his point was simply it is possible to hide something in plain sight. Granted it's easier in closed source, but you can hide a needle in a haystack.
Think of it this way. Assume that the unbelievable happened and microsoft released the source for all their programs. It would take a VERY long time to figure out what each and every line does.
It's quite easy to hide something in unfamiliar and/or poorly documented code.
Open source isn't magic, and it isn't the a silver bullet. Believe it or not, it's actually inappropriate for some situations.
Absolutely, but that's not a bad assumption. Forbidding MS from selling IE & Windows together would SERIOUSLY piss off many, many consumers.
That makes it unlikely that it will happen. Monster corporation (aka campaign donor) doesn't like it, most consumers (aka voters) don't like it... It won't fly.
"You can't literally put the market back in the competitive position it was in, so you'd have to think of a forward-looking remedy to help restore competition in the market as best as possible,"
Exactly what would this "forward looking remedy" be? I seriously doubt a stripped down version of Windows would fly. Customers just wouldn't buy it. Not without a serious price cut, in the >30% range, and can we seriously make the claim that 30% of the value of Windows is in IE?
I think this may be a case of too little, too late.
yeah, but these are people who dedicate their lives to killing people, not producing excellent code.
It might be possible to create high grade encryption from those ingredients, but the fact remains that few if any people, including terrorists are going to do it.
Anyway, why would they do that? Why wouldn't they just buy a illegally export some high grade encryption? (They are evil after all).
Certainly, some (perhaps many) terrorists would do this, but the article also makes it obvious that some would not, and would continue to use low grade encryption. (Maybe evil and laziness/stupidity go together).
I'm against restrictions any encryption, because I think that on the whole, the harm of restricting encryption will outweigh the good, but the article does raise a valid point.
>>I think the intent is that they have a new >>compressed audio format (which the average >>consumer can't tell from MP3)
>I think the average consumer will notice it's >not an mp3 when their old mp3 player won't play >it.
Why would you assume that their old mp3 player won't have a new version that will play the new format? Seems like a good idea to me.
Not that I think any new format will kill mp3 anytime soon. It's not the format that people like but the fact that they can get free copies of songs from Morpheus & co. Unless the RIAA is going to provide us with that, I don't think anyone will be all that interested in any carrots, so they'll probably end up resorting to the stick.
Not a sufficient answer. Federal copyright law doesn't pertain only to microsoft, so it doesn't qualify as government protection of microsoft.
If you're going to use examples that apply to everyone, you could also argue that the fact that the US law forbids throwing people in jail for having more than $1 million has also led to microsofts monopoly. While it is true that if you threw all such people in jail it would be quite unlikely for a monopoly on the OS market to develop, it doesn't explain why Microsoft achieved that monopoly.
I wouldn't buy them, but they're great for video rentals. D-Video near where I live will rent an entire season of The Soprano's for the regular rental price. ($4 CDN) ($2.50USD).
Unfortunately, they only give you a single story arc of Dr. Who which is only about 4 episodes generally.
Regardless, it's great for finding those episodes that you missed.
You can imbed a maro in a template AND THEN make an RTF that LINKS to that template, but properly speaking, the Macro does not reside in the RTF. Furthermore, for there to be any problem, the user would have to have the template that is linked to. (And then you're sending NON-RTF files again).
http://www.securiteam.com/windowsntfocus/5DP0L0K 4A I.html
You can also rename a DOC file with an RTF extension. MS-Word will start to open the file then realize that it's a DOC file and run any Macro's without warning. This might lead beginners to think that RTF's can contain macro's, but they don't.
http://www.cert.org/tech_tips/Melissa_FAQ.html
Perhaps I should have been more clear. You should still be very careful opening files from people you don't know. However, the original point was that if I save files as RTF and send them to people, they will both be more portable than DOC files and be incapable of carrying macro viruses.
The most recent version of MS-Word, (and that's what people who insist on e-mailing word documents use), has a feature called "send to mail recipient" which syncs nicely with Outlook Express (and presumably outlook). Easy as pie and they don't have to even open Outlook or do any cut and pasting. (in fact they might even appreciate it if you told them about this "new, cool timesaving feature)...
