"when you get photos taken, do not agree to release the copyright"
I think you mean the other way around. Unless otherwise specified, the photographer has the rights to his work. You can though demand that as part of the deal, you get the rights to the work. Be default, it's theirs.
You know, saying that bundling a more feature rich product hurts competition is kind of silly. If the product were *less* feature rich, but users didn't switch because it's what was bundled, complaining would make more sense.
"We can't sell these aftermarket products because what's included in the OS has more features!"
Yes, but when you take a developer and pay him to read OSS, you do two things. One, you take his time away from contributing to your product code that makes you money. Two, you potentially open yourself to accusations that you took OSS code and copied it into your closed source software. It makes sense to pay someone to look at the OSS movement and distill the information to management so they can make decisions based off that information. That's what it means to "hire someone to understand open source".
"What we as Americans must do is decide what is moral and set those morals as our standards."
So you're proposing a system were any set of moral standards (say set by the majority) will offend the remainder of the population. That's what we have now and why either side of the moral line (whereever you draw it on any particular issue) fights tooth and nail with the other side. It's dividing the country.
I propose we leave the moral issues to the people. Let them decide in their communities what is acceptable. Instead of getting the government to pass such broad stroked laws as this, try this:
1. Lobby your ISP to provide the censoring service. If enough people do so, they will implement it and get many subscribers who agree with that. 2. Tell your child "If Timmy's house does not use ISP X or Y (that provide censorship), please don't surf the web there. Or better yet, don't hang out with him." Forcing Timmy to your morality will just infuriate him (or his parents) and divide the two friends artificially. If you divide them on your own (forbidding cohorting with such people) then that's your issue, not anyone elses. 3. Tell your school district that they need to censor everything they can. Get the local government involved if you must. The people that disagree with you and loose the argument will move. If you lose, you should move.
We need more autonomy of communities to choose how they want to live, and allow people to freely choose their communities. We need less broad sweeping legislation that tries to apply a portion of the publics moral opinions on everyone else even if they live hundreds of miles away.
I think they should focus on the fact that the government is forcing a private business to provide services for filtering content which is actually not illegal but might be distasteful to certain people. That's a business decision, a value added service it could provide if the cost of adding it would be worth the increase in percepted of their product in relation to the others on the market. We're not talking about filtering content the government found illegal here, but content the government found distasteful.
I think the problem that people have with this legislation is 1) the content is not illicit, it's perfectly legal but some people's morals might convince them it's not something they want to see (or their kids to see) and 2) by forcing this upon companies, the state is going against the principles of the nation by putting a requirement on how you do business *outside* of the legal view of the content.
I was actually referring to comparing the same vulurabilities that were fixed on both. Many of them were taken care of by defense in depth (not installing components by default, not enabling them by default, etc). Of the many pathes that fixed bugs in 2000 and 2003, on 2000 they were exploitable out of the box, on 2003 they were not. I remember a case where a protocol bug was present on both, exploitable on 2000 due to a buffer over run present which was fixed on 2003. So, although the patch fixed the protocol bug, it was not exploitable on 2003. Those cases are the most dramatic results of the TwC push.
No, actually, Win2K was in it's final days before release when the TwC initiative was just getting started. Look to Server 2003 for the first release predicated competely by TwC. You'll see the security improvements there. Comapre the vulurabilities in 2003 to the vulurabilities in 2000 and its quite a difference. How many of the big name worms were a big issue for 2003?
"There are plenty of laws that stop me copying it and giving it to other people, but that's a whole different ballgame, and I'm happy with that."
That's my point. You do not have certain rights to the content of the media, for example distribution. That's only possible with a license, because if you 'owned' the content, you'd have all the rights that entails.
From the linked article, it was unclear to me what "been happy to help China set up its massive surveillance system" really means. It appears that the companies sold hardware and software. There's no mention of actually "helping" with the endevour. Short of a trade embargo forbidding the sale of any US hardware and software to the Chinese government, I don't see how you'll stop people doing what they please with the software they buy. Isn't that one of the points of having free (as in speach) software, to keep people's noses out of your business with what you do with your software?
According to the EULA, you are licensed to run the software, but do not own it out right. Something akin to music on a CD. You own the physical media, but not the rights to the content. You may or may not disagree with how the law stands today, but that does not make this "hack" anything like "modifying my property".
Google advanced search allows you to do #2 (search in selected language). Alas, it's unclear if you want to select one or form a set, so I'm not sure this is exactly what youw ant.
