the only reason Mitnick didn't get in the book is that he was more focused on cashing in on his fame
I'm sorry, but that's BS. OK, so I'm going to write a book about your life with the intention of making as much money about things you did as possible. Wouldn't you want to get some consideration back, seeing as I'm using something you did to try and make money? Media today constantly try and "buy people's stories" with the hopes of making blockbuster movies or bestsellers out of them. If someone is going to try and make a book out of your life with the intention of making as much money as possible, wouldn't you want at least some cut of it?
If I'm going to write a book about your life, would you offer to give me all the details about it for free? Or would you request some finanical reimbursement for your time?
Besides, from my understanding, what fame? Mitnick became infamous due to Markoff's writings, not before them. Markoff wanted to make Mitnick into something he could make money off, from all appearances. Mitnick didn't agree to Markoff's terms, and apparently Markoff had a vendetta against Mitnick because of it. Doesn't seem like Mitnick's fault to me...
As a feminist should I avoid everything that might be tainted with non feminist ideals or should I just keep that in mind while I watch a damn goos show?
A goose show? Isn't that guys pinching women's butts? >:)
Sorry - but I thought that was funny. Back to trying to download the movie...
My impression is that Markoff interviewed people for info about Kevin, but never bothered verifying what he was told. So he has an out: what he wrote is true, based on his poor research.
Poor reporting is an American tradition. Errors appear all the time in the media. More often than not, they're due to poor understanding about a complex situation on the part of the reporter. The question is if Markoff knew his facts were false and wrote his works with the intention to cause harm, or if his fact-gathering merely came up with incorrect facts that he then used to create an interesting story.
I'm not sure what the burden is on the reporter to ensure that his facts are valid - most reporters do their best to ensure they have valid data because they make their livings off people trusting what they say. I'd assume that some effort must be made to verify the facts, although it's possible that having two people tell the same false story is legally enough to invalidate a libel claim. Libel is knowingly publishing false info - Markoff seems to have done his best to get only facts that paint Kevin in a bad light, but he still gathered those facts from sources he can point to and say that they told him something was true and he believed them.
However, this whole comment is based on poor research itself... I am not a lawyer or a law student, this is not legal advice, nor coherent, contents under presure; point away from eyes while opening.
"[Kahn's] tatics are showing two-dimentional thinking." - Spock
And my reaction: You mean just like everyone Trek character from the beginning of Trek up until the latest movie?!
One of the great things in B5 is watching the Star-Furies cut engines, rotate 90 degrees (completely with torque thrusters firing for the first half, and then reverse torque thrusters firing for the second half to stop the rotation), and fire along the side of an enemy ship.
It's stylish because it isn't the original Windows (95) look - which was a good 6 years old when XP was released. Face it - Windows was butt-ugly for a long time. Windows XP is pretty, as long as you compare it with earlier copies of Windows...
So I personally use the Whistler L&F, although I'm looking for a way to change it to something nicer (I think it's possible).
I have to object to that being called ASCII art. It isn't. ASCII art is art made out of ASCII characters. That was a different art form, where the text that makes up the Linux source code was colored to create the image of Tux. While it makes a nifty poster, and apparently a nice way to crash people's browsers, it isn't ASCII art. ASCII art must be monochrome to count:).
(In case anyone misses it, I didn't say that the Tux image wasn't art or wasn't interesting - just that it falls in a different genre than ASCII art. ASCII art uses ASCII characters to create the image, the Tux image used the Linux source code and colored those characters to create its image.)
It's a link to an artist's creation of various Holocaust concentration camp buildings as Lego kits. With the Lego logo. Lego knew about it and allowed it to go through, although they were careful to distance themselves from it.
I doubt anything anyone has done is more controversial than that...
Use the right hardware, and yes, it does. (I believe that OpenVMS also supports removing a processor by automatically moving any processes running on that processor to a new processor with no data loss. I forget if you need to tell OpenVMS to "turn off" the processor or if you can just pop it out. I think certain combos of VMS and hardware allow true hotswapping, where the CPU can just be plucked out with no loss to the OS.)
With clustering, you can add new computers to the cluster. Therefore, the cluster does not run on continuously 15-year old CPUs. You take a computer out of the cluster, upgrade the computer, and reinsert. (Or, more likely, get a new, more powerful computer, add it to the cluster, and retire a computer that's due to be removed.)
