Except they don't have a valid claim. The idea is not new, and almost every other web annotation product (thats right, there were plenty around before either of these) uses very similar toolbar interfaces. Of course, comparing to one of these other products isn't nearly as cool as comparing it to Google and trying to make a "big evil corporation" vs "little innocent hard-working can-do american-way startup" case.
I produced a paint program for Win 3.11 quite a number of years ago and ZOMG THE PAINT PROGRAM IN WINDOWS 95 IS ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME! IT ALSO DRAWS LINES, BOXES, FILLS AND TEXT! And the line tool looks like a line! And the box tool looks like a box! They totally ripped me off. That's right. Me. Never mind that there's plenty of other paint programs out there with the same features and the same look and basic arrangement. Nevermind that virtually every paint program since the Amstrad has alligned tools on the left, canvas on the right, and menu at top. Nope, I'm going to sue Microsoft because they ripped off *MY* product.
I am of course, being sarcastic. This is however, the exact point of view of the company in question. A Big Evil Corporation (BEC) has produced the same product that they, and several other companies have. However, the BEC version is free, and thus, is going to pull away any possible revenue they may gain. Even then, that point of view is flawed. There are still plenty of mail products, despite gmail. There are still plenty of office applications, despite gdocs. There are still plenty of other instant messaging clients in use, despite google talk. Etc etc etc. If you innovate, you'll survive. If you merely borrow other peoples ideas and produce a vanilla product that does the same, and then sue anybody else who produces the same, borrowed, vanilla product, you won't get far.
I have encountered many, many people who think that anything running at HD resolutions is HD. Even in the geek community. And it seems very difficult to convince them otherwise. Many seem convinced that any video that is playing back at 1080 lines is utilising "full HD resolution", even if the source is a 360x240 video that's been maximised. Even Youtube's "720p" video is so compressed the artifacts are plainly visible, yet because it's 720 lines and is activated by clicking an "HD" button, pundits seem to think that it's high definition video.
As for whether he is blind or mistaken, realise - most people with HD res screens still have never seen HD video up close and personal, thus it's easy to understand why a scaled, interlaced, lossy video might look "pixel perfect" to them compared to other traditional sources like XVID dvd rips or even DVDs. For instance, most people with an HD screen don't actually have a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD drive. And even of those with a Blu-ray drive (its coming standard more frequently thesedays) many have never actually gone out and bought a Bluray title and chucked it in.
If any of you readers fall into this category (not actually having seen real HD video playback up close), don't worry - you're not at all alone. There's an easy solution: 1. Head over to trailers.apple.com and download a decent 1080p HD trailer. Here's a nice one: http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/2012/hd/ 2. Start saving for the Bluray drive you now simply MUST have.
On further thought, I understand why the judge allowed the case to proceed. In normal circumstances, where it is "cop's word vs perp's word", the cop's authority is sufficient to validate the radar reading. However, as soon as *anything* else is introduced to counter, it becomes (as in this case) "cop's word vs perp & gps". So now you've got to proceed to case to prove that the GPS doesn't disagree with the cop.
The judge who allowed the case to proceed in the first place is also an idiot. I see no good reason why the case wasn't thrown out immediately.
I can't quite fathom why the court system allowed "So what if the radar said I was going 62 at that point in time. I was going at 45 at two other completely different points in time." as an argument.
I can see how it happened though - 1. Stupid, dishonest, ignorant kid goes home and tells his parents "No, I wasn't speeding". 2. Parents get GPS data readout which shows he was going at 45 "around that time" in two different readings. 3. Parents lack basic knowledge of trigonometry and can't translate the speed over the distance travelled between readings. 4. Neither can the court. Case proceeds.
Seriously though, in every case like this where the defendant (the kid) lies to the court, they should be charged with contempt. If you don't want to lie, take the 5th. It sickens me daily that the majority of our courts time is wasted with dickless wonders who are too scared to accept responsibility for their actions.
The electrical resistance would make this impossible after the first few dozen miles, and this would be tens of thousands of miles long. Providing excess power generation to counteract the resistance would mean huge cables (into the millions of tonnes of copper cable) which could never possibly be lifted into space (without a space elevator, that is;)).
It is possible to provide some electricity through the carbon nanotubes themselves, but the conversion rate is not great. Solar power would be nice, but would require huge fins which dramatically increase the weight of the climber. Beamed power solves most issues.
