Obviously, MSFT is not responsible for releasing trojans and viruses; they are responsible for the software bugs that allowed those trojans in the first place, and they are responsible for their inaction once they were informed of those bugs.
People need to accept responsibility for their own actions.
Certainly they do. If they knowingly installed faulty software on their systems, they have no one to blame but themselves. Similarly, Microsoft needs to accept responsibility for their willful actions and omissions that caused million dollar losses to paying customers. It cuts both ways.
You should be entitled to the full price of Internet Explorer. Oh wait.. they offer it for free.
They don't. By their own testimony, IE is an integral part of their operating system. And indeed, several important operations in Windows are impossible to perform without IE installed. The operating system is not free, and neither are its integral parts.
couldn't one get in trouble if one were to say "My research has indicated that 5.99 million jewish people were killed by the Nazis. The 6 million figure is wrong."?
No one could not. I am currently sitting in Germany, and I will say this: "The 6 million figure may very well be too high, given the fact that the estimates of murders in Auschwitz were for a long time inflated by the Polish government and have only recently been adjusted to the current estimates of about 1.1 million."
The key word is "islamist" nowadays, not "socialist". Try to put an essay in enthusiastic support of Al Kaida on your website and see how far the freedom-of-speech guarantees of the US bill of rights get you.
Maybe you should check your facts first. It's perfectly legal to read "Mein Kampf" in Germany. It's not possible to print it however, as the government of Bavaria holds the world-wide copyright and won't agree to publication. A commented version of the book is available in every public library.
Maybe you're referring to the fact that in Germany it is illegal to deny the facts of the Holocaust. That is indeed forbidden, as it should be, out of respect for the victims.
The USA is far from perfect, but it's the best place around.
Yeah well, "Land of the Free". Call me back once your government allows you to have a vacation in Cuba, and once you have legal brothels all over the country.
I have a master's in computer science, and even after reading your post, I have absolutely no clue what this software is supposed to do for me. What problem does it solve, what is a typical use case?
are there any other windows browsers that people can run that won't suffer from the exploit?
Yes. Mozilla. It does not have this vulnerability nor any of the numerous other unpatched IE security vulnerabilites. Plus it offers nice tabbed browsing and a working popup blocker. It works on all operating systems and is free. There's really no reason not to use it.
If your friend sends you an URL via email, will you visit the site with IE? If yes, then you are vulnerable. (The email was of course not really sent by your friend, but by a worm on your friend's computer.)
Doesn't solve the problem at all. Restricted users can send out spam and virus email or start DDOS attacks just the same. I don't know offhand if a restricted user can start a program that monitors traffic on the LAN, but I wouldn't be surprised. (Probably you have to exploit another Windows vulnerability first.) If so, then it could go ahead and happily broadcast all found passwords to an irc channel.
The mentioned vulnerability is being exploited by many porn sites. In Mozilla, you often get "ms-its: unknown protocol" when surfing to sites in Russia.
Obviously, programs can contain logical errors, compilers can contain bugs, hardware can be faulty. So you can't trust computer calculations in proofs.
However, you certainly cannot trust peer-reviewed human generated math proofs either. Virtually every mathematical article contains mistakes. Most of the time, these are small mistakes in the proofs that can be fixed in one afternoon. Occasionally there are gaps in proofs that take a couple of months to fill. And it also happens that the "proven" statements turn out to be completely false.
So the best thing is a proof that humans have checked and that has been formalized and the formalization has been checked by a computer (like the Mizar people are doing). Of course, you cannot trust the results either.
I find this often repeated argument exceptionally weak. No laws are going to stop murder either. One hopes that laws against murder decrease the incidence of murder, just like Ashcroft hopes that laws against porn decrease the incidence of porn.
The correct argument is of course: every person has an inherent right to watch what another person wants to perform.
Re:Buffering....
on
Real Problems
·
· Score: 2, Informative
mplayer -ao pcm followed by sox is also very nice for converting a given real audio stream to an.ogg. I like to do it in a cron script to time shift and archive my favorite radio shows.
Limiting the powers granted to the president under the constitution is a contradiction of the constatution.
The constitution does not say that the President has the right to order the military to do whatever he wants. Now, for the sake of argument, assume that it did. Then signing the international treaty was clearly fraudulent: the U.S. promised to behave in one way, yet silently reserved the right to behave in some other way should they feel like it. Going against the treaty remains a breach of international law, even if not a breach of American law.
Resolution 1441, declaring Iraq in material breech of previous resolutions, the punishment for which was to be war.
Paragraph 2 of that resolution explicitly says that Iraq will get another opportunity to comply.
And who said anything about Powell's presentation? Who cares about it?
Recognizing that 1441 didn't authorize war, the U.S. attempted to get another resolution. For that purpose, Powell gave his infamous presentation, and nobody bought it. No new resolution was forthcoming, so the U.S. attacked without authorization.
However, the decision of whether a certain entity has a certain right is ultimately a moral decision. Does an author have a right to prevent others from copying their book? Does a fetus have a right to life? Does a dog have a right not to be tortured? Does a doctor have the right to assist a terminally ill patient in dying? Does a kid have a right to a free education?
But you seem to not realize that although we are bound by treaties made by foreign powers, it's been ruled by our supreme court that no matter what, the constitution overrules all. And the constitution says that the president is the commander-in-chief, and so that is what he is, able to do what he wants with the military, without fear of limitations by other treaties or decisions made by bodies created under them.
Are you saying that foreign treaties are binding, except if the president prefers to ignore them?
