I do not find his position alramist or "slippery" at all. A LOT of civil liberties in America have been usurped since Bush declared war (oddly though, I thought only congress could do that) on terrorism. This is FACT, not fiction or a statement made without evidence. As an example: It used to be that in order to get a wiretap, a JUDGE had to grant it and there had to be reasonable cause. Now, any state's attorney can grant one without a shred of any evidence required to prove WHY it's needed.
I do not think it unreasonable to assume our (s)elected president and his posse^H^H^H^H^Hcabinet might consider cracking a form of terrorism.
It takes little for a cracker to then be labeled as an "enemy combatant" and all this stuff to play out in closed military tribunals.
Sorry to burst your happy Bill Gate's loving bubble. Do a little research, will you...
The "Bill and" part on that foundation's name is for PR only. It is, in fact, the MELINDA Gates Foundation. She started it, she is the one involved in it. Bill goes allong to keep his WIFE happy.
Look up how much charitable giving Bill Gates was involved in before Melinda came along and you will see the truth of who is the charitable one in that family.
If KMart also sells off some of their Ford trucks, where would it be Ford's problem if the trucks were sold to someone else?
Now, the reason Ford doesn't give a rat's ass what KMart does with the trucks they own is this: KMart can't make a verbatim copy of the truck, sell the original truck to someone else, and continue driving their copy around.
I think it is perfectly legit for Microsoft to ask for a clarification of precisely what licenses are to be transferred. I don't think they (should) have any right to STOP the transfer; but, just trying to keep KMart honest strikes me as a reasonable thing to do. OTOH, trying to make millions of dollars off a dying company over something as tenuous as software licensing seems pretty pissy and quite like a Microsoft thing to do.
I read the headline and immediately envisioned the chaos of that Tom & Jerry cartoon where the robot comes out and cleans whenever anything touches the floor. It all goes horribly awry, of course, as T&J cartoons generally do.
That T&J model will probably be the next revision.
Ok, I don't want to spark any big philosophical or religious debate on the origin of the universe and its age (although unfortunately one will probably ensue anyway)...BUT nowhere in the article does it say how they know it's 77 million years old. So how do they?
I'm assuming they go by some sort of carbon dating. What I'm asking all the geeks here is this: when scientists spout off numbers like this, what scientific means are they utilizing to back them up and how accurate are they?
I don't doubt the thing could very well *be* that old. I just wonder: how do they know?
As most code today is written in higher level languages (C/C++, Java, etc.) all it takes is a recompile and perhaps some patching...
But a lot of the code running today wasn't "written today" if you know what I mean. The problem is, in order to recompile you first need: a) the original source, and b) someone capable of patching, etc.
A lot of internal apps are in use for which the source code is lost. And a lot of code in use today (sadly) was not written in languages as portable as C, C++, and Java. A lot of apps in use today were written in Clipper and COBOL and a bunch of other languages that may not have decent compilers for other platforms. So recompiling it isn't an option. A complete re-write is necessary.
Even for situations in which application source *does* exist, and suitable compilers exist on other architectures, it is more often than not poorly documented...and the original author(s) is/are nowhere to be found. So in order to patch/fix the source to run on the new architecture, you not only need someone well versed in both the old and the new architectures, but someone who can read through what is often spaghetti code, understand it and make appropriate changes.
In a lot of these cases it's easier to stick with the current architecture. And that, to some degree, is why the x86 architecture has gotten as complex as it is.
I can send attachments if I want. I can receive attatchments if I want. I can send/receive specific types of attachments and block others. I can turn off script access to the address book. I can set any number of different parameters so I can have the control I want. If you or your admin couldn't or wouldn't be bothered to figure out how to use the patch, that means it's useless for you, yes...but not based on its own merits.
It would be better to have a system that will accept vb/javascript attachments and not run the virus code automatically. I'm not saying the patch is the end-all, be-all of computer security. But it works...it gives me the control I want, the security I want, the ability to let the users keep using the software they like to use, and NOT spread viruses. It is most definitely not useless.