I'm repeating my own post here, but MS-Word is perfectly capable of saving things in other formats. My copy is set to save everything in.rtf by default. I have yet to lose any formatting, and as an added bonus, my documents can't be infected with Macro viruses. That's one the main selling points I use when telling other people about this. (That, and the fact that.rtf's work perfectly with MS-Word)
There's a very simple way of changing MS-Word's default format to something other than.doc format. I use Word a fair bit, and my copy is set to automatically save everything in rich text format. I have yet to encounter ANY formatting that can't be saved in that format. (Maybe because I don't write Macro viruses).
Explain to people that if they do this, their documents can be read by MANY more people, and that it doesn't affect them at all because MS-Word can read.rtf documents seamlessly. (It just treats them like regular.doc files). Don't forget to explain that occaisionally the system will complain that "some formatting might be lost", but that's not really true. It's only the very strange formatting that no one ever uses that would be lost. This has been good enough for all the non-technical people I've explained this to.
okay, if you can only win points by deliberately disguising what you're talking about, then you don't have much of a case.
How many Canadians have heard of Jérôme Choquette? On the other hand, how many Canadians have heard of the FLQ crisis? If you're going to talk about the FLQ crisis, you should at least be up front and honest about it.
As for your claim that martial law was invoked simply to scare political opponents, anyone with the intellectual prowess of a severely brain-damaged sloth can tell you that there were a lot more reasons than that.
For a basic chronology of the FLQ crisis you can go to http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/chronos/october.htm or you can do your own search in google.
sure he will. but how many people read slashdot? How many unique e-mail addresses is that? The best part is that it's not even spam. It's just a lot of unique e-mails coming in that you don't want to get. (and don't use your real address obviously)...
Shaw will exist until some other cable monopoly from Ontario comes and buys them.
Shaw has all of western Canada, Rogers has all of Eastern Canada, and there's basically no other large TV cable company, so there isn't anyone to buy Shaw. (Shaw and Rogers don't compete in the same areas, probably by agreement).
>>>Energy will NEVER be cheap again except for short durations
>>Predicitions of "never" are made to be broken. What intrinsic property does this energy-thingy have that there can't be a larger supply versus demand? Your statement is simply silly.
> I suggest you read this book [amazon.com]
(Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage)
well that's just silly.
first of all, he never said oil was inifinite, just that there's no intrinsic property of energy that makes it impossible to be cheap. (and besides, cheap is a relative term anyway).
As for you book, I have not read it, but it sounds to be in the same vein as Paul Ehrlich's work. Big on doom, gloom and wild predictions about the future. Our presently tapped oil fields are not in imminent danger of running dry and most of the oil fields in the world have not yet been tapped. That's before we even get into other fossil fuels.
We are making excellent progress in researching other sources of energy, so it seems quite reasonable to dismiss wild claims like "energy will NEVER be cheap again"...
The world is not coming to an end, the sky is not falling, and we are not all going to die! Sheesh...
It was great when Shaw took over from Rogers here in Vancouver. I've made a few calls to tech support, and only once have I had to wait more than 5 minutes.
Of course I still have to fight my way past the basic tech support guy who only knows what's on his checklist, but they're pretty good about transfering me to somehow who can actually help.
I'm still having trouble with my new @shaw.ca address, (anywhere from 1 minute to 5 hours before an e-mail leaves their system), but they've been pretty good all things considered.
The only downside has been that they're actually checking to see if you're grabbing more than one IP address. Rogers never bothered...
actually, if you make enough money in Canada, you will pay 1/3 of your income in taxes. And we're not talking the ultra-rich here, a good software developer would easily make enough to pay that much.
excuse me, but that has to be one of the stupidest things I've read on/. in a while.
personal choice is horrific?
they're just combinations of sounds? No, they're sounds in the context of language, and consequently carry a meaning. Your post makes about as much sense as saying that people shouldn't freak out about violent scenes or sexual scenes. They're just pixels... If someone doesn't want to listen to that meaning, you should stay out of it.
Your freedom of expression does not mean that you have the right to make everyone listen to you. Nor does it negate someones freedom to ignore certain "expressions", or to remove any "expression" they want from their living room.
Slashdot Mirror
dude... calm down.
his point was simply it is possible to hide something in plain sight. Granted it's easier in closed source, but you can hide a needle in a haystack.
Think of it this way. Assume that the unbelievable happened and microsoft released the source for all their programs. It would take a VERY long time to figure out what each and every line does.
It's quite easy to hide something in unfamiliar and/or poorly documented code.
Open source isn't magic, and it isn't the a silver bullet. Believe it or not, it's actually inappropriate for some situations.