IMO tho, nuclear batteries will make this whole debate obsolete.;)
The most commonly exploited attack vector in Windows works exactly the same in Linux. Home users giving software administator access to their system.
If you'd like an example program which can own your Linux system as soon as it's given administator access, that won't be a problem.
I understand you're extremely bitter since you were fired by Microsoft back in 97, but claiming that Linux "cannot be subject to the virus problems of Windoze" when the most commonly exploited attack vector works exactly the same way in both systems, that doesn't demonstrate any underlying differences in the OS that makes it impregnable.
Good luck with your personal vendetta campaign of hate against Microsoft. I see by your comments it's keeping you quite busy.
To be perfectly honest though, I did read the article and did realise my mistake about 2 minutes after posting it. It's a shame you can't take back bad posts.:(
The way you write.. it makes me think that you think I read TFA. As any Slashdotter knows, the summary is more than enough to make informed commentary and lecture others on your knowledge of the subject.
Yeah, thats the point I'm trying to make. While I agree with you that Linux is much more secure than Windows as they stand out-of-the-box, as soon as you put them in the hands of a stupid user, all that extra security is for nothing. A user can download and execute malware just as easily.
I'm not concerned about your system security at all. First of all, you know what you're doing (most important) and secondly, there's not much Linux malware out there. What I'm concerned about is as Linux marketshare and targeted trojans increases, and a box gets put in the hands of stupid users, we're likely going to see a rapid increase in Linux infections as well.
Note: This applies mainly to home users, where tha majority of infections in Windows currently occur. Users who DO have root access to their machine. In the corporate environment, both OSs can be made fairly secure, though undoubtedly Linux is King of locking down the system. Its a lot more work in Windows - but hey, that's what I get paid for.:)
User awareness plays a huge part in the safety of a system. With Windows for instance, most malware infections get in like this: 1. User downloads executable. 2. User launches executable. 3. Windows asks them if they want to let this program access their computer. 4. User clicks yes, and machine is owned.
With Linux, if a user was equally stupid, it'd be no more difficult for malware targeted at linux to get in by the same vector: 1. User downloads executable. 2. User launches executable. 3. Linux tells uer them can't run the program without admin access (equivalent to the prompt in Windows). 4. User sudo's, and machine is owned.
At the moment, most Linux users are people who know how to use their machine, and the small userbase makes them less of a target for virus writers. However, this is changing, as is the ease for malware to get in.
Already, in Ubuntu - the most "user friendly" distro out there - the requirement to go to console and launch an app as root is being replaced by a Windows-esque dialog box which pops up and asks you to enter your password to proceed with the installation. How long before this is merely a click-through as in Windows?
As a responsible administrator, with the tools available to me, of course I use anti-virus software. Only an irresponsible Linux administrator who's waiting to get owned would run company servers with no anti-malware. Maybe you're just a home user and the entire scenario and this discussion doesn't apply to you.
Certainly, it's the the case with 1&1.com in your sig, as their administrators "1&1 system administrators work hard to make sure that our 1&1 servers are protected from known vulnerabilities by keeping all programs and services up-to-date with."
But clearly they don't bother finishing their sentences.
Indeed - it is a nightmare that so many applications run as administrator by default. I remember once I got into a locked machine by going into Netscape Navigator (back in the day) and setting command.com to be the default application to open HTML files. While such access was disabled at user-level, applications running as administrator can do so freely.
Yes - it does require a lot of work to make Windows secure. The difference I see is that Linux comes with this out of the box, whereas Windows is designed to give users as much power as possible, with it being an administrative option to tune it down. And simply - that is the job is a system admin. Deploy an installation that is secure in the first place, keep it updated and patched, and try to keep appraised of security considerations while giving users access to everything they NEED.
I'm not anti-Linux at all, but am merely pointing out that sure it's worth the time maintaining Windows systems, since it's my job. I use Linux servers as well, and don't find their upkeep any less troublesome.
"The next 10 samples that came through the door". 8 out of 10 zero-day windows viruses infected an unprotected machine?
The most surprising thing to note out of this is that two of them failed right out of the box. The calibre of virus writers isn't what it used to be if they're not working on launch day.
But seriously, Anonymous Coward, Bill Gates is solely to blame for *only* the flaws in Windows? And the fact such flaws exist hurt his "geek cred"? So - I'm presuming that all the good things in Windows, you don't attribute to him, and thus don't help his geek cred.
