Maybe the mention of linux is merely a market ploy. They could be pulling a LinuxOne on us. If they start talking about synergy anywhere on their website, then we will know or sure.
>I remember someone using this as an argument why Open Source wasn't any more secure than closed sorce, >but the point applies to this situation as well. (And I'm not arguing closed is better than open, or vice versa - >this was originally used as an argument as to why Open Source isn't necessarily any more secure than closed source.) >Basically, it comes down to the idea of hiding a back door in the compiler. Since most people use one compiler >for a platform (most people coding for Windows use VC++, most people for Linux use GCC, etc.), one needs >only to attack the compiler. Add code to the compiler to make it add backdoors to certain types of code.
Allright I'm a complete and utter idiot. I have never in my life coded anything. Well except for simple menu programs, games, and other dumb stuff on the trash80 back in school. That said, lets blow holes in the asinine backdoor making compiler. Lets play make believe for a moment. Let's say I'm in charge of compiling software and checking it for backdoors and other nasties. Let's see what would be the first thing I would do? Hmmm, maybe have my programmers write their own compiler from scratch? Wow, who'd a thunk it.
That is pretty funny. You know it reminds me of that old saying... The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the engineers were all republicans.
Heck Yeah... I used to eat 4 or 5 of them myself each day. Not good though. Each MRE has supposedly 2000 calories (but I think that includes the boxes and plastic). Funny thing is, that the FDA never approved their use for longer than 2 weeks at a time. Too bad for those of us who lived off of them in the desert. MRE's can be used to make the ultimate coding food though --- the ranger cookie. Mix the coffee, cream and sugar together in one packet. Place on heater for 30 seconds. Presto instant coffee cookie. HMMMM ranger cookies, love those things
>The 90s are the years 1990 through 1999, or 1890 through 1899 if you are old enough.
>The two-hudredth decade is the years 1991 through 2000 inclusive, which we are still in.
>The twentieth century is the years 1901 through 2000 inclusive, which we are still in.
>The second millenium is the years 1001 through 2000, which we are still in.
>The two-hundredth decade is almost a tounge twister, so people refer to aproximately the same time span as the 90s, which comes out a lot easier.
We are not still in the 20th century. We are using a time scale based on the birth of a man. We have "supposedly" finished 2000 years since the birth of Christ. Whether or not this is a valid basis for a calendar is debatable, however, since it is the standard used, we are now in the 21 century. Centuries do not start at 1 they start at 0. Human beings are not born 1 year old. There is an arbitrary year 0. This being the day Christ was born. On your first birthday, you have been alive for 1 year. On your 10th birthday, you have been alive 10 years, not on your 11th birthday. Decades and centuries, based on the life spans of living beings, start at 0 not 1.
>Actually Gary Gygax is working for Wizards of the >Coast and is one of the primary designers for the >3rd edition. They hired him back a year or so >ago. So does this mean he got over his usage problem with FE coco? Or should that be CE coco (crystalline extract). Well I just shot all my karma out the window. Oh well, just couldn't resist.
This is so true. Just fight it in the courts. Hire expensive lawyers and fight a multi-billion dollar corporation in the tradintional way. How dare any of you to have the audacity to engage in civil disobedience. My God, this can only lead to terrible changes the likes of those that were created by lawless people, like Martin Luther King Jr. This is as bad as the colonists and that foul display known as the Boston Tea Party. Damn them anyway, they should have been content to fight it before the British Parliment, and simply accepted the British decision to stay "up yours" to the colonists anger over "taxation without reprsentation". Civil disobedience... What kind of people are you?
First posting ever to slashdot. If I commit some cardinal sin, please forgive me.
1. UCITA allows for the "self help feature" to be installed in software. How many people think MS has allready hidden this feature deep in win2k in anticipation of UCITA passing? What would happen if some clever hackers were to start actively searching for it and documented how it could be exploited. How would major corporations react to find that such a security hole had intentionaly been inserted in win2k and they were not notified? I would love to see some hackers start looking for such a backdoor in order to educate people on how they had been scammed. This assuming of course, that MS really was dumb enough to jump the gun on installing a backdoor. I for one, would be willing to bet my first born that they are. 2. UCITA has a clause stating that "neither party is entitled to the source code". Now if someone uses GPL'ed code and then re-releases it under UCITA without the source, will they get away with it? The infamous "embrace and extend"? Most people argue that the GPL will supercede UCITA, and I agree that it should. What bothers me is that the GPL has never been tested. The GPL falls into the same trap as the EULA in that it is questionable in its ability to be enforced. How certain is the open source community that the GPL will hold water if tested in court against the UCITA?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe the mention of linux is merely a market ploy. They could be pulling a LinuxOne on us. If they start talking about synergy anywhere on their website, then we will know or sure.