"#4) People will sniff your network. Nothing is bulletproof. Finding passwords sent is easy. If it comes as clear text, you are screwed off the bat. This defeats #1 and #2, but not #3, because #3 is based on an algorithm that changes every 1 minute."
Actually, this only defeats #3 for the remaining part of that minute. With code sniffing the network, its trivial to reply that login information in under the time remaining. A better solution would be to use a algorithmic addition to the password *and* encrypt your login information, just be sure to use encryption that takes longer than sixty seconds to break on a fast machine. (Think, publicly reviewed encryption algorithm with a large enough key).
I would argue that they don't have extraordinary complexity. For one, the character frequency would mimic that of English (or other language one used to generated the "long word"). That means less entropy and therefore, weaker passwords.
My solution is to print out a grid of random characters, say five by five. Then assign passwords by remembering patterns. For example, start with position (2, 3) then go up one, then go down three, then right one, etc. Once you have the desired pattern, read off the characters and use that for your password. Once a month, reprint a new random assortment of characters and change your passwords to match. Once every six months or so, also change your patterns. For a slightly weaker, but more mnemonic system use a three (columns) by four (rows) grid of characters and map that to a telephone keypad and use telephone numbers as the pattern. Carry around the grid until you remember the passwords, then destroy the grid. It takes me about two days to do so.
Of course, to make this work, the patterns must be easy to remember, changed every n iterations. Each iteration should use a secure random number generator to generate the character grid.
If you take a look at the vulnurabilities found in the first six months of Windows 2000 Server being on the market and the vulnurabilities found in the first six months of Windows Server 2003 being on the market, you'll note that the number has gone down dramatically (I don't remember the exact figures). Also, for many vulurabilities, a default 2003 installation will not expose the vulnurable area whereas a default 2000 installation will. Those are meaningful results.
I think his point is that we want more information, but to prevent overload we need a suitable way of prioritizing, storing, retrieving, and acting on the information. So saying that we need better tools (like desktop search with easy metadata editing) and that we need more information than we have access to today are not necessarily counter to each other.
I agree with you, but I think they were measuring "lost productivity". That's not the same as money. It's the money they would have made if everyone was at work that day. Of course, paid time off is usually accounted for when bean counters do that kind of math, so the "lost productivity" because of the movie makes little sense, the time off was already accounted for when the companies decided how many sick and vacation days an employee can take a year.
You illustrated my point well. I actually do not think it's wise to assume that all new releases from a company, say Microsoft, can be disregarded as identical in effect as those in the past. With water, it makes sense to learn from the past. It does not makes sense to write off Longhorn as something not worth even looking at because Windows 95 crashed a lot. It's hard to give a professional opinion, let alone make an informed descision if you "learn" from a situation that's not the same as the current one.
So yes, the first person in your example is wiser. The OP here is not wiser, he learned from false premises.
Really, what's the limit? I currently have twenty rules which do everything I need them to do. Granted, I only do organizational filtering since malicious email filtering is done elsewhere. Am I going to hit it soon?
"For me, it doesn't matter what product Microsoft develops anymore. I will always avoid all their products like the plague and use my influence to guide others to avoid them also."
If you've "come to the conclusion that [you] have through logic" it's exactly the logic I avoid in advice from people. To ignore a product or idea because of past products or ideas of an entity is just fine. Perhaps you don't feel that the time to research the new product or idea is worth your time because historically it hasn't been. It's your time, do with it as you please.
Now, to go and use your influence to get other people to avoid that product is poor professional behavior, and I pity the people that follow such advice. You avoided the product, so to go an convince people to avoid it without real understanding is immoral in my book and I feel sorry for the people who get hooked by that.
That's why you sync your inbox and set up proper filters at the mail server (for spam, virus, phishing, etc, emails) at the client (for organization into projects, etc). That way what comes through to your phone is deemed important enough to go directly into your sparsly populated inbox (and Magneto device).
1. small as possible -- Got that, I have a Mpx200 which is 4 oz. and 1.90x3.5x1.06 in. Certainly a phone form factor first. 2. best screen possible -- It's an old phone, so it's only 176x220 pixel display, but certainly works for my phone/PDA needs. Newer devices will have better displays I'm sure. 3. blackberry/treo keyboard -- Nope, shortcoming here, but once again, it's an old device. 4. push email -- EAS allows push email, calendar, etc. 5. IM -- Has that too.
Added things I like you didn't mention: over-the-air update, passthrough connection when connected via USB to a computer, use as a modem.
Slashdot Mirror
"when you get photos taken, do not agree to release the copyright"
I think you mean the other way around. Unless otherwise specified, the photographer has the rights to his work. You can though demand that as part of the deal, you get the rights to the work. Be default, it's theirs.