Tell you what AC, as soon as you put out a superior operating system, I'll agree you win your imaginary geek competition.
Too hard? Yeah.. ok - as soon as you contribute code to the Linux kernel.. the geek cred's all yours!
Still too hard? If you can cobble together a working version of NOTEPAD without using Microsoft APIs, you win all my internets!.... Truth is, he is a geek, and a far more knowledgeable one than AC could ever hope to be.
Indeed evolution is. However, the individual I was quoting suggested that anyone was an idiot who didn't fully believe in evolution purely on the basis of a controlled group of bacteria, forced to undergo mutation through lack of natural competition, in a controlled environment. I'm not arguing against evolution or the results of the experiment, I'm arguing against parent who couldn't even be bothered to read far enough to find out what the mutations were or which what percentage of fixated mutations were beneficial or anything.
Point is - the parent to my reply is just as short-sighted as those creationists he seeks to ridicule. He doesn't actually care for proof, didn't bother reading article or study results. In other words - he's just as idiotic as those he calls such.
Isolation is the asexual bacterias equivalent of inbreeding. Which is why these same mutation rates are not seen in the wild. But you're right - I should use the term "Inhibited Reproductive Variety" instead.
Simply, I'd like to see more favorable mutations rather than random ones. The results of this study thus far are that around 10 mutations per population turned out to be advantageous, although randomly spawned. To me, 10 out of 100+ mutations (most of which were neutral or harmful) doesn't seem like a great number. The study shows that the populations are becoming more damaged over time, rather than stronger.
I'd *like to* see an evolutionary study where the majority of binding mutations are advantageous rather than harmful.
Slashdot Mirror
Except they don't have a valid claim. The idea is not new, and almost every other web annotation product (thats right, there were plenty around before either of these) uses very similar toolbar interfaces. Of course, comparing to one of these other products isn't nearly as cool as comparing it to Google and trying to make a "big evil corporation" vs "little innocent hard-working can-do american-way startup" case.
I produced a paint program for Win 3.11 quite a number of years ago and ZOMG THE PAINT PROGRAM IN WINDOWS 95 IS ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME! IT ALSO DRAWS LINES, BOXES, FILLS AND TEXT! And the line tool looks like a line! And the box tool looks like a box! They totally ripped me off. That's right. Me. Never mind that there's plenty of other paint programs out there with the same features and the same look and basic arrangement. Nevermind that virtually every paint program since the Amstrad has alligned tools on the left, canvas on the right, and menu at top. Nope, I'm going to sue Microsoft because they ripped off *MY* product.
I am of course, being sarcastic. This is however, the exact point of view of the company in question. A Big Evil Corporation (BEC) has produced the same product that they, and several other companies have. However, the BEC version is free, and thus, is going to pull away any possible revenue they may gain. Even then, that point of view is flawed. There are still plenty of mail products, despite gmail. There are still plenty of office applications, despite gdocs. There are still plenty of other instant messaging clients in use, despite google talk. Etc etc etc. If you innovate, you'll survive. If you merely borrow other peoples ideas and produce a vanilla product that does the same, and then sue anybody else who produces the same, borrowed, vanilla product, you won't get far.
I have encountered many, many people who think that anything running at HD resolutions is HD. Even in the geek community. And it seems very difficult to convince them otherwise. Many seem convinced that any video that is playing back at 1080 lines is utilising "full HD resolution", even if the source is a 360x240 video that's been maximised. Even Youtube's "720p" video is so compressed the artifacts are plainly visible, yet because it's 720 lines and is activated by clicking an "HD" button, pundits seem to think that it's high definition video.
As for whether he is blind or mistaken, realise - most people with HD res screens still have never seen HD video up close and personal, thus it's easy to understand why a scaled, interlaced, lossy video might look "pixel perfect" to them compared to other traditional sources like XVID dvd rips or even DVDs. For instance, most people with an HD screen don't actually have a Blu-Ray or HD-DVD drive. And even of those with a Blu-ray drive (its coming standard more frequently thesedays) many have never actually gone out and bought a Bluray title and chucked it in.
If any of you readers fall into this category (not actually having seen real HD video playback up close), don't worry - you're not at all alone. There's an easy solution:
1. Head over to trailers.apple.com and download a decent 1080p HD trailer. Here's a nice one: http://www.apple.com/trailers/sony_pictures/2012/hd/
2. Start saving for the Bluray drive you now simply MUST have.
Bah! Trigonometry.. Calculus.. same thing. They both involve numbers, amirite?