That makes it unlikely that it will happen. Monster corporation (aka campaign donor) doesn't like it, most consumers (aka voters) don't like it... It won't fly.
Perhaps I'm missing the point...
RealNetworks seems to be an even better example of a company that makes a piece of junk and then whines about Microsloth's behaviour.
.
"You can't literally put the market back in the competitive position it was in, so you'd have to think of a forward-looking remedy to help restore competition in the market as best as possible,"
Exactly what would this "forward looking remedy" be? I seriously doubt a stripped down version of Windows would fly. Customers just wouldn't buy it. Not without a serious price cut, in the >30% range, and can we seriously make the claim that 30% of the value of Windows is in IE?
I think this may be a case of too little, too late.
I meant that it is privately owned.
true, but the difference between /. c style censorship and government censorship is still pretty stark. Perhaps it could be termed "soft-censorship".
/. is a private entity, not a public one.
Also worth considering is the fact that
.
It might be possible to create high grade encryption from those ingredients, but the fact remains that few if any people, including terrorists are going to do it.
Anyway, why would they do that? Why wouldn't they just buy a illegally export some high grade encryption? (They are evil after all).
Certainly, some (perhaps many) terrorists would do this, but the article also makes it obvious that some would not, and would continue to use low grade encryption. (Maybe evil and laziness/stupidity go together).
I'm against restrictions any encryption, because I think that on the whole, the harm of restricting encryption will outweigh the good, but the article does raise a valid point.
that doesn't work. it used to, but it doesn't anymore. neither does using "http://partners...
instead, you can use the amazing slashcode0 account.
Username Slashcode0
Password Slashcode0
That's a zero in both cases.
Have fun.
.
>>I think the intent is that they have a new >>compressed audio format (which the average >>consumer can't tell from MP3)
>I think the average consumer will notice it's >not an mp3 when their old mp3 player won't play >it.
Why would you assume that their old mp3 player won't have a new version that will play the new format? Seems like a good idea to me.
Not that I think any new format will kill mp3 anytime soon. It's not the format that people like but the fact that they can get free copies of songs from Morpheus & co. Unless the RIAA is going to provide us with that, I don't think anyone will be all that interested in any carrots, so they'll probably end up resorting to the stick.
.
Not a sufficient answer. Federal copyright law doesn't pertain only to microsoft, so it doesn't qualify as government protection of microsoft.
If you're going to use examples that apply to everyone, you could also argue that the fact that the US law forbids throwing people in jail for having more than $1 million has also led to microsofts monopoly. While it is true that if you threw all such people in jail it would be quite unlikely for a monopoly on the OS market to develop, it doesn't explain why Microsoft achieved that monopoly.
.
I wouldn't buy them, but they're great for video rentals. D-Video near where I live will rent an entire season of The Soprano's for the regular rental price. ($4 CDN) ($2.50USD).
Unfortunately, they only give you a single story arc of Dr. Who which is only about 4 episodes generally.
Regardless, it's great for finding those episodes that you missed.
.
Don't be stupid...
K 4A I.html
RTF's CANNOT carry macros...
http://www.sans.org/newlook/resources/macro.htm
You can imbed a maro in a template AND THEN make an RTF that LINKS to that template, but properly speaking, the Macro does not reside in the RTF. Furthermore, for there to be any problem, the user would have to have the template that is linked to. (And then you're sending NON-RTF files again).
http://www.securiteam.com/windowsntfocus/5DP0L0
You can also rename a DOC file with an RTF extension. MS-Word will start to open the file then realize that it's a DOC file and run any Macro's without warning. This might lead beginners to think that RTF's can contain macro's, but they don't.
http://www.cert.org/tech_tips/Melissa_FAQ.html
Perhaps I should have been more clear. You should still be very careful opening files from people you don't know. However, the original point was that if I save files as RTF and send them to people, they will both be more portable than DOC files and be incapable of carrying macro viruses.
.
now why would you do that?
The most recent version of MS-Word, (and that's what people who insist on e-mailing word documents use), has a feature called "send to mail recipient" which syncs nicely with Outlook Express (and presumably outlook). Easy as pie and they don't have to even open Outlook or do any cut and pasting. (in fact they might even appreciate it if you told them about this "new, cool timesaving feature)...
.