Therefore, the cluster itself stays running 24/7 with no downtime, and the individual computers in it can be upgraded over time.
So no, an OpenVMS cluster with an uptime of 15 years is not running on 15-year-old hardware or running a 15-year-old OS - it can be continuely upgraded throughout its life. And, generally, it is.
Apparently the longest running OpenVMS cluster had an uptime of around fifteen years until the building it was in was condemned and it had to be moved.
And since a VMS cluster can be fully upgraded automaticaly without any downtime to the cluster as a whole, the system can be continuely upgraded with no downtime to the users.
OpenVMS's clustering is the reason why most VMS users think that it's so cool. Think about it - 15 years of uptime. That's insane.
He's ours! Yeah, WPI may have fired him, yeah, all his important work was done at Clark, yeah, he may have blown up a building at WPI, but he studied at WPI!
Yeah, I find that whole "Goddard is ours!!!1!1!!" thing funny - thanks:)
So, I wrote a grant proposal to Saint Vincent College asking for funds to build a Linux cluster out of XBOXes. I was issued enough funds to purchase 3 units and accompanying hardware for the project.
He got a grant to figure that out.
He actually was given money to try and cluster three X-Boxes together and find out the results. Hmm... time to bug WPI for some funds... Yes, I need an X-Box, PS2, and a GameCube and will try to - uh - "cluster" them. Maybe around an LCD projector, depending on the grant...
Other people have already posted the gist of this message, but I'll try and explain better since most of them were very short. I like verbosity:)
Basically, the issue has to do with the "Letters to the Editor" section that almost all newspapers post. These are supposed to be letters written by local people about issues they actually care enough about to write to the paper about. This is not letters to representatives to allow them to know how their constituants feel.
From the article: "Editors say some readers simply do not understand the ethical issues of sending a letter written by someone else." These are real editors, not the techno-weenies we have around here:). They want to post what people actually feel and actually wrote to encourage discussion and thought with their readers. They do not want to post press releases from various organizations.
Think of it this way. Microsoft creates a "Post a Windows is Secure Comment Generator" on their webpage and encourages Windows administrators to use it to automatically submit comments and stories to Slashdot, Kuro5hin, and other community sites. Most people I think would call that trolling or at the very least dishonest. This is a similar thing - groups are creating forms that allow someone to just sign it and send it into the paper. The person signing the form may agree with the statement, but it's not something that they actually wrote and does not deserve to be published. It's kind of like spamming a forum - allowing people to easily send many letters to the editor without actually thinking about it.
So the editors are moderating the forum of incoming letters and selecting the letters that they feel are most worthy to be shown to the populace at large - letters written by people that actually feel the urge to write their opinions on a given topic and not someone who agrees enough to send a form-letter to a newspaper.
I agree with what they are doing - they are performing their duties as editors by trying to ensure that only letters written by people who feel strongly enough to actually compose a letter are actually published in the paper. This isn't like when the Bush administration ignored 70% of received comments because "they were form letters" - this is editting a paper. The paper tries to display views from all sides of an issue and wants to post views by actual local readers, and not by national orginizations. It's what the editors (of the paper:)) are supposed to be doing.
Daemon Tools broke my ability to play WC3. I had to reinstall Windows from scratch after that. I'm not kidding.
There's a support issue with "emulation software" listed at blizzard.com. Apparently the Warcraft III copy protection searches for well known CD emulation software and it will permentantly disable your ability to play the game until you uninstall the emulation software. In my case, I had to reinstall Windows because something completely screwed my CD-ROM drivers up.
Either that or I got extremely unlucky with the combo of software I had. Bottom line is that after removing Daemon Tools and a CD-writing utility, Windows 2000 stopped seeing my CD-ROM drives period and required a complete reinstall before I could use my system again. I don't know if this is just very bad luck on my behalf, but it's possible that it won't work with Daemon Tools. You've been warned.
You know, if dupes were an occasional thing, I'd agree with you. But they aren't. They're practically a weekly occurance. And it's annoying. The tag line is "News for Nerds" not "Repeats for Nerds." You can forgive an occasional accidental dupe. You can easily forgive a dupe from several months ago. This is a dupe from last week and is practically identical to the original.
If the writeup had at least made reference to the older story and made clear that this thread is supposed to be about interesting data found on "old" harddrives, then I would agree with you. But from the post it sounds like CmdrTaco hasn't even checked from last week to ensure that this isn't a duplicate.
