"This is what our customers expect and demand," says Steve Lipner, Microsoft's
director of security assurance. "Message received. We're working night and day
on security."
That's great, Steve. Except how long ago was this message sent - two years? four years? six years? You guys have had lousy security ever since you happened upon the 'net, and you're just now figuring out that it's important? Exactly how slow are your nervous systems, anyway?
Pretty much everything said from the Mouth of Microsoft these days is in CYA-mode, it seems to me.
Not to feed the troll (although it appears that the moderators are:), but:
f somebody wants
to give away a service for free, that's just fine, too: It's their service. In a free society they may do
as they please with it. However: Doing as you please with somebody else's service is a
different matter.
I think you're incorrect in this case - the whole point is for people to be able to do without Blizzard's service, not to use it for free. Nobody is stealing any time on battle.net that they haven't paid for; in fact it's quite the opposite - people have paid Blizzard money (some of which will hopefully go into sustaining battle.net) and now those people are not even making use of the service that they paid for, but are instead making use of a free service instead! I don't see Blizzard being ripped off here at all.
You can whine about "parasites" and make other such ad-hominem attacks, but in this case I don't think your argument holds water. People using bnetd have already paid everything that Blizzard is asking, so they're not parasites. People developing bnetd have created something of value (a free implementation of a proprietary service, which is even willing to work together with Blizzard for authentication purposes if they wish) and given it away for free, so they're certainly not parasites. Try as I might, I can't see any parasites here.
I hate to break it to you, but AOL's been holding Mozilla over Microsoft's head for years now in order to get a better deal on IE or whatever else it is that they're bargaining for. I'd love to see AOL+Mozilla, because it'd mean the end of IE-only pages, but I won't believe it until I see it.
The worst thing I see is a lack of a consistent way to select whether dotfiles are shown or not. I'd really like to turn these off so that my wife doesn't have to page past the ~100 config files in her home directory to get to her StarOffice docs, etc. but I can't turn this off in StarOffice, in Netscape, or in the standard GTK fileselection box. If you want to talk about a simple UI difference that is annoying to almost all ex-Windows users, this is it. Application programs (that wouldn't normally open dotfiles) should be set up by default to hide dotfiles, and allow the user to uncheck the box in order to see them - anyone who really wants to open a dotfile would know to change the setting in order to see them, anyway.
I don't think that this really counts as "compiling itself". IIRC, the gcc compilation instructions describe compiling gcc, and then using gcc to compile itself, and comparing the two compiles' outputs to make sure that they are the same.
So, compiling on Linux is good. But a build of the compiler doesn't really count as stable unless you can compile it with itself and find that it generates the same output.
Ah, now that makes more sense - some of that wording does sound familiar now that I think about it. So I could see where that part of the law would give such an impression.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you:)
Seriously, I don't see how anyone could look at Microsoft's history with respect to the software industry over the last 10 years and not be paranoid. Especially now that they're getting a little nervous about this whole Linux thing...
This is the same as a previous/. article about Microsoft's built-in bookmarks in IE being setup as redirects through Microsoft.com. The only difference is that your search terms might be a little more... personal... than just clicking on a standard IE bookmark would be.
I looked through Title 17, and although it does appear that the Audio Home Recording Act changed section 1008 to block action against someone for making a noncommercial recording, it doesn't appear to indemnify the average consumer for copyright infringement from sharing such a recording. It's true that the AHRA included royalty payments for some media and equipment, supposedly to make up for the copying that would go on once such devices and media exist. But I see nowhere in the law that it says that this allows such copies to be distributed. (Although maybe I'm not seeing such statements because they were removed by the DMCA?)
I understand that the sharing argument is the popular opinion of the law, and I'd like to find the legalism that actually proves this to be the case. But as far as I can tell based on my searches so far, the AHRA only allows you to make a tape for yourself; it doesn't allow you to share it around.
I don't see how sharing MP3s with your friends is any more legit than sharing them with the world, at least in the eyes of the law. There's no fair use exception for "but he's my best buddy, officer", is there?
