Not to be critical, but what would open source have anything to do with the way superintelligent computers would create robots?
With vastly superior processing power (e.g. quantum computers), there probably wouldn't even be a need for open source. And that's assuming superpowerful computer entities would need to be networked. You're enforcing human ideals on technological creations.
How is this a problem? Corporations for years have been tracking users opening certain files, and with the built-in features of macros and internet access in most office suites (StarOffice and WordPerfect included) isn't this the same thing?
MS just took the next logical step. They built a feature into the application that programmers had been scripting into it for years.
Kurt's Closet is part of SecurityPortal - he's got some good points, but it's also good to remember, as the article points out, that nothing is automagically secure.
Hmm... Internet Explorer has a minor bug that allows some users to view (not change, mind you, but view) contents on a select number of users hard drives. "The travesty! Has Microsoft no remorse! Clearly they don't test their products, and anyone using them from a security standpoint should be marked as a rat bastard!"
Debian is earmarked for possible security faults. "It's a shame, but I'm sure it won't happen again. Remember people, nothing is 'automagically' secure. Linux users are the cream of the crop, and a bug... well... I just don't believe it myself.
Sigh... when is Slashdot going to be seen as reputable? When they stop throwing a bias at everything involved with Linux.
They're going to get blown out of the water. Everquest is a fully-copyrighted world where the majority of user data exists on the servers. What are they going to do, mirror a copyrighted hard drive? Even in emulation you're overstepping the boundaries of what's allowed (most emulation projects only get off the ground if the product hasn't been out for years and is no longer profitable, like MAME).
Besides, they're underhanding Sony and Verant's entire profit system. (Also, note to poster, the graphics in EQ have nothing to do with the server. They're rendered entirely in the client, with only very vague instructions to general placement of things. An emulated server won't improve graphics.)
In my entire history of using Windows 2000 (I use it as my regular computer, along with a copy of Linux I rarely boot to), I've only encountered one Windows 2000 bug. It's when I load up 6 streaming video windows, Unreal Tournament, Quake III Arena and it cuts to an OpenGL screensaver. And it's not even a "bug" persay - there are screen artifacts. I think it has to do with my video drivers.
The other 64,999 bugs I've never encountered, and have strung up to media hype.
Either way the number is totally off. 70,000 for the number of Microsoft applications is way too high, while 70,000 for total applications created ever seems way too low.
And how are they classifying "application"? I write a quick utility, it runs, I put it on the internet. Bam, "application". Are we talking applications sold commercially (even still, the number sounds too low).
Gee, how caring of Apple not to "embarrass employees of the same name" by citing some unknown individual in a trade secret lawsuit.
And how considerate to bring it out on a nationwide stage in the judicial system, instead of dealing with it internally. And to ground rumor-leaking as a penalty by death in the religious Apple cult.
Please.;)
The above post was sarcastic. Macaddicts, please take your tongue and place it back in your cheek.
Internet 1 was created by government employees and academics. Only after sufficient trial was it handed over to the public "hackers" (that is, if you accept the definition of hackers as public software commanders, and not the academics who put the system together). Now, it's been almost completely taken over by big business ($850 billion total sales last year).
Internet 2 is again being created by academics in a much more open atmosphere. True, they are focusing more on broadband video and voice transfer, but nearly every protocol and standard they are using is available to the public and open-sourced (just not the hardware).
If you're an academic, this has to be. You can't be researching something and have another professor across country say "I already shelled out an algorhythm for high-speed video streaming but I... uh... don't know if I want it getting out." (Corporate secrecy may penetrate the upper layers at some institutions with grants, but most pure academics will cite the simple pride of research as key.)
Should a suit care? Windows 2000 Server handles things fairly reliably enough (it's no Linux or FreeBSD, but it's a step in the right direction) to be used in a corporation. It may not perform as well, but the tradeoff is administrative simplicity.
I agree with the above statement: if it ain't broke don't fix it. Who knows what kind of servers Microsoft is running? Does someone check all of them on the web on a daily basis?
Going Offtopic a bit, why does everyone say "Windoze" or "M$" here. It's kind of like when Mac addicts say "PeeCee". After fighting with my sound card for an hour and a half, I don't say "Linsucks".
Um... I'm not too sure about the reliability of this source. I mean, it seems fairly informally written (not that this means anything, but...) It almost seems like a "I heard from a cousin's brother's uncle from Microsoft" kind of story.
This is a classic example of a little too much justice far too late. Who's going to think that IBM can implement ALT-tags site-wide in less than a few weeks?
Better still, how long did this case wait before it was tried in the judicial system?
I find interesting what's there and not there. Hockey, my favorite sport, had its own newsgroup before basketball (yet had no posts yet). There is a user group for UNIX and BSD, but no Linux. There is no Apple newsgroup.
Most disturbing is the net.suicide newsgroup, however. At first I thought it was there for some introspective views on the possible collapse of the internet they were on. Turns out to be a newsgroup where posters want to commit suicide. (When a poster no longer posts to the group, does that mean he's been successful?)
Codewarrior is actually a pretty awesome development system. It can do things more elegantly than G++ (project coordination comes to mind). These things can be done in G++ but with significant effort.
I say bite the bullet and get Codewarrior. You will have other teachers that use G++, and some that use totally other systems. Stick your tongue in your cheek and forget about it.