You know, saying that bundling a more feature rich product hurts competition is kind of silly. If the product were *less* feature rich, but users didn't switch because it's what was bundled, complaining would make more sense.
"We can't sell these aftermarket products because what's included in the OS has more features!"
Yes, but when you take a developer and pay him to read OSS, you do two things. One, you take his time away from contributing to your product code that makes you money. Two, you potentially open yourself to accusations that you took OSS code and copied it into your closed source software. It makes sense to pay someone to look at the OSS movement and distill the information to management so they can make decisions based off that information. That's what it means to "hire someone to understand open source".
"What we as Americans must do is decide what is moral and set those morals as our standards."
So you're proposing a system were any set of moral standards (say set by the majority) will offend the remainder of the population. That's what we have now and why either side of the moral line (whereever you draw it on any particular issue) fights tooth and nail with the other side. It's dividing the country.
I propose we leave the moral issues to the people. Let them decide in their communities what is acceptable. Instead of getting the government to pass such broad stroked laws as this, try this:
1. Lobby your ISP to provide the censoring service. If enough people do so, they will implement it and get many subscribers who agree with that.
2. Tell your child "If Timmy's house does not use ISP X or Y (that provide censorship), please don't surf the web there. Or better yet, don't hang out with him." Forcing Timmy to your morality will just infuriate him (or his parents) and divide the two friends artificially. If you divide them on your own (forbidding cohorting with such people) then that's your issue, not anyone elses.
3. Tell your school district that they need to censor everything they can. Get the local government involved if you must. The people that disagree with you and loose the argument will move. If you lose, you should move.
We need more autonomy of communities to choose how they want to live, and allow people to freely choose their communities. We need less broad sweeping legislation that tries to apply a portion of the publics moral opinions on everyone else even if they live hundreds of miles away.
I think they should focus on the fact that the government is forcing a private business to provide services for filtering content which is actually not illegal but might be distasteful to certain people. That's a business decision, a value added service it could provide if the cost of adding it would be worth the increase in percepted of their product in relation to the others on the market. We're not talking about filtering content the government found illegal here, but content the government found distasteful.
I think the problem that people have with this legislation is 1) the content is not illicit, it's perfectly legal but some people's morals might convince them it's not something they want to see (or their kids to see) and 2) by forcing this upon companies, the state is going against the principles of the nation by putting a requirement on how you do business *outside* of the legal view of the content.
I was actually referring to comparing the same vulurabilities that were fixed on both. Many of them were taken care of by defense in depth (not installing components by default, not enabling them by default, etc). Of the many pathes that fixed bugs in 2000 and 2003, on 2000 they were exploitable out of the box, on 2003 they were not. I remember a case where a protocol bug was present on both, exploitable on 2000 due to a buffer over run present which was fixed on 2003. So, although the patch fixed the protocol bug, it was not exploitable on 2003. Those cases are the most dramatic results of the TwC push.
No, actually, Win2K was in it's final days before release when the TwC initiative was just getting started. Look to Server 2003 for the first release predicated competely by TwC. You'll see the security improvements there. Comapre the vulurabilities in 2003 to the vulurabilities in 2000 and its quite a difference. How many of the big name worms were a big issue for 2003?
"There are plenty of laws that stop me copying it and giving it to other people, but that's a whole different ballgame, and I'm happy with that."
That's my point. You do not have certain rights to the content of the media, for example distribution. That's only possible with a license, because if you 'owned' the content, you'd have all the rights that entails.
From the linked article, it was unclear to me what "been happy to help China set up its massive surveillance system" really means. It appears that the companies sold hardware and software. There's no mention of actually "helping" with the endevour. Short of a trade embargo forbidding the sale of any US hardware and software to the Chinese government, I don't see how you'll stop people doing what they please with the software they buy. Isn't that one of the points of having free (as in speach) software, to keep people's noses out of your business with what you do with your software?
Use a Tablet PC! That's what I do, and it's quite comfortable even in a cramped space.
According to the EULA, you are licensed to run the software, but do not own it out right. Something akin to music on a CD. You own the physical media, but not the rights to the content. You may or may not disagree with how the law stands today, but that does not make this "hack" anything like "modifying my property".
Google advanced search allows you to do #2 (search in selected language). Alas, it's unclear if you want to select one or form a set, so I'm not sure this is exactly what youw ant.
MSN advanced search allows you to do #3 and #2.
Or look at locks. Would a judge also say that someone who locked their door has "criminal intent"?