And as for guaranteed "patches": what a silly comment. Security is a sliding scale. Your Linux/*BSD/whatever solution is not guaranteed either...unless you unplug it, lock it in a vault, drop it in the ocean (someplace deep) and forget where it is.
That aside, Outlook is not the real problem. (OE...maybe...)
Our office uses Outlook because it's a nice e-mail system overall. The group calendar thing is still not there in the solutions you mention.
At any rate, we use Outlook...and nobody here has been infected by this virus, NOR WILL THEY BE.
How is it I can say this? Because of this nifty patch Microsoft put out oh...about two years ago, called the "Outlook Security Patch" that lets my server automatically block these attachments. You can't open them if you want to.
The fact of the matter is, I've personally received the BugBear virus attached to more than one e-mail...so somebody I know has been hit. But I won't get the virus...because when I open it, there's this nifty little text at the top of the window that says "Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe attachments: whatever.jpg.pif"
I also listened and was going to point that out; but, I would like to add that the NPR show also said it wasn't the U.S. Government pay off to both sides that cleared the way for "all parties...to work together."
Rather, they disallowed them from claiming ownership of their individual advances in the ensuing years.
So basically, the U.S. Government *forced* them to share.
It may not have much effect in the DoI, but I submit it will have the following effect:
New (note I said NEW) contractors looking to work with the DoI will see this as an indicator that NEW stuff will be done on a Microsoft platform.
MILLIONS will be spent by vendors, contractors, etc. in training and otherwise getting up to speed on said Microsoft platforms
A lot of CIOs will take their cue from this and do the same thing
Microsoft will market the S%*t out of this, using it as an argument against other government departments (not just US ones) who are pro-OSS
Other US departments will follow suit...and it will all repeat
Now, I'm not saying OSS is dead in the DoI. But I am betting OSS will be slowly phased out if this policy stands, as any NEW projects will be hard pressed to justify those waivers.
Slashdot Mirror
I do not find his position alramist or "slippery" at all. A LOT of civil liberties in America have been usurped since Bush declared war (oddly though, I thought only congress could do that) on terrorism. This is FACT, not fiction or a statement made without evidence. As an example: It used to be that in order to get a wiretap, a JUDGE had to grant it and there had to be reasonable cause. Now, any state's attorney can grant one without a shred of any evidence required to prove WHY it's needed.
I do not think it unreasonable to assume our (s)elected president and his posse^H^H^H^H^Hcabinet might consider cracking a form of terrorism.
It takes little for a cracker to then be labeled as an "enemy combatant" and all this stuff to play out in closed military tribunals.
No constitution will stop The Whitehouse of Evil!
0.1% Banality about what the breakdown of posts will be
What? A swallow carrying a computer?
Sorry to burst your happy Bill Gate's loving bubble. Do a little research, will you...
The "Bill and" part on that foundation's name is for PR only. It is, in fact, the MELINDA Gates Foundation. She started it, she is the one involved in it. Bill goes allong to keep his WIFE happy.
Look up how much charitable giving Bill Gates was involved in before Melinda came along and you will see the truth of who is the charitable one in that family.
Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time.
I think it is perfectly legit for Microsoft to ask for a clarification of precisely what licenses are to be transferred. I don't think they (should) have any right to STOP the transfer; but, just trying to keep KMart honest strikes me as a reasonable thing to do. OTOH, trying to make millions of dollars off a dying company over something as tenuous as software licensing seems pretty pissy and quite like a Microsoft thing to do.
Attention /. readers: Please don't feed the trolls.
Try reading it mkay?
I read the headline and immediately envisioned the chaos of that Tom & Jerry cartoon where the robot comes out and cleans whenever anything touches the floor. It all goes horribly awry, of course, as T&J cartoons generally do.
That T&J model will probably be the next revision.
Even better: I read the book.
I can hear it now...
Apple: Stop copying us!
Microsoft: Stop copying us!
Apple: Bitch!
Ok, I don't want to spark any big philosophical or religious debate on the origin of the universe and its age (although unfortunately one will probably ensue anyway)...BUT nowhere in the article does it say how they know it's 77 million years old. So how do they?