Not necessarily. I could turn off cookies and still log-in every so often if I wanted to "get off" on seeing my name when I posted a message. (I would also guarantee that most people actually read my message, considering most browse in +1 mode).
My point is that there are some people in this world who take security/encryption to unnecessary extremes. If I'm dealing with money and transferring 10,000 dollars between bank accounts, yeah, I would want reasonably high security. If I'm posting to Slashdot and a few advertisers from Andover.net want to know that I'm a Linux user in my early 20's (well, duh), I could care less. Let them have the information.
I take it you're the kind of person who encrypts all their emails to mom telling about the kids?
Slashdot Mirror
With vastly superior processing power (e.g. quantum computers), there probably wouldn't even be a need for open source. And that's assuming superpowerful computer entities would need to be networked. You're enforcing human ideals on technological creations.
MS just took the next logical step. They built a feature into the application that programmers had been scripting into it for years.
Hmm... Internet Explorer has a minor bug that allows some users to view (not change, mind you, but view) contents on a select number of users hard drives. "The travesty! Has Microsoft no remorse! Clearly they don't test their products, and anyone using them from a security standpoint should be marked as a rat bastard!"
Debian is earmarked for possible security faults. "It's a shame, but I'm sure it won't happen again. Remember people, nothing is 'automagically' secure. Linux users are the cream of the crop, and a bug... well... I just don't believe it myself.
Sigh... when is Slashdot going to be seen as reputable? When they stop throwing a bias at everything involved with Linux.
Besides, they're underhanding Sony and Verant's entire profit system. (Also, note to poster, the graphics in EQ have nothing to do with the server. They're rendered entirely in the client, with only very vague instructions to general placement of things. An emulated server won't improve graphics.)
The other 64,999 bugs I've never encountered, and have strung up to media hype.
And how are they classifying "application"? I write a quick utility, it runs, I put it on the internet. Bam, "application". Are we talking applications sold commercially (even still, the number sounds too low).
Actually, I've just posted a lot comments raised by Insightful and Informative recommendations. Strange how that works here...
And how considerate to bring it out on a nationwide stage in the judicial system, instead of dealing with it internally. And to ground rumor-leaking as a penalty by death in the religious Apple cult.
Please. ;)
The above post was sarcastic. Macaddicts, please take your tongue and place it back in your cheek.
It's hard to make a religion out of something that may or may not be as important as one believes it is.
Internet 1 was created by government employees and academics. Only after sufficient trial was it handed over to the public "hackers" (that is, if you accept the definition of hackers as public software commanders, and not the academics who put the system together). Now, it's been almost completely taken over by big business ($850 billion total sales last year).
Internet 2 is again being created by academics in a much more open atmosphere. True, they are focusing more on broadband video and voice transfer, but nearly every protocol and standard they are using is available to the public and open-sourced (just not the hardware).
If you're an academic, this has to be. You can't be researching something and have another professor across country say "I already shelled out an algorhythm for high-speed video streaming but I... uh... don't know if I want it getting out." (Corporate secrecy may penetrate the upper layers at some institutions with grants, but most pure academics will cite the simple pride of research as key.)
Hm... funny we didn't do that when we got anonymous tips at (now defunct) paper-magazine Digital Diner.
Please stop saying "Windoze" and "M$". That's childish.
Should a suit care? Windows 2000 Server handles things fairly reliably enough (it's no Linux or FreeBSD, but it's a step in the right direction) to be used in a corporation. It may not perform as well, but the tradeoff is administrative simplicity.
Going Offtopic a bit, why does everyone say "Windoze" or "M$" here. It's kind of like when Mac addicts say "PeeCee". After fighting with my sound card for an hour and a half, I don't say "Linsucks".
Um... I'm not too sure about the reliability of this source. I mean, it seems fairly informally written (not that this means anything, but...) It almost seems like a "I heard from a cousin's brother's uncle from Microsoft" kind of story.
Better still, how long did this case wait before it was tried in the judicial system?
(BTW, does any word with Microsoft or BSD automatically equal a troll around here?)
Most disturbing is the net.suicide newsgroup, however. At first I thought it was there for some introspective views on the possible collapse of the internet they were on. Turns out to be a newsgroup where posters want to commit suicide. (When a poster no longer posts to the group, does that mean he's been successful?)
The phone numbers are there for the lawyers. Call them.
Codewarrior is actually a pretty awesome development system. It can do things more elegantly than G++ (project coordination comes to mind). These things can be done in G++ but with significant effort. I say bite the bullet and get Codewarrior. You will have other teachers that use G++, and some that use totally other systems. Stick your tongue in your cheek and forget about it.
My point is that there are some people in this world who take security/encryption to unnecessary extremes. If I'm dealing with money and transferring 10,000 dollars between bank accounts, yeah, I would want reasonably high security. If I'm posting to Slashdot and a few advertisers from Andover.net want to know that I'm a Linux user in my early 20's (well, duh), I could care less. Let them have the information.
I take it you're the kind of person who encrypts all their emails to mom telling about the kids?
CNET has a good article here.
Amiga was WAY before my time.
What would entice someone to click on a transparent ad?
Last time I tried Google they pulled up a few million hits (the top ones were good, of course, but there were still several million).