This is their job. They are trying to get people to support them through subscriptions. Before I'd subscribe, I'd have to see some kind of perfessionalism. To be perfectly honest, the only reason I stick around Slashdot is not because of the editors but because of the community already here. Without the community, I wouldn't bother reading, because it wouldn't be worth reading. Posting dupes and generally not checking the stories they are posting make it seem like the editors don't care about the site anymore and make the community feel like they're being neglected.
Don't forget, a lot of the original very vocal Slashdotters already moved to another community. The lack of professionalism on the part of the editors is annoying and a slap in the face of the people for who the site is run. It would be very nice to have the editors explain that they are at the very least doing something to try and prevent duplicates. As things stand, it seems that the editors aren't listening to the community and are just ignoring us.
(Mind you - this goes both ways. It seems that a vocal group of Slashdotters feel that the editors "owe" the posters, while the editors seem to feel that the posters "owe" the Slashdot crew. Neither is true. Slashdot as we know it needs both. Without either, it would be nothing. "Slashdot" owes both the community and the editors for its existance.)
That's why you see people complaining about dupes. It let's them vent steam and hopefully get a message to the editors that they want change and hope that the editors will pay more attention and hopefully admit that they can screw up. The fact that they're getting modded up indicates that there are many people who agree with them. In this case, I feel that the bitching is justified.
Adobe SVG does crash Mozilla 1.x
on
SVG On the Rise
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Actually, the Adobe plugin does not work with any 1.x version of Mozilla. It's bug #133567, which you can't access via a link from Slashdot. It's been in the release notes for some time, seeing as there are many people who both use Mozilla for standards compatability and are using SVG as a emerging technology. Of course, now they can't do the two at the same time.
Basically, Adobe used an "unfrozen" API that changed between version 0.9.9 and the 1.0 release, breaking the plugin around the end of March 2002. The bug report contains an interesting back-and-forth between Mozilla and an Adobe developer, where basically the Mozilla developers admit that they completely fucked Adobe with their plugin interface.
(In order to allow scripting with the SVG plugin, they had to use some unfrozen interfaces. Although the interface that seems to cause the most crashes is the network code (nsHttpChannel), if I'm reading the crash dumps correctly.)
It's now 2003, and it appears that Mozilla has sucessfully gotten Adobe to say "screw this" and stop supporting the Mozilla browser all together. I'm hoping that with the release of the 1.1 SVG spec, Adobe will finally release an SVG plugin that works with newer Mozilla builds. But I think the tech evangelism team has successfully made that highly improbable by completely and totally pissing the developers at Adobe off, and this is highly unlikely.
I think a lot of people here misunderstand the ideas behind trusted computing. Suffice it to say that a lot of people want this, and they aren't just people thinking about DRM.
Trusted computing means that the computer has a way of verifying that things haven't been messed with. Yeah, this can mean that it prevents the end user from modding out their board, but that's not the reason behind it. The idea is that on bootup the computer verifys that no one has been messing with the system. Think remote cracker, don't think hardware modder. It can ensure that processes cannot possibly "look in" on other processes. It helps make sure that memory given to a "secure" application doesn't accidently leak into another application.
Remember the story about the data leak possible using the malformed ICMP package? Trusted computing would allow your VPN client to say that it's memory for the session keys needs to be kept secure and will prevent the TCP/IP driver from accidently accessing the plaintext memory. (From my understanding - keep in mind I'm talking from what I know about "trusted computing" and not TCPA specifically.)
Trusted computing means that your processor helps to enforce security conditions that the OS enforces. Processes can't see other processes memory - even after the memory has been freed. With the full-on application of TCPA, worms cannot run their code on the computer because they are not trusted by the computer. Viruses cannot infect because their code is not trusted. That is the idea behind trusted computing.
The government and the military are very interested in TCPA - they want the additional security it promises. Trusted computing is coming whether you want it to or not - it is the next "big thing" in computing, and it will happen. There is no reason why Linux could not take advantage of a trusted computing platform and no reason why it would necessarily lock Linux off the system - the owner of the system still has complete control. The user does not - in this case, think of "owner" as the IT department and the "user" as the secretary who has infected the company with every new Outlook worm.
Trusted computing is coming - and while it may be used to implement DRM in a more effective way (keep in mind that the government has uses for DRM too - it can be used to help keep internal documents internal), it also promises to greatly improve the security of computing. Ready or not, it's coming.