That's not true at all,
.rtf by default. I have yet to lose any formatting, and as an added bonus, my documents can't be infected with Macro viruses. That's one the main selling points I use when telling other people about this. (That, and the fact that .rtf's work perfectly with MS-Word)
I'm repeating my own post here, but MS-Word is perfectly capable of saving things in other formats. My copy is set to save everything in
.
There's a very simple way of changing MS-Word's default format to something other than .doc format. I use Word a fair bit, and my copy is set to automatically save everything in rich text format. I have yet to encounter ANY formatting that can't be saved in that format. (Maybe because I don't write Macro viruses).
.rtf documents seamlessly. (It just treats them like regular .doc files). Don't forget to explain that occaisionally the system will complain that "some formatting might be lost", but that's not really true. It's only the very strange formatting that no one ever uses that would be lost. This has been good enough for all the non-technical people I've explained this to.
Explain to people that if they do this, their documents can be read by MANY more people, and that it doesn't affect them at all because MS-Word can read
.
How many Canadians have heard of Jérôme Choquette? On the other hand, how many Canadians have heard of the FLQ crisis? If you're going to talk about the FLQ crisis, you should at least be up front and honest about it.
As for your claim that martial law was invoked simply to scare political opponents, anyone with the intellectual prowess of a severely brain-damaged sloth can tell you that there were a lot more reasons than that. For a basic chronology of the FLQ crisis you can go to http://www2.marianopolis.edu/quebechistory/chronos /october.htm or you can do your own search in google.
sure he will. but how many people read slashdot? How many unique e-mail addresses is that? The best part is that it's not even spam. It's just a lot of unique e-mails coming in that you don't want to get. (and don't use your real address obviously)...
Shaw has all of western Canada, Rogers has all of Eastern Canada, and there's basically no other large TV cable company, so there isn't anyone to buy Shaw. (Shaw and Rogers don't compete in the same areas, probably by agreement).
>>Predicitions of "never" are made to be broken. What intrinsic property does this energy-thingy have that there can't be a larger supply versus demand? Your statement is simply silly.
> I suggest you read this book [amazon.com] (Hubbert's Peak: The Impending World Oil Shortage)
well that's just silly.
first of all, he never said oil was inifinite, just that there's no intrinsic property of energy that makes it impossible to be cheap. (and besides, cheap is a relative term anyway).
As for you book, I have not read it, but it sounds to be in the same vein as Paul Ehrlich's work. Big on doom, gloom and wild predictions about the future. Our presently tapped oil fields are not in imminent danger of running dry and most of the oil fields in the world have not yet been tapped. That's before we even get into other fossil fuels.
We are making excellent progress in researching other sources of energy, so it seems quite reasonable to dismiss wild claims like "energy will NEVER be cheap again"...
The world is not coming to an end, the sky is not falling, and we are not all going to die! Sheesh...
good!
Then the idiots who send me spam can deal with the problem too.
I think I saw that once. You wouldn't happen to have a link to that would you?
It was great when Shaw took over from Rogers here in Vancouver. I've made a few calls to tech support, and only once have I had to wait more than 5 minutes.
Of course I still have to fight my way past the basic tech support guy who only knows what's on his checklist, but they're pretty good about transfering me to somehow who can actually help.
I'm still having trouble with my new @shaw.ca address, (anywhere from 1 minute to 5 hours before an e-mail leaves their system), but they've been pretty good all things considered.
The only downside has been that they're actually checking to see if you're grabbing more than one IP address. Rogers never bothered...
.
just in case you didn't get it from a previous reply... (a little too subtle for my taste)
. ht m
the immaculate conception refers to MARY not to JESUS.
the first hit on a google search for "immaculate conception refers to who" will tell you that.
http://www.catholic.com/ANSWERS/tracts/immacula
I'm not even Roman Catholic.
.
actually, if you make enough money in Canada, you will pay 1/3 of your income in taxes. And we're not talking the ultra-rich here, a good software developer would easily make enough to pay that much.
personal choice is horrific?
they're just combinations of sounds? No, they're sounds in the context of language, and consequently carry a meaning. Your post makes about as much sense as saying that people shouldn't freak out about violent scenes or sexual scenes. They're just pixels... If someone doesn't want to listen to that meaning, you should stay out of it.
Your freedom of expression does not mean that you have the right to make everyone listen to you. Nor does it negate someones freedom to ignore certain "expressions", or to remove any "expression" they want from their living room.
man, the stupidity of some people these days...