I'm assuming they go by some sort of carbon dating. What I'm asking all the geeks here is this: when scientists spout off numbers like this, what scientific means are they utilizing to back them up and how accurate are they?
I don't doubt the thing could very well *be* that old. I just wonder: how do they know?
The problem is, in order to recompile you first need: a) the original source, and b) someone capable of patching, etc.
A lot of internal apps are in use for which the source code is lost. And a lot of code in use today (sadly) was not written in languages as portable as C, C++, and Java. A lot of apps in use today were written in Clipper and COBOL and a bunch of other languages that may not have decent compilers for other platforms. So recompiling it isn't an option. A complete re-write is necessary.
Even for situations in which application source *does* exist, and suitable compilers exist on other architectures, it is more often than not poorly documented...and the original author(s) is/are nowhere to be found. So in order to patch/fix the source to run on the new architecture, you not only need someone well versed in both the old and the new architectures, but someone who can read through what is often spaghetti code, understand it and make appropriate changes.
In a lot of these cases it's easier to stick with the current architecture. And that, to some degree, is why the x86 architecture has gotten as complex as it is.
Well, Eldred has more full lips, but Ashcroft has no gag reflex...
You're probably correct, Tom. What I want to know is: are we sure Kip Knight isn't a pseudonym for SCOTT19U?
Try to take over the world...
Frankly, I don't care if companies hack each other...so long as I benefit.
A bit late, but...
I can send attachments if I want. I can receive attatchments if I want. I can send/receive specific types of attachments and block others. I can turn off script access to the address book. I can set any number of different parameters so I can have the control I want. If you or your admin couldn't or wouldn't be bothered to figure out how to use the patch, that means it's useless for you, yes...but not based on its own merits.
It would be better to have a system that will accept vb/javascript attachments and not run the virus code automatically. I'm not saying the patch is the end-all, be-all of computer security. But it works...it gives me the control I want, the security I want, the ability to let the users keep using the software they like to use, and NOT spread viruses. It is most definitely not useless.
And as for guaranteed "patches": what a silly comment. Security is a sliding scale. Your Linux/*BSD/whatever solution is not guaranteed either...unless you unplug it, lock it in a vault, drop it in the ocean (someplace deep) and forget where it is.
What about Planet X, that further object? I think now it's a debate along the lines of This is Spinal Tap...
Astronomer: There are only ten planets.
Nigel: But these go to eleven.
Granted: Some people are morons.
That aside, Outlook is not the real problem. (OE...maybe...)
Our office uses Outlook because it's a nice e-mail system overall. The group calendar thing is still not there in the solutions you mention.
At any rate, we use Outlook...and nobody here has been infected by this virus, NOR WILL THEY BE.
How is it I can say this? Because of this nifty patch Microsoft put out oh...about two years ago, called the "Outlook Security Patch" that lets my server automatically block these attachments. You can't open them if you want to.
The fact of the matter is, I've personally received the BugBear virus attached to more than one e-mail...so somebody I know has been hit. But I won't get the virus...because when I open it, there's this nifty little text at the top of the window that says "Outlook blocked access to the following potentially unsafe attachments: whatever.jpg.pif"
I also listened and was going to point that out; but, I would like to add that the NPR show also said it wasn't the U.S. Government pay off to both sides that cleared the way for "all parties...to work together."
Rather, they disallowed them from claiming ownership of their individual advances in the ensuing years.
So basically, the U.S. Government *forced* them to share.
- New (note I said NEW) contractors looking to work with the DoI will see this as an indicator that NEW stuff will be done on a Microsoft platform.
- MILLIONS will be spent by vendors, contractors, etc. in training and otherwise getting up to speed on said Microsoft platforms
- A lot of CIOs will take their cue from this and do the same thing
- Microsoft will market the S%*t out of this, using it as an argument against other government departments (not just US ones) who are pro-OSS
- Other US departments will follow suit...and it will all repeat
Now, I'm not saying OSS is dead in the DoI. But I am betting OSS will be slowly phased out if this policy stands, as any NEW projects will be hard pressed to justify those waivers.But I admit: I could be wrong.