Thank you - I'm glad to know that someone else basically completely agrees with my opinions on this matter. From the start, I've thought that this case was a waste of time that could better be spent trying to mobilize people to lobby for changes to the law.
The law is constitutional - that is now a fact thanks to this ruling. I've thought since the beginning that this was the wrong way to go about things. Pushing this case through reminds me of school children playing a game - a small group finds the rules to be unfair, and instead of trying to find a solution with rest of the children, they instead run to the teacher and complain that the rules are unfair and that the teacher should strike them down. Hmm - that was a bad analogy. Ah well.
What we need to do - if we truly believe that copyright law is an injustice - is to organize rallies and get the word out! If a bunch of Farscape fans could run ads to push for the show, then I would hope that people who believe strongly against copyright could push this issue in time for the 2004 Presidential elections. Get the public outraged. Educate them on the issues and hope that some will decide that this issue is indeed important to them.
I highly doubt that most people either understand copyright or see it as anything wrong. We live in a world of perpetual copyright - people honestly believe that it is right for someone to have a monopoly on their works for all eternity. Asking the Supreme Court to change this is the wrong way to do it. We need to get the laws changed. If copyright can be retroactively extended, then it can be retroactively reduced. Stop trying to get the Supreme Court to overrule the will of Congress, and make this an issue that people have an opinion on!
C'mon - if people could organize protests against Dmitry being jailed, I really hope we could organize on the issue of copyright. If people can lead a case against copyright, I would hope that they can lead a group of people towards getting people to have an opinion. Let's see if we can get the law changed through the lawmakers and not go crying to the nine "teachers" that the law is unfair.
You can't try again. There is no try again. The United States has this idea of precident. The Supreme Court has ruled (correctly, if I might editorialize) that the current Copyright laws are not unconsitutional. Any further case you tried to make would immediately stop at the lowest court level based on the Supreme Court ruling. Basically, once there has been a ruling, it lasts forever and can never be changed, except when superceded by law.
(The only quasi-exception I can think of is Plessy v. Fergesson later being overturned by Brown v. Board of Education, but that wasn't really an overturning - the court held that separate but equal was still legal, but that the present situation was not equal and that it could not likely be made equal, and therefore that if equality could not be guarenteed then separation by races could not continue. Hence the ruling was basically overridden but not overturned.)
The only way to change copyright is to have copyright law change. Vote in people who are willing to change the law. The Supreme Court turned up the ruling everyone with half a brain expected - that current copyright law is constitutional. And it will remain constitutional even if it is continuously lengthened with a limited time. Limited time is quite clear - a definitive time, not infinite. So if it becomes life + 120 years, that's still limited.
This is the end of pursing this through the courts (which is the wrong way to do it). You can only continue it by trying to change copyright law. So what're you waiting for? Go for it!
It was widely regarded that the versions of NS were far superior to IE up to 4.0 (and there it's a debate).
Maybe a debate with idiots. OK, that's a little over the top (and trollish), but Netscape 4.0 was nowhere near as good as IE 4.0. Both were fairly equally unstable, although as I recall IE was actually slightly more stable than Netscape 4.0. However, IE 4 added many things that made their browser far superior to Netscape 4 - and many of these things are now standards.
I believe that there was a working DOM in IE 3, but it wasn't until 4 that the DOM became really fleshed out and usable, and that it could be changed dynamically client-side after the page loaded. No Netscape browser allowed changing of the DOM after the page had loaded until Mozilla. Likewise, IE4 had a fairly complete implementation of CSS 1, whereas Netscape 4 had a mind-numbingly bad implementation. (Namely, IE 4 would usually ignore things it didn't implement, while Netscape would half-implement things and behave truely strangely in certain cases. I have pages that work fine in IE 4 and Lynx, but not in Netscape 4 due to half-implemented CSS bits.)
IE 4 was a superior product. In this case, Microsoft won with the superior free product - don't forget that Netscape was also using their browser as a "loss-leader" for their server products, which are generally regarded to suck. (Just like Microsoft's server products, but...)
Microsoft continued to improve their browser. Netscape offered patch-after-patch that offered very little actual improvements other than not crashing in the same ways. Some patches actually made the browser worse, like the removing of "try {} catch {}" from JS in 4.97. (Or was it 4.98? I don't remember - just that all of a sudden all my pages stopped working in Netscape due to a single try {} catch {} block. I hate having to try and write pages that work on both NS4 and anything else...)
