
Actually IBM would be the company responsible for the Vaporware strategy, but I'll subscribe to the rest... :)
It will most certainly affect any writeable permanent redirected shares, AKA mapped drives, since the whole point of mapped drives is to create something that looks like a regular local storage volume.
It will *probably* walk the local network and affect nay shares it can access.
But - why take the chance? Always assume it will affect anything it could possibly write to.
Exodus versus BBN. That was 1998.
Funnily enough, in Romanian "ancheta" means "investigation".
Gotta love this...
and with its release, comes the obsolesence of the GNOME and KDE projects
*sigh*
Imminent deflation of that phrase's creator ego predicted...
No, the MS-PL does not say that. The MS-LPL ("Limited Permissive License" - hah) says that.
And what it says is basically "You can use stuff we release under this license only under Windows. You are not allowed to include this in code that executes on a platform other than Windows." It all rests in the interpretation of that little word "run", and Microsoft's interpretation is always all-inclusive, i.e. by "run" they don't mean "it can execute", they mean "it exclusively executes".
Business is a useful art.
Agreed.
Economics is a science.
Agreed under reserve.
BUT: Granted above, then
A better argument against business method patents is that they do not serve the common good.
define "common good", since you stated Economics is a science, patents are an economic issue, and you are trying to bring forth arguments.
ob nitpicking: It's "hookers", not "strippers" :).
As for md5... with only 32bits, it should've came up with repetitive hashes in end anyways?
Where'd you come up with the "32 bits" thing? It's 128.
I guess since the article explains some issues against md5 security, the only answer would be to trust the source that is supplying the hash in the first place?
That's always been the case.
Coming down to the fact that a system is only as secure as its user?
Oversimplfied. A system is only as secure as its weakest component (and yes, that's oversimplified too).
Daniel Bernstein: http://export.cr.yp.to/
Thermal depolymerization does not yield high-grade oil and it costs a lot to produce (or, rather, recycle) oil that way. Probably in excess of $70 a barrel. Just as the oil shale cooking, it's economically undesirable as long as there are richer sources around - after all, why would anyone ever exploit a technology that returns $30 profit for a barrel if one could someohow get control of one that returns $50 a barrel?
Ah, grasshopper, there's much you still have to find out.
I do, for example.
And what do you propose - not bothering even about raising awareness about the symptom, since raising awareness about the cause has been going on for years with less than stellar result?
ISC is at least doing *something*.
I posted about how much gentoo config handling sucks in the last slashdot story about gentoo, and I'll keep doing so until they do something to fix it.
They have, about 2 years ago. You just didn't happen to be, how should I put it... Informed? :)
Use dispatch-conf, and voila, your psychiatric bill should diminish considerably (because we're definitely in agreement on etc-update sucking bigtime.)
Actually, if I can ask a serious question, does multi-core work the same way as multi-processor? (ie. Two procs isn't twice is fast, but closer to 1.5x...)
Essentially, yes.
And if it is essentially the same, will this not inevitably lead to far denser blade servers? (Ie. Two 8-core chips on blade as opposed to two one-core chips on a blade.)
Obviously, yes.
as "Stallman uncompressed".
Why havent we seen anyone take the good bits from all the different Open Source java projects
Because of that little thing one calls license.
Of course, but I couldn't resist :)
after existing silicon is exhausted
Good one.
If you have XP Service Pack 2, and are behind a router, the ICMP vulernability is a non-issue. Your router responds to pings, not your computer.
:).
You probably mean "behind a NAT gateway using an IP number fom the Private Address range". If you're using a publicly routable IP number your host may happily respond to ICMP echo requests.
If you use Mozilla Firefox, the IE vulnerability is a non-issue as well.
You probably mean "if you use Mozilla Firefox and unless you're absolutely sure you don't and won't, ever, use the zillion other applications that embed mshtml.dll".
Generally though - patching is important even if you don't actively use the affected components. Security is not an on/off thing, it's about minimizing risk exposure. Why leave a potential hole unpatched? You never know when the existence of that hole may come back later and bite you in the ass when you least suspect it. Take it from someone who's been there
Then don't patch it. Nobody's forcing you to, since you can just not go to the Windows Update site, and can turn off Automatic Updates. :).
Just don't be surprised if things break later
Patching systems is a fact of life, under any operating system under the sun.
If a CSS standard falls on browser designers to implement, and no one implements it, was it really "the standard?"
You're using the word "standard" with two different meanings in a single sentence there - classic fallacy. The "standard" in "CSS standard" refers to a formal document published by an standardization body. It's the ideal that the browsers should aim for. The "standard" in the question part refers to a de facto standard. It's the current state of the art.
IANAL, but I don't think it's possible to "libel a community". The legal concept requires an entity to be the subject of libel - be it an individual, a corporation, an institution, etc. I.e., there must be an injured party, and a mindshare community can't be a party.
For example, if I called the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution a bunch of scumbags that will prostitute their writing skills to anyone paying them any little amount of money (in other words, cheap whores), that would be libel - not that I would call them that, or deary me, I would never, tsk, tsk :). But if I said that think thanks are mostly immoral institutions (which is analoguous to what they're doing with their FUD articles), that would not be libel.
See for example this URL: http://www.cyberlibel.com/libel.html.
If with laser technology A it costs me 4 cents to produce some laser, and with laser technology B it costs me 6 cents, then technology B is expensive since I'm losing 2 cents on each unit.