>I remember someone using this as an argument why Open Source wasn't any more secure than closed sorce, >but the point applies to this situation as well. (And I'm not arguing closed is better than open, or vice versa - >this was originally used as an argument as to why Open Source isn't necessarily any more secure than closed source.)
>Basically, it comes down to the idea of hiding a back door in the compiler. Since most people use one compiler >for a platform (most people coding for Windows use VC++, most people for Linux use GCC, etc.), one needs >only to attack the compiler. Add code to the compiler to make it add backdoors to certain types of code.
Allright I'm a complete and utter idiot. I have never in my life coded anything. Well except for simple menu programs, games, and other dumb stuff on the trash80 back in school.
That said, lets blow holes in the asinine backdoor making compiler. Lets play make believe for a moment. Let's say I'm in charge of compiling software and checking it for backdoors and other nasties. Let's see what would be the first thing I would do? Hmmm, maybe have my programmers write their own compiler from scratch? Wow, who'd a thunk it.
That is pretty funny. You know it reminds me of that old saying...
The road to hell is paved with good intentions, and the engineers were all republicans.
Heck Yeah...
I used to eat 4 or 5 of them myself each day. Not good though. Each MRE has supposedly 2000 calories (but I think that includes the boxes and plastic). Funny thing is, that the FDA never approved their use for longer than 2 weeks at a time. Too bad for those of us who lived off of them in the desert. MRE's can be used to make the ultimate coding food though --- the ranger cookie. Mix the coffee, cream and sugar together in one packet. Place on heater for 30 seconds. Presto instant coffee cookie.
HMMMM ranger cookies, love those things
>They do roll over at different times.
>The 90s are the years 1990 through 1999, or 1890 through 1899 if you are old enough.
>The two-hudredth decade is the years 1991 through 2000 inclusive, which we are still in.
>The twentieth century is the years 1901 through 2000 inclusive, which we are still in.
>The second millenium is the years 1001 through 2000, which we are still in.
>The two-hundredth decade is almost a tounge
twister, so people refer to aproximately the same time span as the 90s, which comes out a lot easier.
We are not still in the 20th century. We are using a time scale based on the birth of a man. We have "supposedly" finished 2000 years since the birth of Christ. Whether or not this is a valid basis for a calendar is debatable, however, since it is the standard used, we are now in the 21 century. Centuries do not start at 1 they start at 0. Human beings are not born 1 year old. There is an arbitrary year 0. This being the day Christ was born. On your first birthday, you have been alive for 1 year. On your 10th birthday, you have been alive 10 years, not on your 11th birthday. Decades and centuries, based on the life spans of living beings, start at 0 not 1.
>Actually Gary Gygax is working for Wizards of the >Coast and is one of the primary designers for the >3rd edition. They hired him back a year or so >ago. So does this mean he got over his usage problem with FE coco? Or should that be CE coco (crystalline extract). Well I just shot all my karma out the window. Oh well, just couldn't resist.
This is so true. Just fight it in the courts. Hire expensive lawyers and fight a multi-billion dollar corporation in the tradintional way. How dare any of you to have the audacity to engage in civil disobedience. My God, this can only lead to terrible changes the likes of those that were created by lawless people, like Martin Luther King Jr. This is as bad as the colonists and that foul display known as the Boston Tea Party. Damn them anyway, they should have been content to fight it before the British Parliment, and simply accepted the British decision to stay "up yours" to the colonists anger over "taxation without reprsentation". Civil disobedience... What kind of people are you?
Incorrect, it is a German distro. The proper way to pronunce it is sue-sah, like the composer John Philip Sousa.
First posting ever to slashdot. If I commit some cardinal sin, please forgive me.
1. UCITA allows for the "self help feature" to be installed in software. How many people think MS has allready hidden this feature deep in win2k in anticipation of UCITA passing? What would happen if some clever hackers were to start actively searching for it and documented how it could be exploited. How would major corporations react to find that such a security hole had intentionaly been inserted in win2k and they were not notified? I would love to see some hackers start looking for such a backdoor in order to educate people on how they had been scammed. This assuming of course, that MS really was dumb enough to jump the gun on installing a backdoor. I for one, would be willing to bet my first born that they are.
2. UCITA has a clause stating that "neither party is entitled to the source code". Now if someone uses GPL'ed code and then re-releases it under UCITA without the source, will they get away with it? The infamous "embrace and extend"? Most people argue that the GPL will supercede UCITA, and I agree that it should. What bothers me is that the GPL has never been tested. The GPL falls into the same trap as the EULA in that it is questionable in its ability to be enforced. How certain is the open source community that the GPL will hold water if tested in court against the UCITA?