I personally think that Microsoft won the browser wars in a perfectly fair manner. The "browser wars" really weren't a good indication of where Microsoft was abusing their monopoly. Things like forcing companies to only offer PCs with their OS and using their office suite monopoly to control Apple are better and more clear-cut examples of abuse of monopoly. Even if Microsoft intended to abuse their monopoly to "win" the browser wars, they managed to win fair and square in spite of themselves. Netscape really dropped the ball in the end, allowing Microsoft to overtake them.
Now with Mozilla, we might see a new browser war. Since 0.9.6, I've switched back to Mozilla from IE (when on Windows, at least) - it works in almost all cases. Personally I think the IE vs Netscape thing is a very weak argument against Microsoft, especially when there are so many other things they've done that are much more clearcut abuses.
So we're doing this on purpuse? Or did you mean losing our legal rights? When one "looses" their rights, it means they willingly release them, such as one might loose a dog by removing the leash or loose an arrow by firing it at a target.
When someone loses something, they did not intend that the object leave their presence. One might lose the above mentioned arrow after loosing it at a target, assuming that they miss and then can't locate it again.
Sorry, but people misspelling "lose" has just started to tick me off.
Slashdot Mirror
(A link to "16x Pocket Colors Mini CD-R Media, 185MB / 21Min, 5 Pack" for about $5. You can also pick 'em up at Radio Shack, or Staples, or...)
I'm sorry, but that's BS. OK, so I'm going to write a book about your life with the intention of making as much money about things you did as possible. Wouldn't you want to get some consideration back, seeing as I'm using something you did to try and make money? Media today constantly try and "buy people's stories" with the hopes of making blockbuster movies or bestsellers out of them. If someone is going to try and make a book out of your life with the intention of making as much money as possible, wouldn't you want at least some cut of it?
If I'm going to write a book about your life, would you offer to give me all the details about it for free? Or would you request some finanical reimbursement for your time?
Besides, from my understanding, what fame? Mitnick became infamous due to Markoff's writings, not before them. Markoff wanted to make Mitnick into something he could make money off, from all appearances. Mitnick didn't agree to Markoff's terms, and apparently Markoff had a vendetta against Mitnick because of it. Doesn't seem like Mitnick's fault to me...
A goose show? Isn't that guys pinching women's butts? >:)
Sorry - but I thought that was funny. Back to trying to download the movie...
Because the government works with Mafia Dons...
Poor reporting is an American tradition. Errors appear all the time in the media. More often than not, they're due to poor understanding about a complex situation on the part of the reporter. The question is if Markoff knew his facts were false and wrote his works with the intention to cause harm, or if his fact-gathering merely came up with incorrect facts that he then used to create an interesting story.
I'm not sure what the burden is on the reporter to ensure that his facts are valid - most reporters do their best to ensure they have valid data because they make their livings off people trusting what they say. I'd assume that some effort must be made to verify the facts, although it's possible that having two people tell the same false story is legally enough to invalidate a libel claim. Libel is knowingly publishing false info - Markoff seems to have done his best to get only facts that paint Kevin in a bad light, but he still gathered those facts from sources he can point to and say that they told him something was true and he believed them.
However, this whole comment is based on poor research itself... I am not a lawyer or a law student, this is not legal advice, nor coherent, contents under presure; point away from eyes while opening.
"[Kahn's] tatics are showing two-dimentional thinking." - Spock
And my reaction: You mean just like everyone Trek character from the beginning of Trek up until the latest movie?!
One of the great things in B5 is watching the Star-Furies cut engines, rotate 90 degrees (completely with torque thrusters firing for the first half, and then reverse torque thrusters firing for the second half to stop the rotation), and fire along the side of an enemy ship.
It's stylish because it isn't the original Windows (95) look - which was a good 6 years old when XP was released. Face it - Windows was butt-ugly for a long time. Windows XP is pretty, as long as you compare it with earlier copies of Windows...
So I personally use the Whistler L&F, although I'm looking for a way to change it to something nicer (I think it's possible).
(In case anyone misses it, I didn't say that the Tux image wasn't art or wasn't interesting - just that it falls in a different genre than ASCII art. ASCII art uses ASCII characters to create the image, the Tux image used the Linux source code and colored those characters to create its image.)
It's a link to an artist's creation of various Holocaust concentration camp buildings as Lego kits. With the Lego logo. Lego knew about it and allowed it to go through, although they were careful to distance themselves from it.
