Suggestion to timothy and any other editor: if it's nearly impossible for a thread to contain interesting, insightful, or informative posts, perhaps you should rethink publishing it to the front page. Beyond a few wisecracks and a lot of (deserved, IMO) bitching, what else is there really to say about these... these... monkeys?
Here are your mod choices for 99% of this stuffed monkey thread: funny, overrated, underrated, off-topic, troll.
See the previous post. You already have fraud protection.
See my post. I obviously know that. If by "previous post" you mean the prior reply... I think the point that was being made was that even the $50 minimum is rarely (if ever) demanded. Note the word "either".
If you're crazy enough to buy that 30$ item or that 200$ basket with a GOLD Visa that has no protection, you're asking for trouble. The most basic way to protect yourself is to [...] get a visa or mastercard with insurance/protection for that kind of fraud.
No, the most basic form of protection is to not have a card at all. Seriously, though, as others have pointed out elsewhere, there are federal liability statues that limit fradulent purchase charges to, at most, $50. Enrolling in fraud protection programs offered by credit card companies it just not worth it -- over the lifetime of the card, balanced against the risk of a fraudulent charge appearing on your statement in excess of $50, you're paying for more than you're getting.
Banks are to blame on this though[...]
I suspect a fair amount of exaggeration here. I will agree that "bank cards" that act as credit accounts area danger. They are not subject to the same fraud protection that "true" credit accounts are. I wouldn't fault the banks for that headache, though, I'd blame consumers who flash them around without considering the consequences. Sometimes, I wonder whether VISA check cards and their ilk were such a good idea at all.
Your points about the significance of proper software development are important. However, the issues aren't confined to "e-merchants", as brick and mortar merchants are quite open to credit fraud, too.
This is not the first time credit card thieves have used hacked online merchant accounts to test cards.
They then go on to talk about an earlier MSNBC expose reported in April. I suspect the testing of credit gateways happens far more often that MSNBC suggests. Actually, I was a "victim" of this sort of authorization fraud last month -- someone in Czechoslovakia breached a transaction system in North Carolina, posting $0.01 charges, then following up with larger charges for goods delivered to El Paso. Lovely. I only got hit up for the initial cent before cancelling the card, but the person with whom I spoke mentioned that many more people were tapped through their system.
People: check those statements. So many friends of mine don't, holding on to bank-issued VISA debit cards and not bothering to account for their money apart from "do I have anything in my account now that I'm standing in from of an ATM?"
So the porn industry is the only content makers who are bold enough to venture and do something new?
I think that old saw is getting a bit rusty. You do realize that Bertelsman was there (wherever "there" is) first w/r/t Napster, don't you? Not that anything came of it, but I don't think one pr0n company's interest in the Napster brand means the whole industry is bold enough to go where no [whatever] has gone before...
Unless there are premium pr0n p2p products produced presently. Are there? I, myself, wouldn't know.
The point is that the decision to fix the problem is not left solely to a large corporation that only cares about the numbers on its ledger.
No, I don't believe the point has anything to do with the demonization of corporate America. One might be tempted to argue that a business charging for software services would be more willing (or, at least, "smart") to correct flaws in their products because failure to do so might impact their bottom line (e.g., loss of consumer confidence). Obviously, things could go either way, but the level of support afforded to software need not be impacted determined by the presence or absence of a corresponding financial transaction.
Nevertheless, you are still much more likely to obtain a fix because the source is freely available.
And developers are always freely (in any sense of the word) available for any project. Right. Whatever.
If you don't provide the fix (or pay someone to provide the fix), then somebody else probably will, provided it is a large enough problem.
Which returns me to a core issue I originally raised: cost to the end-user. This may be a greater burden than you imagine in a number of cases. It may even be an issue with otherwise active and responsive developers who simply don't agree that your problems are significant or worth their time. It's an easy out for you to take in arguing that money can solve any problem the end-user might encounter. Should the costs associated with using an open source package rise too high, the importance of whether said package is open or not is largely moot. Users will simply go elsewhere.
[S]ince open source developers tend to care more about the quality of their software than financial gain to be had[...]
