As does Windows - it's not an 'exclusively Unix' kind of thing. The problem only arises when developers DO NOT follow the convention that you change the filename when the version changes.
Wrong...it's a problem that arises when developers DO NOT follow the convention and you DO NOT have the ability to alter code. In the Windows world, bad code is uncorrectable.
Yeah, well, Einstein was demonstrably wrong, and not too great a scientist if he wanted to rely on calculations without pursuing experimentation to verify theoretical results.
"Crackers say site operators could install a patch disabling known exploits, so concerned publishers could avoid them."
I'll grant that the actual defacing of web sites is performed by the user's browser, not by Microsoft, but IF what Microsoft is doing is illegal, then saying "Well, people should protect themselves" is not a defense. If you burglarize a house because the front door lock is easily picked, YOU are liable, not the home owner.
I read about something similar about a year ago, being developed by China. The basic idea seems to be to use existing civilian radio sources that span multiple frequencies - TV, radio, and now cell phones. The receiving stations are completely passive (this is important); all they do is detect the strength of radio signals at all these frequencies, compare that information to the known quantity of an empty sky, and calculate where in the sky pieces of metal are altering the radio signal.
Here's why it's a bad idea:
It turns CIVILIAN installations into MILITARY installations. Right now, it's considered really bad form to blow up TV or radio stations, or to destroy a civilian communication network. (Doesn't mean it won't be done, of course). However, if an opposing force is using TV stations to blow up your jets, then those TV stations become legitimate target.
But why, you ask, would the military not target the receiving station? Because they're PASSIVE. They are not emitting enough of a signal to be differentiated from the background noise of 100,000s of TVs, radios, and cell phones. The receivers can't be targetted, but the transmitters can.
So in essence, deploying a system like this gives your opponent carte blanche to destroy your civilian wireless communications network. This is a bad, BAD idea.
I've read several responses to your post, all agreeing that the article is written at a pretty high level. I'd suggest that it's not "lawyer's English" - it's "bad English." In most cases, you can understand the author's intent, but it's badly in need of some editing.
- 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence:
Particularly, laws made to protect computers on the Internet and computer security are applied unpredictably.
Laws made to protect computer security? How do you protect security? Or does he mean computer security is applied unpredictably? What?
- 2nd para., 2nd sent.
This article assumes that legal decisions about the Internet will continue to be based in partially on property rights.
Either the word 'in' or the phrase 'partially on' need to be deleted.
- 2nd para, 3rd sent.
Without property rights, computer owners may not be willing to connect to the Internet if their computers can be abused without legal remedy.
With property rights, computer owners will not be willing to connect to the Internet if their computers can be abused without legal remedy. So what's his point?
/me gives up in disgust and then notices byline, at the very beginning:
Ethan Preston expects to receive his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center in 2001. Right... and I expect to be made emperor in 2001. I'll never hire a Georgetown alumnus if Ethan makes the grade.
It's been a few years since I was in the Army, but IIRC, personal data is classified 'Confidential'. Or at least it's treated the same as confidential-classified material.
Frighten people away, rather than attracting them with the idea of buried treasure, archeological relics or whatever;
There's only one way to do this: kill people. The goal of placing a message on this pile of plutonium that will be universally understood for tens of thousands of years is ludicrous. However, the plutonium itself is a pretty robust messenger. Whatever else you do, store the plutonium in such a way that whoever discovers it will die.
Some will no doubt think this is too cold-hearted; I would ask if they intend to avoid unnecessary deaths by eliminating all pathogens and large predators so that our descendants won't be threatened by them? Perhaps level every cliff on the planet so that no one will fall off? Drain the seas so no one will drown? Place warning signs saying "DO NOT LIVE HERE" near all coasts susceptible to hurricanes, in all plains subject to tornadoes, and along every fault line that generates earthquakes and volcanoes?