I doubt anything anyone has done is more controversial than that...
Use the right hardware, and yes, it does. (I believe that OpenVMS also supports removing a processor by automatically moving any processes running on that processor to a new processor with no data loss. I forget if you need to tell OpenVMS to "turn off" the processor or if you can just pop it out. I think certain combos of VMS and hardware allow true hotswapping, where the CPU can just be plucked out with no loss to the OS.)
With clustering, you can add new computers to the cluster. Therefore, the cluster does not run on continuously 15-year old CPUs. You take a computer out of the cluster, upgrade the computer, and reinsert. (Or, more likely, get a new, more powerful computer, add it to the cluster, and retire a computer that's due to be removed.)
Therefore, the cluster itself stays running 24/7 with no downtime, and the individual computers in it can be upgraded over time.
So no, an OpenVMS cluster with an uptime of 15 years is not running on 15-year-old hardware or running a 15-year-old OS - it can be continuely upgraded throughout its life. And, generally, it is.
And since a VMS cluster can be fully upgraded automaticaly without any downtime to the cluster as a whole, the system can be continuely upgraded with no downtime to the users.
OpenVMS's clustering is the reason why most VMS users think that it's so cool. Think about it - 15 years of uptime. That's insane.
Or at least that's been my experience - I've had no problems with my Western Digitals or my (one) IBM drive.
Yeah, I find that whole "Goddard is ours!!!1!1!!" thing funny - thanks :)
He actually was given money to try and cluster three X-Boxes together and find out the results. Hmm... time to bug WPI for some funds... Yes, I need an X-Box, PS2, and a GameCube and will try to - uh - "cluster" them. Maybe around an LCD projector, depending on the grant...
Infinitely more PDAs than girls. *sigh*
Basically, the issue has to do with the "Letters to the Editor" section that almost all newspapers post. These are supposed to be letters written by local people about issues they actually care enough about to write to the paper about. This is not letters to representatives to allow them to know how their constituants feel.
From the article: "Editors say some readers simply do not understand the ethical issues of sending a letter written by someone else." These are real editors, not the techno-weenies we have around here :). They want to post what people actually feel and actually wrote to encourage discussion and thought with their readers. They do not want to post press releases from various organizations.
Think of it this way. Microsoft creates a "Post a Windows is Secure Comment Generator" on their webpage and encourages Windows administrators to use it to automatically submit comments and stories to Slashdot, Kuro5hin, and other community sites. Most people I think would call that trolling or at the very least dishonest. This is a similar thing - groups are creating forms that allow someone to just sign it and send it into the paper. The person signing the form may agree with the statement, but it's not something that they actually wrote and does not deserve to be published. It's kind of like spamming a forum - allowing people to easily send many letters to the editor without actually thinking about it.
So the editors are moderating the forum of incoming letters and selecting the letters that they feel are most worthy to be shown to the populace at large - letters written by people that actually feel the urge to write their opinions on a given topic and not someone who agrees enough to send a form-letter to a newspaper.
I agree with what they are doing - they are performing their duties as editors by trying to ensure that only letters written by people who feel strongly enough to actually compose a letter are actually published in the paper. This isn't like when the Bush administration ignored 70% of received comments because "they were form letters" - this is editting a paper. The paper tries to display views from all sides of an issue and wants to post views by actual local readers, and not by national orginizations. It's what the editors (of the paper :)) are supposed to be doing.
There's a support issue with "emulation software" listed at blizzard.com. Apparently the Warcraft III copy protection searches for well known CD emulation software and it will permentantly disable your ability to play the game until you uninstall the emulation software. In my case, I had to reinstall Windows because something completely screwed my CD-ROM drivers up.
Either that or I got extremely unlucky with the combo of software I had. Bottom line is that after removing Daemon Tools and a CD-writing utility, Windows 2000 stopped seeing my CD-ROM drives period and required a complete reinstall before I could use my system again. I don't know if this is just very bad luck on my behalf, but it's possible that it won't work with Daemon Tools. You've been warned.
Come again?
If the writeup had at least made reference to the older story and made clear that this thread is supposed to be about interesting data found on "old" harddrives, then I would agree with you. But from the post it sounds like CmdrTaco hasn't even checked from last week to ensure that this isn't a duplicate.