I would love to live in the world you do, but OSS developers still need to earn a living and the quality of a software package is measured by the quality of its developer contributions, not the licensing by which it is governed. I would suggest you remove your rose-tinted spectacles.
You are waiting for a much larger group of people to fix a security flaw that they are much closer too.
Only if we happen to be considering a software package that attracted a larger group of developers who are actively interested in fixing a problem you face in using it. It's nice that Konqueror was fixed so quickly, but what if we're talking about something other than Konq? What if we're in a position closer to the topic of this whole topic (i.e., a word processing program over five years old and a couple generations behind)? That might change the picture a bit, don't you think? What if those who can fix the problem aren't "closer" because they don't agree the issue is as significant to them as it is to you, the user?
The point is that a lot of other people *can* even if you *can't*, and that does give you value in the end.
No, the original point I was trying to make is that those who speak of open source initiatives in glowing terms of user empowerment need to be more aware of the intricacies involved. This is especially true when (as with the poster to whom I was responding) generalizes the benefit to encompass all end-users to the extent that we all become capable of fixing things for ourselves.
I'll engage your point (above) a bit: That many people are given the opportunity to inspect the source to a program offers no guarantees it will benefit you, as a particular end-user. For a number of projects it does. For others, it won't. [1] For others, the crush of feedback from other users may actually interefere with your own use of a program. [2] Any number of outcomes are possible, and I haven't really seen solid, empirical evidence that the benefit of open source to the end-user applies in a majority of cases.
The fact that one doesn't have to work for General Motors in order to be able to do maintenence on my car causes there to be more information about my car out there, more choices of mechanics to go to, and lower prices for repairs.
The above analysis treads on new ground, that of obtaining contract work at a reasonable rate [3] and of developing a population of users and developers where free market forces will lead to reasonable fees [4] and sound distribution channels.
It's not that I don't think benefit never accrues for the end-user, I just think everyone involved needs to be a bit more realistic about the true benefit of open source, its strengths and its limitations.
[1] The case of an end-user stuck with software with no identifiable, active, or accommodating developer base comes to mind. See [3] as well for the challenge of perception (i.e., "will anyone think my issue worth fixing?").
[2] Instances of so-called "bloatware" applications would apply here (e.g., the Mozilla Project, for some).
[3] See my questioning of individual cost here.
[4] See the remarkably insightful response to [3] here - moderators, kubrick really deserves a mod upward, IMO.
If I took the novel Moby Dick and shifted every letter one to the right, could I publish that? Probably.
I believe an author could rather easily (and successfully) argue that your character-for-character "shifted" re-publication [Moby Dick is not the best example] is (a) fully anticipated by the existing notion of "derivative works" and (b) a clear violation of copyright law.
How would one argue that the "shifted" version *wasn't* wholly derived from the original? Seems to me copyright law protects the author from such silliness, even without technology that would enable every consumer to translate the new work back into the original.
You don't see the pr0n stars complaining and thier, um stuff, get's traded more heavily than the copywritten music on KaZaA.
No, not the stars, but the copyright holders on all that pr0n care. I don't know how this has eluded the like of/. yet, but read the CNN/Money piece entitled
"Porn outfit bids for Napster"
from yesterday:
Private Media Group Inc., a publicly traded adult entertainment site based in Spain, offered 1 million shares for Napster's assets.
[...]
In a statement, Private Media said it plans to use the Napster trademark to offer millions of adults worldwide the ability to swap adult-oriented content for free and at the same time gain access to "top-quality" content at a reasonable price.
[...]
"Along with Hollywood and the recording industry, we have become increasingly concerned about the level of copyright infringement inherent in the free peer-to-peer file-swapping services," [Private Media CEO Charles] Prast said.
[T]he point is that you CAN. WIth closed-source products, you don't even have that option [to correct flaws yourself].
No, no, no. The point is that one MAY. One has the right to, and one has access to the building materials. In no way does that grant one the ability to implement [nearly any significant set of] fixes. It is unfortunate the distinction is either lost or assumed in these discussions.
Just another argument for using open-source software whenever you possibly can. If you discover a bug like this and the author isn't willing to fix it, you can always fix it yourself. Why would you ever want to leave this decision to someone else?
