At the end of his discussion, he lists the email addresses of important folks at MSN so that the public could write and ask them to rethink the deal. I don't understand why he would ever want to do this. Did he really like being in business with them? Doesn't seem like it, but he's asking us to help him get them back.
If I were him, I would just be happy that I didn't have to deal with their tactics anymore.
I haven't been this excited about a novelization since I read the Stargate book for a class. Seriously though in that class, even the jocks were complaining about the literary validity of the book. When will the madness stop?
I think there's a bit more to it than just compliance to the standard. My understanding of C++ is that it doesn't define things like how class data is stored, standard name-mangling, etc. (And this is a hard thing to do, too.) So I guess that this is a good step towards compiler compatibility, but linking will probably still be a problem.
A lot of schools require their graduate students to do at least some TAing. Often they have English competency exams, but apparently, they aren't enough...
The FSF and the BSA are both enforcing licenses, true, but their motives are different. The BSA is fighting for the rights and profits of companies, while the FSF is fighting for your rights. Would you rather use software where there's a large organization fighting for your rights or fighting to take them away? I'll take the FSF, thank you.
Why do people use small sized keys? Because encrypting with them is faster. Presumably, this ability to break small keys comes in part because of cheaper hardware. Well, guess what? Normal consumers (without a billion dollar budget) can buy faster computers for less money now too! Make bigger keys - it won't take so long now...
This is a step in the right direction, but it won't be enough to make MS and other big vendors make their products secure. If technology users want security, they must demand it. The Air Force, while possibly a big customer, is most likely not the biggest that MS must deal with. If OEMs and large corporations demanded secure products, then we'd get somewhere. As it stands, MS doesn't really have to do much for the Air Force. If the AF wants to interact with much of the rest of the world, they have to use MS, secure or not.
Re:Please do correct me if I'm wrong, but
on
How to Save PGP
·
· Score: 1
It's already possible to break any encryption. The feasibility is the issue. Using brute force techniques, PGP takes a long, long time to break using today's computers, but it is possible. Quantum computers (if they are ever constructed) will only make the process much faster.
With websites becoming more and more complex, and the trend to move towards providing web services rather than application software, could something like this be the answer?
Whether or not Mr. Raskin is right, I think his point is certainly an interesting one that deserves more credit than you're giving it. Should we be building systems that cater to the hardware that we have or to humans? Building systems for people seems very reasonable to me.
The market should be able to handle a problem like this. If consumers (e.g. big businesses that depend on secure software) started demanding licenses that did not include the "we are not liable for anything" clause in software, the big manufacturers would have to start listening. This would keep a law out of the books that would potentially hurt free software development. Moreover, it would open the door for new business ventures in (1) insurance for software manufacturers and (2) free software support companies to sell the fact that they are liable.
Now, the big issue is... when are companies and individuals that buy software going to start demanding this stuff? Who knows? If companies like Walmart and MacDonald's, who have to power to make demands on big software manufacturers, would see this as important then the industry would probably follow along.
Slashdot Mirror
From the press release:
"And as always, education customers can receive copies of the StarOffice 6.0 office suite for the cost of media and shipping."
Sounds like it is at least quite cheap for any school kids (under 18 or not). I wonder what you have to do to qualify...
Anecdotal evidence is useless. Congress: commission a scientific study or stop wasting our tax dollars.
Lisa: Dad! The flash must have scrambled their circuits.
Homer: What are you, the narrator?
-- The Simpsons, Itchy and Scratchy Land, 2F01
At the end of his discussion, he lists the email addresses of important folks at MSN so that the public could write and ask them to rethink the deal. I don't understand why he would ever want to do this. Did he really like being in business with them? Doesn't seem like it, but he's asking us to help him get them back.
If I were him, I would just be happy that I didn't have to deal with their tactics anymore.
I haven't been this excited about a novelization since I read the Stargate book for a class. Seriously though in that class, even the jocks were complaining about the literary validity of the book. When will the madness stop?
I think there's a bit more to it than just compliance to the standard. My understanding of C++ is that it doesn't define things like how class data is stored, standard name-mangling, etc. (And this is a hard thing to do, too.) So I guess that this is a good step towards compiler compatibility, but linking will probably still be a problem.
The kernel has been pretty much tailored to gcc and many other compilers seem to have trouble with it.
Hmmm... open source highway signs? :)
I'd be happy with effective computing... ;)
Yeah, this is really great for all those geeks losing their jobs...
Big deal, my license plate features a lot of atoms. ;)
A lot of schools require their graduate students to do at least some TAing. Often they have English competency exams, but apparently, they aren't enough...
I'm going to have to vote for worldwide acceptance of siestas. It's all natural, cheap, and effective. What more could you ask for?
... the return of the Zeppelin?!?!
The FSF and the BSA are both enforcing licenses, true, but their motives are different. The BSA is fighting for the rights and profits of companies, while the FSF is fighting for your rights. Would you rather use software where there's a large organization fighting for your rights or fighting to take them away? I'll take the FSF, thank you.
I always wondered what the deal was with her song, "Hit me, baby, one more time."
If you turn off Javascript in Mozilla, it looks like you can load the page...
We're getting so many of these case mod stories, how about giving it its own category?
Why do people use small sized keys? Because encrypting with them is faster. Presumably, this ability to break small keys comes in part because of cheaper hardware. Well, guess what? Normal consumers (without a billion dollar budget) can buy faster computers for less money now too! Make bigger keys - it won't take so long now...
This is a step in the right direction, but it won't be enough to make MS and other big vendors make their products secure. If technology users want security, they must demand it. The Air Force, while possibly a big customer, is most likely not the biggest that MS must deal with. If OEMs and large corporations demanded secure products, then we'd get somewhere. As it stands, MS doesn't really have to do much for the Air Force. If the AF wants to interact with much of the rest of the world, they have to use MS, secure or not.
It's already possible to break any encryption. The feasibility is the issue. Using brute force techniques, PGP takes a long, long time to break using today's computers, but it is possible. Quantum computers (if they are ever constructed) will only make the process much faster.
With websites becoming more and more complex, and the trend to move towards providing web services rather than application software, could something like this be the answer?
The answer to what? The web works fine for me.
Whether or not Mr. Raskin is right, I think his point is certainly an interesting one that deserves more credit than you're giving it. Should we be building systems that cater to the hardware that we have or to humans? Building systems for people seems very reasonable to me.
The market should be able to handle a problem like this. If consumers (e.g. big businesses that depend on secure software) started demanding licenses that did not include the "we are not liable for anything" clause in software, the big manufacturers would have to start listening. This would keep a law out of the books that would potentially hurt free software development. Moreover, it would open the door for new business ventures in (1) insurance for software manufacturers and (2) free software support companies to sell the fact that they are liable.
Now, the big issue is... when are companies and individuals that buy software going to start demanding this stuff? Who knows? If companies like Walmart and MacDonald's, who have to power to make demands on big software manufacturers, would see this as important then the industry would probably follow along.
No big deal... we can always have Superman spin the world backwards... or is it forwards?