To carry along the analogy, we've now prohibited nail clippers on aircraft, even though you couldn't (especially nowadays) take over an airplane with them.
And some misguided souls are considering prohibiting general-purpose computers to stop music sharing - again throwing the baby, the sink, and the nanny out with the bath water.
For a while his desktop didn't have any passwords on it, or at least that's the legend. Again, this was supposedly based on a moral understanding of the 'net as a cooperative network of individuals that were similarly high-minded and would treat your stuff as they treated their own.
Also, it probably helped that the early 'net community was so small that there wasn't a lot of anonymity. It's easier to trust "the world" when you have a good chance of finding anyone in "the world".
Better yet (and this isn't my idea, but I like it): hack it so that the delay starts small but then increases exponentially for every subsequent mail from a particular IP address within a set time period. So his friends can just send one or two emails quickly, but spammers will find that by email #20 it takes a minute or two to complete the send process.
Here in Pennsylvania at least, you have to show a valid picture ID with your DOB on it for an R
rated film. Everyone in your party has to, in order to see the movie.
I'm confused - "R" is "under 17 not permitted without a parent", right? So if I'm a parent, and I'm taking my kid who isn't under 17 and of course their ID shows it, how do they get in? It sounds like "R" has changed to "under 17 not permitted at all", which is what I thought NC-17 was.
You're exactly right about the children, IMHO (bearing in mind that of course I have none at the moment). You can only give them the guidelines and the framework for living their lives, hoping to set them on the right path. They walk down the path themselves, though.
Yeah, I know - those bastards whacked it right before showing the last two episodes, which, having not caught on to Adult Swim until recently, I'd never seen before! I don't understand why they're running Moose Und Squirrel during "Adult Swim" - it's not particularly "adult", I remember seeing the same cartoons at 3:30 PM after school when I was a kid.
Saturday nights it is for me, I guess. Not like I needed another reason to sleep in on Sundays:)
Slashdot Mirror
That's great, Steve. Except how long ago was this message sent - two years? four years? six years? You guys have had lousy security ever since you happened upon the 'net, and you're just now figuring out that it's important? Exactly how slow are your nervous systems, anyway?
Pretty much everything said from the Mouth of Microsoft these days is in CYA-mode, it seems to me.
Was this after he got done watching DivX movies on his Commodore?
Not to feed the troll (although it appears that the moderators are :), but:
I think you're incorrect in this case - the whole point is for people to be able to do without Blizzard's service, not to use it for free. Nobody is stealing any time on battle.net that they haven't paid for; in fact it's quite the opposite - people have paid Blizzard money (some of which will hopefully go into sustaining battle.net) and now those people are not even making use of the service that they paid for, but are instead making use of a free service instead! I don't see Blizzard being ripped off here at all.
You can whine about "parasites" and make other such ad-hominem attacks, but in this case I don't think your argument holds water. People using bnetd have already paid everything that Blizzard is asking, so they're not parasites. People developing bnetd have created something of value (a free implementation of a proprietary service, which is even willing to work together with Blizzard for authentication purposes if they wish) and given it away for free, so they're certainly not parasites. Try as I might, I can't see any parasites here.
Well, if they still made me give back the money, then I'd be a lot less willing...
There's another post above that explains how to do it (sorta).
I hate to break it to you, but AOL's been holding Mozilla over Microsoft's head for years now in order to get a better deal on IE or whatever else it is that they're bargaining for. I'd love to see AOL+Mozilla, because it'd mean the end of IE-only pages, but I won't believe it until I see it.
I stand corrected - I was thinking three stage when I posted originally, but then I thought "naaah, nobody's that paranoid.
Guess I was wrong about that :)
Why not? It's easy, fun, and a good feeling of accomplishment the first time you do it successfully :)
You are a jelly donut?
The worst thing I see is a lack of a consistent way to select whether dotfiles are shown or not. I'd really like to turn these off so that my wife doesn't have to page past the ~100 config files in her home directory to get to her StarOffice docs, etc. but I can't turn this off in StarOffice, in Netscape, or in the standard GTK fileselection box. If you want to talk about a simple UI difference that is annoying to almost all ex-Windows users, this is it. Application programs (that wouldn't normally open dotfiles) should be set up by default to hide dotfiles, and allow the user to uncheck the box in order to see them - anyone who really wants to open a dotfile would know to change the setting in order to see them, anyway.