Disclaimer: The ahove statement is not serious. It's 5am here and I've just finished my fourth redbull. I think I need to sleep.
On further thought, I understand why the judge allowed the case to proceed. In normal circumstances, where it is "cop's word vs perp's word", the cop's authority is sufficient to validate the radar reading. However, as soon as *anything* else is introduced to counter, it becomes (as in this case) "cop's word vs perp & gps". So now you've got to proceed to case to prove that the GPS doesn't disagree with the cop.
Still don't like the kid tho. ;)
The judge who allowed the case to proceed in the first place is also an idiot. I see no good reason why the case wasn't thrown out immediately.
I can't quite fathom why the court system allowed "So what if the radar said I was going 62 at that point in time. I was going at 45 at two other completely different points in time." as an argument.
I can see how it happened though -
1. Stupid, dishonest, ignorant kid goes home and tells his parents "No, I wasn't speeding".
2. Parents get GPS data readout which shows he was going at 45 "around that time" in two different readings.
3. Parents lack basic knowledge of trigonometry and can't translate the speed over the distance travelled between readings.
4. Neither can the court. Case proceeds.
Seriously though, in every case like this where the defendant (the kid) lies to the court, they should be charged with contempt. If you don't want to lie, take the 5th. It sickens me daily that the majority of our courts time is wasted with dickless wonders who are too scared to accept responsibility for their actions.
The electrical resistance would make this impossible after the first few dozen miles, and this would be tens of thousands of miles long. Providing excess power generation to counteract the resistance would mean huge cables (into the millions of tonnes of copper cable) which could never possibly be lifted into space (without a space elevator, that is ;)).
It is possible to provide some electricity through the carbon nanotubes themselves, but the conversion rate is not great. Solar power would be nice, but would require huge fins which dramatically increase the weight of the climber. Beamed power solves most issues.
IMO tho, nuclear batteries will make this whole debate obsolete. ;)
The most commonly exploited attack vector in Windows works exactly the same in Linux. Home users giving software administator access to their system.
If you'd like an example program which can own your Linux system as soon as it's given administator access, that won't be a problem.
I understand you're extremely bitter since you were fired by Microsoft back in 97, but claiming that Linux "cannot be subject to the virus problems of Windoze" when the most commonly exploited attack vector works exactly the same way in both systems, that doesn't demonstrate any underlying differences in the OS that makes it impregnable.
Good luck with your personal vendetta campaign of hate against Microsoft. I see by your comments it's keeping you quite busy.
To be perfectly honest though, I did read the article and did realise my mistake about 2 minutes after posting it. It's a shame you can't take back bad posts. :(
The way you write.. it makes me think that you think I read TFA. As any Slashdotter knows, the summary is more than enough to make informed commentary and lecture others on your knowledge of the subject.
*cough*
Yeah, thats the point I'm trying to make. While I agree with you that Linux is much more secure than Windows as they stand out-of-the-box, as soon as you put them in the hands of a stupid user, all that extra security is for nothing. A user can download and execute malware just as easily.
I'm not concerned about your system security at all. First of all, you know what you're doing (most important) and secondly, there's not much Linux malware out there. What I'm concerned about is as Linux marketshare and targeted trojans increases, and a box gets put in the hands of stupid users, we're likely going to see a rapid increase in Linux infections as well.
Note: This applies mainly to home users, where tha majority of infections in Windows currently occur. Users who DO have root access to their machine. In the corporate environment, both OSs can be made fairly secure, though undoubtedly Linux is King of locking down the system. Its a lot more work in Windows - but hey, that's what I get paid for. :)
I LOLd. For shame.
User awareness plays a huge part in the safety of a system. With Windows for instance, most malware infections get in like this:
1. User downloads executable.
2. User launches executable.
3. Windows asks them if they want to let this program access their computer.
4. User clicks yes, and machine is owned.
With Linux, if a user was equally stupid, it'd be no more difficult for malware targeted at linux to get in by the same vector:
1. User downloads executable.
2. User launches executable.
3. Linux tells uer them can't run the program without admin access (equivalent to the prompt in Windows).
4. User sudo's, and machine is owned.
At the moment, most Linux users are people who know how to use their machine, and the small userbase makes them less of a target for virus writers. However, this is changing, as is the ease for malware to get in.