We've created a force of nature. We can't hope to warn everyone of its danger EXCEPT by allowing peoples and cultures who come into contact with it to experience the danger.
On a side note- in one of my classes the professor told us that a lot of the scientists at the time were concerned that detonating an atomic bomb would ignite all of the oxygen in the atmosphere, causing the whole planet to burn. IIRC - the concern was that the detonation of the first atomic bomb would cause a chain reaction of nitrogen fusion, resulting in an atmosphere composed of silicon and oxygen, which would react to form silicon dioxide. They estimated that there was only a 10% chance that they would convert the atmosphere to sand.
The only rights we can have are truly fundamental - the right to life, for example. As Heinlein pointed out, there is no such right.
Privacy is not a right, it is a manufactured abomination, a cover for the dishonest and unnatural. Clothing is the most immediate practical example of privacy-protecting technology. Do you practice what you preach?
We regret to inform you Mr. Rinker died of a heart attack while reading your post. His last words were reported to be "can't be...rational people...on slashdot..."
I do not feel that they were negligent in not telling people that boiling water is hot. True. They were negligent in not telling people that they were being served boiling water. Rational people don't drink boiling water. I understand completely McD's reasons for serving ultra-hot coffee, but they need to be prepared to pay for the consequences of their actions.
While I would agree that she had a case for medical expenses, I do not feel that the US courts should serve the same purpose as the lottery. Yup. Gotta agree with you there. ACTUAL damages should be paid; compensation for pain and suffering and emotional distress is iffy. Punitive damages are right out.
If a company has done something wrong and deserves to pay punitive damages, then those damages should go to a charity, or the local community, or the Federal treasury. But there is NO reason for a company to pay ME punitive damages. If someone robs my house and the judge sentences them to $a 50,000 fine and five years at hard labor, do I get the cash and the results of his work? Should I? Why then should civil damages be different?
Congratulations! YOU...have mastered the art of the Straw Man!
What the poster said:
"...the people who care about preserving French in Canada aren't necessarily mistaken about coercion being the only way to do it."
What you say he said:
"COERCION GOOD! FORCE THEM TO SPEAK FRENCH! KILL ENGLISH-SPEAKERS AND EAT THEIR BABIES!"
Permit me to translate the poster's intent...Regardless of the utility of preserving French in Quebec, I believe that it won't happen voluntarily. People will not decide to speak primarily French unless they are forced to do so. Without the application of some external motivation, people will choose NOT to speak French.
Let's consider another example...gun control.
(ahem) The only way to achieve gun control in the U.S. is through coercion. (You need only look at all the "from my cold, dead fingers" bumper stickers to see the truth in this.) Does the bolded statement up there affirm or oppose gun control? Neither; it merely states the opinion that it's not going to happen voluntarily.
And as for the judges, the judge that found McDonalds liable for not warning some (fully grown and presumably employed) idiot that coffee is hot
Some facts:
McDonald's coffee was hot enough to cause second and third degree burns. McDonald's serves hundreds of thousands of cups of coffee per day. No human being is perfect.
Conclusion: an accident will occur, and someone will be severely burned.
When this happened, the woman asked McDonald's to cover part of her medical expenses. Not all of them, just part - she was willing to accept that she was partially responsible for the accident, and she wasn't asking for compensation for 'pain and suffering.' McDonalds repeatedly and disrespectfully refused.
So she sued. She got her medical bills paid, she got her 'pain and suffering', and McDonalds was penalized for giving customers a product that they KNEW their customers would hold in their laps and that they KNEW could cause severe tissue damage.
The thing is, I COMPLETELY agree with your points about cheating. I simply fail to see their relevance. There are more important things than whether or not someone can frag you at will.
Freedom of speech means you can call me a jerk. I think that's a real downside to free speech. It makes me enjoy my day less. (wipes away a tear) In fact, to make my day more enjoyable, I think we should eliminate freedom of speech.