This is their job. They are trying to get people to support them through subscriptions. Before I'd subscribe, I'd have to see some kind of perfessionalism. To be perfectly honest, the only reason I stick around Slashdot is not because of the editors but because of the community already here. Without the community, I wouldn't bother reading, because it wouldn't be worth reading. Posting dupes and generally not checking the stories they are posting make it seem like the editors don't care about the site anymore and make the community feel like they're being neglected.
Don't forget, a lot of the original very vocal Slashdotters already moved to another community. The lack of professionalism on the part of the editors is annoying and a slap in the face of the people for who the site is run. It would be very nice to have the editors explain that they are at the very least doing something to try and prevent duplicates. As things stand, it seems that the editors aren't listening to the community and are just ignoring us.
(Mind you - this goes both ways. It seems that a vocal group of Slashdotters feel that the editors "owe" the posters, while the editors seem to feel that the posters "owe" the Slashdot crew. Neither is true. Slashdot as we know it needs both. Without either, it would be nothing. "Slashdot" owes both the community and the editors for its existance.)
That's why you see people complaining about dupes. It let's them vent steam and hopefully get a message to the editors that they want change and hope that the editors will pay more attention and hopefully admit that they can screw up. The fact that they're getting modded up indicates that there are many people who agree with them. In this case, I feel that the bitching is justified.
Basically, Adobe used an "unfrozen" API that changed between version 0.9.9 and the 1.0 release, breaking the plugin around the end of March 2002. The bug report contains an interesting back-and-forth between Mozilla and an Adobe developer, where basically the Mozilla developers admit that they completely fucked Adobe with their plugin interface.
(In order to allow scripting with the SVG plugin, they had to use some unfrozen interfaces. Although the interface that seems to cause the most crashes is the network code (nsHttpChannel), if I'm reading the crash dumps correctly.)
It's now 2003, and it appears that Mozilla has sucessfully gotten Adobe to say "screw this" and stop supporting the Mozilla browser all together. I'm hoping that with the release of the 1.1 SVG spec, Adobe will finally release an SVG plugin that works with newer Mozilla builds. But I think the tech evangelism team has successfully made that highly improbable by completely and totally pissing the developers at Adobe off, and this is highly unlikely.
Trusted computing means that the computer has a way of verifying that things haven't been messed with. Yeah, this can mean that it prevents the end user from modding out their board, but that's not the reason behind it. The idea is that on bootup the computer verifys that no one has been messing with the system. Think remote cracker, don't think hardware modder. It can ensure that processes cannot possibly "look in" on other processes. It helps make sure that memory given to a "secure" application doesn't accidently leak into another application.
Remember the story about the data leak possible using the malformed ICMP package? Trusted computing would allow your VPN client to say that it's memory for the session keys needs to be kept secure and will prevent the TCP/IP driver from accidently accessing the plaintext memory. (From my understanding - keep in mind I'm talking from what I know about "trusted computing" and not TCPA specifically.)
Trusted computing means that your processor helps to enforce security conditions that the OS enforces. Processes can't see other processes memory - even after the memory has been freed. With the full-on application of TCPA, worms cannot run their code on the computer because they are not trusted by the computer. Viruses cannot infect because their code is not trusted. That is the idea behind trusted computing.
The government and the military are very interested in TCPA - they want the additional security it promises. Trusted computing is coming whether you want it to or not - it is the next "big thing" in computing, and it will happen. There is no reason why Linux could not take advantage of a trusted computing platform and no reason why it would necessarily lock Linux off the system - the owner of the system still has complete control. The user does not - in this case, think of "owner" as the IT department and the "user" as the secretary who has infected the company with every new Outlook worm.
Trusted computing is coming - and while it may be used to implement DRM in a more effective way (keep in mind that the government has uses for DRM too - it can be used to help keep internal documents internal), it also promises to greatly improve the security of computing. Ready or not, it's coming.
The law is constitutional - that is now a fact thanks to this ruling. I've thought since the beginning that this was the wrong way to go about things. Pushing this case through reminds me of school children playing a game - a small group finds the rules to be unfair, and instead of trying to find a solution with rest of the children, they instead run to the teacher and complain that the rules are unfair and that the teacher should strike them down. Hmm - that was a bad analogy. Ah well.
What we need to do - if we truly believe that copyright law is an injustice - is to organize rallies and get the word out! If a bunch of Farscape fans could run ads to push for the show, then I would hope that people who believe strongly against copyright could push this issue in time for the 2004 Presidential elections. Get the public outraged. Educate them on the issues and hope that some will decide that this issue is indeed important to them.