Yeah, 'cuz whenever I suspect a shortcoming in the Linux kernel, I break out emacs and beat it back into shape. Right. After I correct any perceived shortcomings in emacs, that is.
I could always hire or convince someone else to fix a problem for me (with open source software), but that might rapidly amount to an obscene monetary of temporal cost (for an individual to bear) after adding up each fix requested, and doing so still leaves the decision to someone else.
So, I basically have to be able to (a) understand and (b) correct the code "behind" the software packages I use in order to derive full benefit from open source software? That line of thinking doesn't seem very compelling to me.
Nine times out of ten (at least), the only difference is that I, as an end-user, am waiting for a different group of people to improve the products I use. Maybe they'll fix it, maybe they won't -- because, as you point out:
[M]ost users find that the bugs they consider to be "major" are different than those other users might consider important, based on the way they happen to use the software.
What you don't realize is that they're still speaking in the present tense and implying that [other colleges] are biting off of Dartmouth and implementing 802.11b at their campuses.
What you don't realize is that the sentence fragment "schools are deploying" is technically a present contiuous construction that reasonably could be interpreted to signify a long-term activity still ongoing. I would guess all these colleges continue to develop their networks regardless of when each began. No?
Plenty of other schools have had this stuff for a long time now. Yes, the article's interesting if you're into networking and/or wireless data transmission, but their explicit focus on Dartmouth makes it seem as though they're unique and trendsetting.
Dude. Seriously. Did you read the article at all?
Quote:
And Dartmouth isn't alone. From Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh to UC San Diego, American University, UT Dallas, and the University of Minnesota, dozens of schools are deploying wireless networks and turning students loose... I feel that could have at least given credit to other schools that were at least equally as deserving.
Slashdot Mirror
Why would [Private Media] want to use a brand name that was almost entirely devoted to copyright violation?
Probably for the same reason Bertelsman got involved: brand recognition.
Alternate theory: PM doesn't want Napster, they want press.
ps. I think I sampled the statement better yesterday -- who's Prast again? :p
Suggestion to timothy and any other editor: if it's nearly impossible for a thread to contain interesting, insightful, or informative posts, perhaps you should rethink publishing it to the front page. Beyond a few wisecracks and a lot of (deserved, IMO) bitching, what else is there really to say about these... these... monkeys?
Here are your mod choices for 99% of this stuffed monkey thread: funny, overrated, underrated, off-topic, troll.
Seriously.
See the previous post. You already have fraud protection.
See my post. I obviously know that. If by "previous post" you mean the prior reply... I think the point that was being made was that even the $50 minimum is rarely (if ever) demanded. Note the word "either".
If you're crazy enough to buy that 30$ item or that 200$ basket with a GOLD Visa that has no protection, you're asking for trouble. The most basic way to protect yourself is to [...] get a visa or mastercard with insurance/protection for that kind of fraud.
No, the most basic form of protection is to not have a card at all. Seriously, though, as others have pointed out elsewhere, there are federal liability statues that limit fradulent purchase charges to, at most, $50. Enrolling in fraud protection programs offered by credit card companies it just not worth it -- over the lifetime of the card, balanced against the risk of a fraudulent charge appearing on your statement in excess of $50, you're paying for more than you're getting.
Banks are to blame on this though[...]
I suspect a fair amount of exaggeration here. I will agree that "bank cards" that act as credit accounts area danger. They are not subject to the same fraud protection that "true" credit accounts are. I wouldn't fault the banks for that headache, though, I'd blame consumers who flash them around without considering the consequences. Sometimes, I wonder whether VISA check cards and their ilk were such a good idea at all.
Your points about the significance of proper software development are important. However, the issues aren't confined to "e-merchants", as brick and mortar merchants are quite open to credit fraud, too.
Duh. From the article:
They then go on to talk about an earlier MSNBC expose reported in April. I suspect the testing of credit gateways happens far more often that MSNBC suggests. Actually, I was a "victim" of this sort of authorization fraud last month -- someone in Czechoslovakia breached a transaction system in North Carolina, posting $0.01 charges, then following up with larger charges for goods delivered to El Paso. Lovely. I only got hit up for the initial cent before cancelling the card, but the person with whom I spoke mentioned that many more people were tapped through their system.