Which does what, exactly, to cut down on cheating? Open soure makes it IMPOSSIBLE to cheat at a well-written application (theoretically:). It won't help with past poorly written applications. However, if coders in the future know that players will see the code, they will implement stronger security measures. Many of the current 'security' features are workarounds for low-speed 'net connections. As these go away, it will become easier to implement stronger security - like sending info only when needed.
And insisting that everybody does it your way (open source software) is no freedom at all. Oh, get real! If I insist that everyone wear broccoli and cheese on their head, how does that take away your freedom? If everyone (including you) agree that wearing cheese and broccoli is the cool thing to do, then where have I taken away your freedom? I'm not king; I can't force you to do my will If I could, do you think I'd be worried about such a small thing as code? The world would be my plaything! Lighten up.
To sum up:
Open source is not a means to an end; it is an end in itself. As with ANY choice, there are tradeoffs. One of them is that people who write games will have to work harder.
If the source were open, it would be impossible to get rid of every version with the see thru code in it.
If the source were open, the source would be open. Sort of like, if you have freedom of speech, you have freedom of speech. The issue is not "But if you have freedom of speech, some people will say bad things!"
With it closed at least ASUS knows can inform people exactly how it works and how to prevent it from being used. Yes. Sort of like how Microsoft can tell you exactly how Windows works and can prevent criminals and terrorists from launching DOS's from Windows boxen.
Slashdot Mirror
As does Windows - it's not an 'exclusively Unix' kind of thing. The problem only arises when developers DO NOT follow the convention that you change the filename when the version changes.
Wrong...it's a problem that arises when developers DO NOT follow the convention and you DO NOT have the ability to alter code. In the Windows world, bad code is uncorrectable.
Yeah, well, Einstein was demonstrably wrong, and not too great a scientist if he wanted to rely on calculations without pursuing experimentation to verify theoretical results.
Thank you, Captain Obvious...
Not spam, but web site cracking.
"Crackers say site operators could install a patch disabling known exploits, so concerned publishers could avoid them."
I'll grant that the actual defacing of web sites is performed by the user's browser, not by Microsoft, but IF what Microsoft is doing is illegal, then saying "Well, people should protect themselves" is not a defense. If you burglarize a house because the front door lock is easily picked, YOU are liable, not the home owner.
Right, and it better not have a 50-foot sign outside saying "Acquire target here."
OK, wiseguy. I'm going to put a multi-frequency RF receiver inside my house. Now, I want you to detect it....
Done yet?
How 'bout now?
I read about something similar about a year ago, being developed by China. The basic idea seems to be to use existing civilian radio sources that span multiple frequencies - TV, radio, and now cell phones. The receiving stations are completely passive (this is important); all they do is detect the strength of radio signals at all these frequencies, compare that information to the known quantity of an empty sky, and calculate where in the sky pieces of metal are altering the radio signal.
Here's why it's a bad idea:
It turns CIVILIAN installations into MILITARY installations. Right now, it's considered really bad form to blow up TV or radio stations, or to destroy a civilian communication network. (Doesn't mean it won't be done, of course). However, if an opposing force is using TV stations to blow up your jets, then those TV stations become legitimate target.
But why, you ask, would the military not target the receiving station? Because they're PASSIVE. They are not emitting enough of a signal to be differentiated from the background noise of 100,000s of TVs, radios, and cell phones. The receivers can't be targetted, but the transmitters can.
So in essence, deploying a system like this gives your opponent carte blanche to destroy your civilian wireless communications network. This is a bad, BAD idea.
- 1st paragraph, 2nd sentence:Laws made to protect computer security? How do you protect security? Or does he mean computer security is applied unpredictably? What?
- 2nd para., 2nd sent.Either the word 'in' or the phrase 'partially on' need to be deleted.
- 2nd para, 3rd sent. With property rights, computer owners will not be willing to connect to the Internet if their computers can be abused without legal remedy. So what's his point?