"#4) People will sniff your network. Nothing is bulletproof. Finding passwords sent is easy. If it comes as clear text, you are screwed off the bat. This defeats #1 and #2, but not #3, because #3 is based on an algorithm that changes every 1 minute."
Actually, this only defeats #3 for the remaining part of that minute. With code sniffing the network, its trivial to reply that login information in under the time remaining. A better solution would be to use a algorithmic addition to the password *and* encrypt your login information, just be sure to use encryption that takes longer than sixty seconds to break on a fast machine. (Think, publicly reviewed encryption algorithm with a large enough key).
I would argue that they don't have extraordinary complexity. For one, the character frequency would mimic that of English (or other language one used to generated the "long word"). That means less entropy and therefore, weaker passwords.
My solution is to print out a grid of random characters, say five by five. Then assign passwords by remembering patterns. For example, start with position (2, 3) then go up one, then go down three, then right one, etc. Once you have the desired pattern, read off the characters and use that for your password. Once a month, reprint a new random assortment of characters and change your passwords to match. Once every six months or so, also change your patterns. For a slightly weaker, but more mnemonic system use a three (columns) by four (rows) grid of characters and map that to a telephone keypad and use telephone numbers as the pattern. Carry around the grid until you remember the passwords, then destroy the grid. It takes me about two days to do so.
Of course, to make this work, the patterns must be easy to remember, changed every n iterations. Each iteration should use a secure random number generator to generate the character grid.
If you take a look at the vulnurabilities found in the first six months of Windows 2000 Server being on the market and the vulnurabilities found in the first six months of Windows Server 2003 being on the market, you'll note that the number has gone down dramatically (I don't remember the exact figures). Also, for many vulurabilities, a default 2003 installation will not expose the vulnurable area whereas a default 2000 installation will. Those are meaningful results.
I think his point is that we want more information, but to prevent overload we need a suitable way of prioritizing, storing, retrieving, and acting on the information. So saying that we need better tools (like desktop search with easy metadata editing) and that we need more information than we have access to today are not necessarily counter to each other.
Many companies do this, no? Our group here at Microsoft is doing the same, and I bet the theater will be full with other groups as well.
I agree with you, but I think they were measuring "lost productivity". That's not the same as money. It's the money they would have made if everyone was at work that day. Of course, paid time off is usually accounted for when bean counters do that kind of math, so the "lost productivity" because of the movie makes little sense, the time off was already accounted for when the companies decided how many sick and vacation days an employee can take a year.
You illustrated my point well. I actually do not think it's wise to assume that all new releases from a company, say Microsoft, can be disregarded as identical in effect as those in the past. With water, it makes sense to learn from the past. It does not makes sense to write off Longhorn as something not worth even looking at because Windows 95 crashed a lot. It's hard to give a professional opinion, let alone make an informed descision if you "learn" from a situation that's not the same as the current one.
So yes, the first person in your example is wiser. The OP here is not wiser, he learned from false premises.
Really, what's the limit? I currently have twenty rules which do everything I need them to do. Granted, I only do organizational filtering since malicious email filtering is done elsewhere. Am I going to hit it soon?
I was responding to your statement:
"For me, it doesn't matter what product Microsoft develops anymore. I will always avoid all their products like the plague and use my influence to guide others to avoid them also."
If you've "come to the conclusion that [you] have through logic" it's exactly the logic I avoid in advice from people. To ignore a product or idea because of past products or ideas of an entity is just fine. Perhaps you don't feel that the time to research the new product or idea is worth your time because historically it hasn't been. It's your time, do with it as you please.
Now, to go and use your influence to get other people to avoid that product is poor professional behavior, and I pity the people that follow such advice. You avoided the product, so to go an convince people to avoid it without real understanding is immoral in my book and I feel sorry for the people who get hooked by that.
That's why you sync your inbox and set up proper filters at the mail server (for spam, virus, phishing, etc, emails) at the client (for organization into projects, etc). That way what comes through to your phone is deemed important enough to go directly into your sparsly populated inbox (and Magneto device).
From what you want:
1. small as possible -- Got that, I have a Mpx200 which is 4 oz. and 1.90x3.5x1.06 in. Certainly a phone form factor first.
2. best screen possible -- It's an old phone, so it's only 176x220 pixel display, but certainly works for my phone/PDA needs. Newer devices will have better displays I'm sure.
3. blackberry/treo keyboard -- Nope, shortcoming here, but once again, it's an old device.
4. push email -- EAS allows push email, calendar, etc.
5. IM -- Has that too.
Added things I like you didn't mention: over-the-air update, passthrough connection when connected via USB to a computer, use as a modem.