I highly doubt that most people either understand copyright or see it as anything wrong. We live in a world of perpetual copyright - people honestly believe that it is right for someone to have a monopoly on their works for all eternity. Asking the Supreme Court to change this is the wrong way to do it. We need to get the laws changed. If copyright can be retroactively extended, then it can be retroactively reduced. Stop trying to get the Supreme Court to overrule the will of Congress, and make this an issue that people have an opinion on!
C'mon - if people could organize protests against Dmitry being jailed, I really hope we could organize on the issue of copyright. If people can lead a case against copyright, I would hope that they can lead a group of people towards getting people to have an opinion. Let's see if we can get the law changed through the lawmakers and not go crying to the nine "teachers" that the law is unfair.
(The only quasi-exception I can think of is Plessy v. Fergesson later being overturned by Brown v. Board of Education, but that wasn't really an overturning - the court held that separate but equal was still legal, but that the present situation was not equal and that it could not likely be made equal, and therefore that if equality could not be guarenteed then separation by races could not continue. Hence the ruling was basically overridden but not overturned.)
The only way to change copyright is to have copyright law change. Vote in people who are willing to change the law. The Supreme Court turned up the ruling everyone with half a brain expected - that current copyright law is constitutional. And it will remain constitutional even if it is continuously lengthened with a limited time. Limited time is quite clear - a definitive time, not infinite. So if it becomes life + 120 years, that's still limited.
This is the end of pursing this through the courts (which is the wrong way to do it). You can only continue it by trying to change copyright law. So what're you waiting for? Go for it!
Maybe a debate with idiots. OK, that's a little over the top (and trollish), but Netscape 4.0 was nowhere near as good as IE 4.0. Both were fairly equally unstable, although as I recall IE was actually slightly more stable than Netscape 4.0. However, IE 4 added many things that made their browser far superior to Netscape 4 - and many of these things are now standards.
I believe that there was a working DOM in IE 3, but it wasn't until 4 that the DOM became really fleshed out and usable, and that it could be changed dynamically client-side after the page loaded. No Netscape browser allowed changing of the DOM after the page had loaded until Mozilla. Likewise, IE4 had a fairly complete implementation of CSS 1, whereas Netscape 4 had a mind-numbingly bad implementation. (Namely, IE 4 would usually ignore things it didn't implement, while Netscape would half-implement things and behave truely strangely in certain cases. I have pages that work fine in IE 4 and Lynx, but not in Netscape 4 due to half-implemented CSS bits.)
IE 4 was a superior product. In this case, Microsoft won with the superior free product - don't forget that Netscape was also using their browser as a "loss-leader" for their server products, which are generally regarded to suck. (Just like Microsoft's server products, but...)
Microsoft continued to improve their browser. Netscape offered patch-after-patch that offered very little actual improvements other than not crashing in the same ways. Some patches actually made the browser worse, like the removing of "try {} catch {}" from JS in 4.97. (Or was it 4.98? I don't remember - just that all of a sudden all my pages stopped working in Netscape due to a single try {} catch {} block. I hate having to try and write pages that work on both NS4 and anything else...)
I personally think that Microsoft won the browser wars in a perfectly fair manner. The "browser wars" really weren't a good indication of where Microsoft was abusing their monopoly. Things like forcing companies to only offer PCs with their OS and using their office suite monopoly to control Apple are better and more clear-cut examples of abuse of monopoly. Even if Microsoft intended to abuse their monopoly to "win" the browser wars, they managed to win fair and square in spite of themselves. Netscape really dropped the ball in the end, allowing Microsoft to overtake them.
Now with Mozilla, we might see a new browser war. Since 0.9.6, I've switched back to Mozilla from IE (when on Windows, at least) - it works in almost all cases. Personally I think the IE vs Netscape thing is a very weak argument against Microsoft, especially when there are so many other things they've done that are much more clearcut abuses.
So we're doing this on purpuse? Or did you mean losing our legal rights? When one "looses" their rights, it means they willingly release them, such as one might loose a dog by removing the leash or loose an arrow by firing it at a target.
When someone loses something, they did not intend that the object leave their presence. One might lose the above mentioned arrow after loosing it at a target, assuming that they miss and then can't locate it again.
Sorry, but people misspelling "lose" has just started to tick me off.