/me gives up in disgust and then notices byline, at the very beginning:
Ethan Preston expects to receive his J.D. from the Georgetown University Law Center in 2001.
Right... and I expect to be made emperor in 2001. I'll never hire a Georgetown alumnus if Ethan makes the grade.
It's been a few years since I was in the Army, but IIRC, personal data is classified 'Confidential'. Or at least it's treated the same as confidential-classified material.
Hi, Bill! I just wanted to say I really LOVE your company. And that Bob thing that Melinda did, it's SO great!
Anyway, I was thinking, since you're obviously so into freedom, can I put some of your Word code into this StarOffice project I'm working on?
Frighten people away, rather than attracting them with the idea of buried treasure, archeological relics or whatever;
There's only one way to do this: kill people. The goal of placing a message on this pile of plutonium that will be universally understood for tens of thousands of years is ludicrous. However, the plutonium itself is a pretty robust messenger. Whatever else you do, store the plutonium in such a way that whoever discovers it will die.
Some will no doubt think this is too cold-hearted; I would ask if they intend to avoid unnecessary deaths by eliminating all pathogens and large predators so that our descendants won't be threatened by them? Perhaps level every cliff on the planet so that no one will fall off? Drain the seas so no one will drown? Place warning signs saying "DO NOT LIVE HERE" near all coasts susceptible to hurricanes, in all plains subject to tornadoes, and along every fault line that generates earthquakes and volcanoes?
We've created a force of nature. We can't hope to warn everyone of its danger EXCEPT by allowing peoples and cultures who come into contact with it to experience the danger.
On a side note- in one of my classes the professor told us that a lot of the scientists at the time were concerned that detonating an atomic bomb would ignite all of the oxygen in the atmosphere, causing the whole planet to burn.
IIRC - the concern was that the detonation of the first atomic bomb would cause a chain reaction of nitrogen fusion, resulting in an atmosphere composed of silicon and oxygen, which would react to form silicon dioxide. They estimated that there was only a 10% chance that they would convert the atmosphere to sand.
What a great troll!!
The only rights we can have are truly fundamental - the right to life, for example.
As Heinlein pointed out, there is no such right.
Privacy is not a right, it is a manufactured abomination, a cover for the dishonest and unnatural.
Clothing is the most immediate practical example of privacy-protecting technology. Do you practice what you preach?
:)
And now that the parent has been modded down, it seems that you are referring to Chris DiBona's link.
:)
Yup. Minimum for any shop that considers itself professional:
Production (it works)
Test (we think it works)
Development (we're trying to make it work)
Training (the users are trying to figur out how it works)
Our test platforms sometimes double as training platforms; nothing reveals incorrect assumptions quicker than a clueless user banging at an app.
"What do you mean I shouldn't close while it says 'Committing transaction...'? If I shouldn't do it, why does it let me?"
We regret to inform you Mr. Rinker died of a heart attack while reading your post. His last words were reported to be "can't be...rational people...on slashdot..."
:)
I do not feel that they were negligent in not telling people that boiling water is hot.
True. They were negligent in not telling people that they were being served boiling water. Rational people don't drink boiling water. I understand completely McD's reasons for serving ultra-hot coffee, but they need to be prepared to pay for the consequences of their actions.
While I would agree that she had a case for medical expenses, I do not feel that the US courts should serve the same purpose as the lottery.
Yup. Gotta agree with you there. ACTUAL damages should be paid; compensation for pain and suffering and emotional distress is iffy. Punitive damages are right out.
If a company has done something wrong and deserves to pay punitive damages, then those damages should go to a charity, or the local community, or the Federal treasury. But there is NO reason for a company to pay ME punitive damages. If someone robs my house and the judge sentences them to $a 50,000 fine and five years at hard labor, do I get the cash and the results of his work? Should I? Why then should civil damages be different?
...at http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/license/
</karma whore>
Congratulations! YOU...have mastered the art of the Straw Man!