I read in the constitution that foreign treaties approved by the Senate are binding law; I don't see an exception for the president; further I don't find any support for your claim that "commander-in-chief" means he is "able to do what he wants with the military".
you seem to forget that under Chapters 5,6,7,8, and 12 of the charter of the UN, the security council has the right to wage war, (article 41, chapter 7)
...which the security council explicitly refused to do in this case. Nobody was convinced by Powell's presentation, and now we all know that it was indeed fraudulent.
Slashdot Mirror
Obviously, MSFT is not responsible for releasing trojans and viruses; they are responsible for the software bugs that allowed those trojans in the first place, and they are responsible for their inaction once they were informed of those bugs.
Certainly they do. If they knowingly installed faulty software on their systems, they have no one to blame but themselves. Similarly, Microsoft needs to accept responsibility for their willful actions and omissions that caused million dollar losses to paying customers. It cuts both ways.
They don't. By their own testimony, IE is an integral part of their operating system. And indeed, several important operations in Windows are impossible to perform without IE installed. The operating system is not free, and neither are its integral parts.
No one could not. I am currently sitting in Germany, and I will say this: "The 6 million figure may very well be too high, given the fact that the estimates of murders in Auschwitz were for a long time inflated by the Polish government and have only recently been adjusted to the current estimates of about 1.1 million."
The key word is "islamist" nowadays, not "socialist". Try to put an essay in enthusiastic support of Al Kaida on your website and see how far the freedom-of-speech guarantees of the US bill of rights get you.
Maybe you're referring to the fact that in Germany it is illegal to deny the facts of the Holocaust. That is indeed forbidden, as it should be, out of respect for the victims.
Yeah well, "Land of the Free". Call me back once your government allows you to have a vacation in Cuba, and once you have legal brothels all over the country.
I need for what?
I have a master's in computer science, and even after reading your post, I have absolutely no clue what this software is supposed to do for me. What problem does it solve, what is a typical use case?
Yes. Mozilla. It does not have this vulnerability nor any of the numerous other unpatched IE security vulnerabilites. Plus it offers nice tabbed browsing and a working popup blocker. It works on all operating systems and is free. There's really no reason not to use it.
I wonder if people using this Mozilla plugin are vulnerable though.
If your friend sends you an URL via email, will you visit the site with IE? If yes, then you are vulnerable. (The email was of course not really sent by your friend, but by a worm on your friend's computer.)
Doesn't solve the problem at all. Restricted users can send out spam and virus email or start DDOS attacks just the same. I don't know offhand if a restricted user can start a program that monitors traffic on the LAN, but I wouldn't be surprised. (Probably you have to exploit another Windows vulnerability first.) If so, then it could go ahead and happily broadcast all found passwords to an irc channel.
The mentioned vulnerability is being exploited by many porn sites. In Mozilla, you often get "ms-its: unknown protocol" when surfing to sites in Russia.
However, you certainly cannot trust peer-reviewed human generated math proofs either. Virtually every mathematical article contains mistakes. Most of the time, these are small mistakes in the proofs that can be fixed in one afternoon. Occasionally there are gaps in proofs that take a couple of months to fill. And it also happens that the "proven" statements turn out to be completely false.
So the best thing is a proof that humans have checked and that has been formalized and the formalization has been checked by a computer (like the Mizar people are doing). Of course, you cannot trust the results either.
I find this often repeated argument exceptionally weak. No laws are going to stop murder either. One hopes that laws against murder decrease the incidence of murder, just like Ashcroft hopes that laws against porn decrease the incidence of porn.
The correct argument is of course: every person has an inherent right to watch what another person wants to perform.
mplayer -ao pcm followed by sox is also very nice for converting a given real audio stream to an .ogg. I like to do it in a cron script to time shift and archive my favorite radio shows.
Yeah, or like imgSeek. Although those two programs deal with 2-D images, not with 3-D parts.
So I presume you fight for money and knowledge? Who exactly fights against money and knowledge?
In other words: you want it to be illegal. For purely moral reasons.
The ones representing your country, obviously. How many U.S. Senators did you elect to their positions?
The constitution does not say that the President has the right to order the military to do whatever he wants. Now, for the sake of argument, assume that it did. Then signing the international treaty was clearly fraudulent: the U.S. promised to behave in one way, yet silently reserved the right to behave in some other way should they feel like it. Going against the treaty remains a breach of international law, even if not a breach of American law.
Resolution 1441, declaring Iraq in material breech of previous resolutions, the punishment for which was to be war.
Paragraph 2 of that resolution explicitly says that Iraq will get another opportunity to comply.
And who said anything about Powell's presentation? Who cares about it?
Recognizing that 1441 didn't authorize war, the U.S. attempted to get another resolution. For that purpose, Powell gave his infamous presentation, and nobody bought it. No new resolution was forthcoming, so the U.S. attacked without authorization.
However, the decision of whether a certain entity has a certain right is ultimately a moral decision. Does an author have a right to prevent others from copying their book? Does a fetus have a right to life? Does a dog have a right not to be tortured? Does a doctor have the right to assist a terminally ill patient in dying? Does a kid have a right to a free education?
Would you agree then that torturing your dog to death should be legal?
The U.S. never declared war on Iraq in the first Gulf War. The first Gulf War was a UN action explicitly designed to force Iraq out of Kuwait.
Are you saying that foreign treaties are binding, except if the president prefers to ignore them?
I read in the constitution that foreign treaties approved by the Senate are binding law; I don't see an exception for the president; further I don't find any support for your claim that "commander-in-chief" means he is "able to do what he wants with the military".
you seem to forget that under Chapters 5,6,7,8, and 12 of the charter of the UN, the security council has the right to wage war, (article 41, chapter 7)