People: check those statements. So many friends of mine don't, holding on to bank-issued VISA debit cards and not bothering to account for their money apart from "do I have anything in my account now that I'm standing in from of an ATM?"
They went up a hill, and came down a WiFi tower.
Too cute for your own damn good.
So the porn industry is the only content makers who are bold enough to venture and do something new?
I think that old saw is getting a bit rusty. You do realize that Bertelsman was there (wherever "there" is) first w/r/t Napster, don't you? Not that anything came of it, but I don't think one pr0n company's interest in the Napster brand means the whole industry is bold enough to go where no [whatever] has gone before...
Unless there are premium pr0n p2p products produced presently. Are there? I, myself, wouldn't know.
The point is that the decision to fix the problem is not left solely to a large corporation that only cares about the numbers on its ledger.
No, I don't believe the point has anything to do with the demonization of corporate America. One might be tempted to argue that a business charging for software services would be more willing (or, at least, "smart") to correct flaws in their products because failure to do so might impact their bottom line (e.g., loss of consumer confidence). Obviously, things could go either way, but the level of support afforded to software need not be impacted determined by the presence or absence of a corresponding financial transaction.
Nevertheless, you are still much more likely to obtain a fix because the source is freely available.
And developers are always freely (in any sense of the word) available for any project. Right. Whatever.
If you don't provide the fix (or pay someone to provide the fix), then somebody else probably will, provided it is a large enough problem.
Which returns me to a core issue I originally raised: cost to the end-user. This may be a greater burden than you imagine in a number of cases. It may even be an issue with otherwise active and responsive developers who simply don't agree that your problems are significant or worth their time. It's an easy out for you to take in arguing that money can solve any problem the end-user might encounter. Should the costs associated with using an open source package rise too high, the importance of whether said package is open or not is largely moot. Users will simply go elsewhere.
[S]ince open source developers tend to care more about the quality of their software than financial gain to be had[...]
I would love to live in the world you do, but OSS developers still need to earn a living and the quality of a software package is measured by the quality of its developer contributions, not the licensing by which it is governed. I would suggest you remove your rose-tinted spectacles.
You are waiting for a much larger group of people to fix a security flaw that they are much closer too.
Only if we happen to be considering a software package that attracted a larger group of developers who are actively interested in fixing a problem you face in using it. It's nice that Konqueror was fixed so quickly, but what if we're talking about something other than Konq? What if we're in a position closer to the topic of this whole topic (i.e., a word processing program over five years old and a couple generations behind)? That might change the picture a bit, don't you think? What if those who can fix the problem aren't "closer" because they don't agree the issue is as significant to them as it is to you, the user?
The point is that a lot of other people *can* even if you *can't*, and that does give you value in the end.
No, the original point I was trying to make is that those who speak of open source initiatives in glowing terms of user empowerment need to be more aware of the intricacies involved. This is especially true when (as with the poster to whom I was responding) generalizes the benefit to encompass all end-users to the extent that we all become capable of fixing things for ourselves.
I'll engage your point (above) a bit: That many people are given the opportunity to inspect the source to a program offers no guarantees it will benefit you, as a particular end-user. For a number of projects it does. For others, it won't. [1] For others, the crush of feedback from other users may actually interefere with your own use of a program. [2] Any number of outcomes are possible, and I haven't really seen solid, empirical evidence that the benefit of open source to the end-user applies in a majority of cases.
The fact that one doesn't have to work for General Motors in order to be able to do maintenence on my car causes there to be more information about my car out there, more choices of mechanics to go to, and lower prices for repairs.
The above analysis treads on new ground, that of obtaining contract work at a reasonable rate [3] and of developing a population of users and developers where free market forces will lead to reasonable fees [4] and sound distribution channels.
It's not that I don't think benefit never accrues for the end-user, I just think everyone involved needs to be a bit more realistic about the true benefit of open source, its strengths and its limitations.