I don't think that this really counts as "compiling itself". IIRC, the gcc compilation instructions describe compiling gcc, and then using gcc to compile itself, and comparing the two compiles' outputs to make sure that they are the same.
So, compiling on Linux is good. But a build of the compiler doesn't really count as stable unless you can compile it with itself and find that it generates the same output.
Ah, now that makes more sense - some of that wording does sound familiar now that I think about it. So I could see where that part of the law would give such an impression.
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you :)
Seriously, I don't see how anyone could look at Microsoft's history with respect to the software industry over the last 10 years and not be paranoid. Especially now that they're getting a little nervous about this whole Linux thing...
This is the same as a previous /. article about Microsoft's built-in bookmarks in IE being setup as redirects through Microsoft.com. The only difference is that your search terms might be a little more ... personal ... than just clicking on a standard IE bookmark would be.
Repeat after me:
Voilá
Voilá
Voilá
Voilá
Voilá
Now go, and bring up that red-haired stepchild of a violin no more!
I looked through Title 17, and although it does appear that the Audio Home Recording Act changed section 1008 to block action against someone for making a noncommercial recording, it doesn't appear to indemnify the average consumer for copyright infringement from sharing such a recording. It's true that the AHRA included royalty payments for some media and equipment, supposedly to make up for the copying that would go on once such devices and media exist. But I see nowhere in the law that it says that this allows such copies to be distributed. (Although maybe I'm not seeing such statements because they were removed by the DMCA?)
I understand that the sharing argument is the popular opinion of the law, and I'd like to find the legalism that actually proves this to be the case. But as far as I can tell based on my searches so far, the AHRA only allows you to make a tape for yourself; it doesn't allow you to share it around.
I don't see how sharing MP3s with your friends is any more legit than sharing them with the world, at least in the eyes of the law. There's no fair use exception for "but he's my best buddy, officer", is there?
To carry along the analogy, we've now prohibited nail clippers on aircraft, even though you couldn't (especially nowadays) take over an airplane with them.
And some misguided souls are considering prohibiting general-purpose computers to stop music sharing - again throwing the baby, the sink, and the nanny out with the bath water.
"Y'know, foxnews became a soft-core porn site so gradually that I never even noticed."
For a while his desktop didn't have any passwords on it, or at least that's the legend. Again, this was supposedly based on a moral understanding of the 'net as a cooperative network of individuals that were similarly high-minded and would treat your stuff as they treated their own.
Also, it probably helped that the early 'net community was so small that there wasn't a lot of anonymity. It's easier to trust "the world" when you have a good chance of finding anyone in "the world".
Better yet (and this isn't my idea, but I like it): hack it so that the delay starts small but then increases exponentially for every subsequent mail from a particular IP address within a set time period. So his friends can just send one or two emails quickly, but spammers will find that by email #20 it takes a minute or two to complete the send process.
Those damn trolls - now they're filling up the RFCs with their page-widening tricks. The horror!
The lameness filter wouldn't pass.
I'm confused - "R" is "under 17 not permitted without a parent", right? So if I'm a parent, and I'm taking my kid who isn't under 17 and of course their ID shows it, how do they get in? It sounds like "R" has changed to "under 17 not permitted at all", which is what I thought NC-17 was.
You're exactly right about the children, IMHO (bearing in mind that of course I have none at the moment). You can only give them the guidelines and the framework for living their lives, hoping to set them on the right path. They walk down the path themselves, though.
"You two girls!"
Yeah, I know - those bastards whacked it right before showing the last two episodes, which, having not caught on to Adult Swim until recently, I'd never seen before! I don't understand why they're running Moose Und Squirrel during "Adult Swim" - it's not particularly "adult", I remember seeing the same cartoons at 3:30 PM after school when I was a kid.
Saturday nights it is for me, I guess. Not like I needed another reason to sleep in on Sundays :)