What the poster said:
"...the people who care about preserving French in Canada aren't necessarily mistaken about coercion being the only way to do it."
What you say he said:
"COERCION GOOD! FORCE THEM TO SPEAK FRENCH! KILL ENGLISH-SPEAKERS AND EAT THEIR BABIES!"
Permit me to translate the poster's intent...Regardless of the utility of preserving French in Quebec, I believe that it won't happen voluntarily. People will not decide to speak primarily French unless they are forced to do so. Without the application of some external motivation, people will choose NOT to speak French.
Let's consider another example...gun control.
(ahem) The only way to achieve gun control in the U.S. is through coercion.
(You need only look at all the "from my cold, dead fingers" bumper stickers to see the truth in this.) Does the bolded statement up there affirm or oppose gun control? Neither; it merely states the opinion that it's not going to happen voluntarily.
The links on the page you cite are broken...try this:
http://www.pennmush.org/~jomr/v1n1/bartle.html
Read the post you replied to carefully...I think the bit you missed was "If the big bosses ask why, just explain..."
The person hiring coders isn't looking for a slave, but corporate PHBs are. Always.
And as for the judges, the judge that found McDonalds liable for not warning some (fully grown and presumably employed) idiot that coffee is hot
Some facts:
McDonald's coffee was hot enough to cause second and third degree burns. McDonald's serves hundreds of thousands of cups of coffee per day. No human being is perfect.
Conclusion: an accident will occur, and someone will be severely burned.
When this happened, the woman asked McDonald's to cover part of her medical expenses. Not all of them, just part - she was willing to accept that she was partially responsible for the accident, and she wasn't asking for compensation for 'pain and suffering.' McDonalds repeatedly and disrespectfully refused.
So she sued. She got her medical bills paid, she got her 'pain and suffering', and McDonalds was penalized for giving customers a product that they KNEW their customers would hold in their laps and that they KNEW could cause severe tissue damage.
Got that right. I read the post and thought "Dude! Sid PATENTED Civ? Why'd the moron give it up?"
/., so no one has ever heard of the intellectual property FAQ (look for it on google) and thinks license=trademark=copyright=patent.
But hey, this is
The thing is, I COMPLETELY agree with your points about cheating. I simply fail to see their relevance. There are more important things than whether or not someone can frag you at will.
:). It won't help with past poorly written applications. However, if coders in the future know that players will see the code, they will implement stronger security measures. Many of the current 'security' features are workarounds for low-speed 'net connections. As these go away, it will become easier to implement stronger security - like sending info only when needed.
Freedom of speech means you can call me a jerk. I think that's a real downside to free speech. It makes me enjoy my day less. (wipes away a tear) In fact, to make my day more enjoyable, I think we should eliminate freedom of speech.
Which does what, exactly, to cut down on cheating?
Open soure makes it IMPOSSIBLE to cheat at a well-written application (theoretically
And insisting that everybody does it your way (open source software) is no freedom at all.
Oh, get real! If I insist that everyone wear broccoli and cheese on their head, how does that take away your freedom? If everyone (including you) agree that wearing cheese and broccoli is the cool thing to do, then where have I taken away your freedom? I'm not king; I can't force you to do my will If I could, do you think I'd be worried about such a small thing as code? The world would be my plaything! Lighten up.
To sum up:
Open source is not a means to an end; it is an end in itself. As with ANY choice, there are tradeoffs. One of them is that people who write games will have to work harder.
If the source were open, it would be impossible to get rid of every version with the see thru code in it.
If the source were open, the source would be open. Sort of like, if you have freedom of speech, you have freedom of speech. The issue is not "But if you have freedom of speech, some people will say bad things!"
With it closed at least ASUS knows can inform people exactly how it works and how to prevent it from being used.
Yes. Sort of like how Microsoft can tell you exactly how Windows works and can prevent criminals and terrorists from launching DOS's from Windows boxen.