[1] The case of an end-user stuck with software with no identifiable, active, or accommodating developer base comes to mind. See [3] as well for the challenge of perception (i.e., "will anyone think my issue worth fixing?").
[2] Instances of so-called "bloatware" applications would apply here (e.g., the Mozilla Project, for some).
[3] See my questioning of individual cost here.
[4] See the remarkably insightful response to [3] here - moderators, kubrick really deserves a mod upward, IMO.
If I took the novel Moby Dick and shifted every letter one to the right, could I publish that? Probably.
I believe an author could rather easily (and successfully) argue that your character-for-character "shifted" re-publication [Moby Dick is not the best example] is (a) fully anticipated by the existing notion of "derivative works" and (b) a clear violation of copyright law. How would one argue that the "shifted" version *wasn't* wholly derived from the original? Seems to me copyright law protects the author from such silliness, even without technology that would enable every consumer to translate the new work back into the original.
You don't see the pr0n stars complaining and thier, um stuff, get's traded more heavily than the copywritten music on KaZaA.
No, not the stars, but the copyright holders on all that pr0n care. I don't know how this has eluded the like of /. yet, but read the CNN/Money piece entitled
"Porn outfit bids for Napster"
from yesterday:
HAND
[T]he point is that you CAN. WIth closed-source products, you don't even have that option [to correct flaws yourself].
No, no, no. The point is that one MAY. One has the right to, and one has access to the building materials. In no way does that grant one the ability to implement [nearly any significant set of] fixes. It is unfortunate the distinction is either lost or assumed in these discussions.
I think that there are bugs and then there are bugs. And this certainly falls into the latte category.
Is that category a short, tall, grande, or venti?
Just another argument for using open-source software whenever you possibly can. If you discover a bug like this and the author isn't willing to fix it, you can always fix it yourself. Why would you ever want to leave this decision to someone else?
Yeah, 'cuz whenever I suspect a shortcoming in the Linux kernel, I break out emacs and beat it back into shape. Right. After I correct any perceived shortcomings in emacs, that is.
I could always hire or convince someone else to fix a problem for me (with open source software), but that might rapidly amount to an obscene monetary of temporal cost (for an individual to bear) after adding up each fix requested, and doing so still leaves the decision to someone else.
So, I basically have to be able to (a) understand and (b) correct the code "behind" the software packages I use in order to derive full benefit from open source software? That line of thinking doesn't seem very compelling to me.
Nine times out of ten (at least), the only difference is that I, as an end-user, am waiting for a different group of people to improve the products I use. Maybe they'll fix it, maybe they won't -- because, as you point out:
Food for thought?
What you don't realize is that they're still speaking in the present tense and implying that [other colleges] are biting off of Dartmouth and implementing 802.11b at their campuses.
What you don't realize is that the sentence fragment "schools are deploying" is technically a present contiuous construction that reasonably could be interpreted to signify a long-term activity still ongoing. I would guess all these colleges continue to develop their networks regardless of when each began. No?
Should I change my nick to grammarnazi now?
The page is not widened, it is longened.
I prefer the term embiggened.
Me fail English? That's unpossible.
D'oh! The following was part of the OP, not the article:
Dude?
Plenty of other schools have had this stuff for a long time now. Yes, the article's interesting if you're into networking and/or wireless data transmission, but their explicit focus on Dartmouth makes it seem as though they're unique and trendsetting.
Dude. Seriously. Did you read the article at all? Quote:
Dude. Seriously.
You forget, that (original) quote was used in Star Trek VI, so all the resident Trekkers will recognise it[.]
The OP also forgets that the quotation was also present in the Oliver Stone flick "Nixon", so all the resident conspiracy theorists will...
Wait a minute, I just realized... It all makes sense now! Where's my tinfoil hat?
When is China going to get its own topical icon?
Linux is so Derelicte.
Shameless. Simply shameless.
This just in ....
Fucked Company doesn't really care one way or the other, it's just another reason to post pictures of Pud on Ginger and develop their trolling skills.
In other words, does anyone really think any media source has *the* inside scoop on Segway production?
I realize that was their plan.
It's funny. Laugh? Maybe it's not-so-funny...