Already, in Ubuntu - the most "user friendly" distro out there - the requirement to go to console and launch an app as root is being replaced by a Windows-esque dialog box which pops up and asks you to enter your password to proceed with the installation. How long before this is merely a click-through as in Windows?
Users are safe, not OSs.
As a responsible administrator, with the tools available to me, of course I use anti-virus software. Only an irresponsible Linux administrator who's waiting to get owned would run company servers with no anti-malware. Maybe you're just a home user and the entire scenario and this discussion doesn't apply to you.
Certainly, it's the the case with 1&1.com in your sig, as their administrators "1&1 system administrators work hard to make sure that our 1&1 servers are protected from known vulnerabilities by keeping all programs and services up-to-date with."
But clearly they don't bother finishing their sentences.
Indeed - it is a nightmare that so many applications run as administrator by default. I remember once I got into a locked machine by going into Netscape Navigator (back in the day) and setting command.com to be the default application to open HTML files. While such access was disabled at user-level, applications running as administrator can do so freely.
Yes - it does require a lot of work to make Windows secure. The difference I see is that Linux comes with this out of the box, whereas Windows is designed to give users as much power as possible, with it being an administrative option to tune it down. And simply - that is the job is a system admin. Deploy an installation that is secure in the first place, keep it updated and patched, and try to keep appraised of security considerations while giving users access to everything they NEED.
I'm not anti-Linux at all, but am merely pointing out that sure it's worth the time maintaining Windows systems, since it's my job. I use Linux servers as well, and don't find their upkeep any less troublesome.
I have yet (in over a decade of tending windows and NT servers) had a single machine get infected.
Lesson learned - Give the same system rights to your windows users as your Linux users have, and they can't get infected even if they wanted to.
"The next 10 samples that came through the door". 8 out of 10 zero-day windows viruses infected an unprotected machine? The most surprising thing to note out of this is that two of them failed right out of the box. The calibre of virus writers isn't what it used to be if they're not working on launch day.
But seriously, Anonymous Coward, Bill Gates is solely to blame for *only* the flaws in Windows? And the fact such flaws exist hurt his "geek cred"? So - I'm presuming that all the good things in Windows, you don't attribute to him, and thus don't help his geek cred.
Tell you what AC, as soon as you put out a superior operating system, I'll agree you win your imaginary geek competition.
Too hard? Yeah.. ok - as soon as you contribute code to the Linux kernel.. the geek cred's all yours!
Still too hard? If you can cobble together a working version of NOTEPAD without using Microsoft APIs, you win all my internets! ....
Truth is, he is a geek, and a far more knowledgeable one than AC could ever hope to be.
Yeah! Geeks don't cheat! We settle for no less than murder!
It wasn't posted by kdawson..
Too bad? As in an office envrionment this would be a vocalised joke, it makes no difference whatsoever and you, sir, are a troll.
LOL - I love all his PPPPPS's at the end of the letter. A very good article, thanks for linking this. :)
Indeed. However when more harmful mutations are being passed along than favorable, do you still call it evolution?
Indeed evolution is. However, the individual I was quoting suggested that anyone was an idiot who didn't fully believe in evolution purely on the basis of a controlled group of bacteria, forced to undergo mutation through lack of natural competition, in a controlled environment. I'm not arguing against evolution or the results of the experiment, I'm arguing against parent who couldn't even be bothered to read far enough to find out what the mutations were or which what percentage of fixated mutations were beneficial or anything.
Point is - the parent to my reply is just as short-sighted as those creationists he seeks to ridicule. He doesn't actually care for proof, didn't bother reading article or study results. In other words - he's just as idiotic as those he calls such.
Isolation is the asexual bacterias equivalent of inbreeding. Which is why these same mutation rates are not seen in the wild. But you're right - I should use the term "Inhibited Reproductive Variety" instead.
Simply, I'd like to see more favorable mutations rather than random ones. The results of this study thus far are that around 10 mutations per population turned out to be advantageous, although randomly spawned. To me, 10 out of 100+ mutations (most of which were neutral or harmful) doesn't seem like a great number. The study shows that the populations are becoming more damaged over time, rather than stronger.
I'd *like to* see an evolutionary study where the majority of binding mutations are advantageous rather than harmful.