Though I agree with you in principle... I think outlawing web servers or other services is stupid...
If you are infected with NIMDA, then your computer, your connection, is attempting to break into hundreds or thousands of other computers from your connection. I'd shut you off as well; your computer is engaging in otherwise illegal behavior, whether you know about it or not.
If you know about it, then you are responsible.
If you don't, you should.
You could call it marketshare.. but the worm problem really isn't about an OS.. it's about individual applications and technologies.. the environments the worm can flourish in. A cross platform worm is entirely possible.
As for our 'goals'.... who's goals are those? Who wants linux everywhere? Use the right tool for the right job. If MS actually made something that was better for a job, I'd use it. (IF.. big IF)
Buy ten machines, and build it yourslef? I mean.. that's all a beowulf is... it was a project to work on using off the shelf hardware for parallel processing.
DO you have some app that needs it? I mean, you can't just run anything....
Did some department just come up with some app already designed with the PVM libraries or something?
I don't even buy that it's 'easier' to secure BSD.
It may take a few less keystrokes out of the box, on any particular version, but that's where it ends.
Running *real* live systems, it takes the same amount of diligence and effort to keep them secured. You have to be aware of each new application you install, and how it impacts your security. It's no different on any OS.
Win2k is not hard to secure; neither is any other MS system.
Why do you think you don't have to accept the terms of the GPL in order to use the program?
The *ONLY* way you can use the program is under the terms of the GPL.
He's not complaining about airport security checks. He's saying that increased security checks at an airport are ONLY an inconvenience, and not a threat to our rights, as long as they don't retain records on passengers who didn't do anything wrong.
And no, thet don't have to tell you about it.
Why?
You don't have a de-facto right to control your information in the US, that's why. The database of information the company lawfully collected in their business dealings is THEIR asset to do what they want with (within the law, of course).
The individual records, they aren't that valuable. You don't 'own' all information about you in the world. The database as a whole has value.
As for them getting hacked, and losing their credit card info.. why do you feel so personally burned? The credit card belongs to the issuer, not you, and it's not YOUR problem if it's abused, it's the issuers. Yes, it may be slightly inconvenient to you to get it replaced.. though they informed you. Even though they said 'everything is okay', you can still call your credit card company up and request a new card because you suspect your current one has been compromised. They will send you a new one immediately at no charge.
Boldface, Italic, and Roman *ARE* appropriate analogues, he already made reference to that.
Also.. I think what's he's saying is, why should everything on earth cater to the lowest common denominator? It shouldn't.
You don't need 20/20 vision to fly a plane. if you want to work for the Air Force in particular, to fly their jets, you have to have perfect vision. Period.
So.. if you want to work with Color Forth, as he implemented it, you need to be able to see colors. I fail to see how this is bad.
Everything relating to computers does not need to be built for the lowest common denominator.
aside form the fact that the first IBM system he first describes is vastly overpowered, and a rediculous 'solution' to supporting 5000 users.. It doesn't matter if it can scale to 50,000; that's not what it's there for.
Why compare it on big iron? Why not compare it solely on the same hardware?
I can support 50,000 users doing all kinds of neat things on the same hardware, running linux, for a LOT less money.
Notice the Exchange licensing costs? a quarter million bucks?
Keep in mind; most companies do NOT use exchange for what it is good at.. they use it for pure email, though they may purchase it thinking they will use all the groupware features.
A better analogy is if you took some Rambus memory, and discovered that it actually acted as a high-gain subspace antennae. You COULD patent that, even though someone else built the ram, and held patents on it, because it's a new discovery.
Patent holders have the right to selectively enforce their patents. It is not trademark. The only thing 'allowing' people to use their patent limits is the amount of damages they can claim, because they chose to do nothing.
What is investigated here is different; this is about companies entering negotiations and striking deals/standards/etc, while keeping it a secret that they have filed for patents covering parts of the deal/standard/etc, and then later trying to profit from that. The premise is that if the other parties involved knew about the patent, they would have done something else.
is that these companies had *applied* for patents, but not received them, so they had nothing to declare, or so they said.
This was the case with Rambus... they participated in standards writing.. and then *afterwards* were granted the patent.
New precedent is required to prevent this in the future.
The letter you ask for sounds great, but the problem is, who do you send the letter TO?
Rather.. companies involved in standards negotiations should be forced to sign declarations that they are not holding or attempting ot hold IP rights over the standards in question.
From the crowd that normally screams at how 'harsh' penalties for hackeres are, this shocks me.
A 17 year old kid.. under our legal system, he's a *kid*, a jeuvenile. Why should he do hard prison time for this? How will that benefit society? 8 months in juvie is *plenty*, especially considering he didn't really hurt anyone. Sorry.. he may have, on paper, cost some *huge* *foreign* companies some cash..... but that's about it.
Re:What can be done about terrorism?
on
More On Tragedy
·
· Score: 2
First, let me say I'm not sure what I'm saying is accurate, it's only based on what I've heard.
I recall seeing on Television a year ago or so about the Sky Martials... trained agents who randomly rode flights, armed, to prevent hijackings. Apparently, according to what one conrgressman or senator was saying on TV last night, they no longer use the sky martials.
Second.. is airline policy of doing what hijackers say.
I would guess, perhaps, if those on the plane new what the hijackers were going to do, it would have been trivial to ovwerwhelm them. The problem is we are not used to such things. Now that people realize that hijackers could be killing a great many people.....it may be much tougher to hijack a plane in the united states.
The reason there is a problem in some games, like EQ, where guilds will camp out and lock down areas of the game to get the items to sell them....is because the real-world value of the items creates a demand for the items in-game that was not forseen by the developers. But it is the players who create this demand, by buying the items in the first place.
The problem, of course, is there are some players with jobs/money to burn, and others who don't, and it would seem unfair to those who don't.
However.. I know full well that people also monopolize areas of a game for OTHER reasons besides e-bay... in-game reasons... so really, it's an overall game-design problem.
First, you won't see a game that says this. Why? Because their has to be DEMAND in order to get money. And there is never demand without a reason.
How can you sell things that belong on someone elses server? You aren't 'selling' an item. You are simply giving someone the benefit of the results of your own work in exchange for money.
Why do you have a problem with people selling the items to others who wish to buy them?
How does it ruin the game? and what game are you referring to? It certainly doesn't ruin diablo2....
Games where you get people camping out to sell stuff online.. I can see your point. But banning the online sale is not the answer; modifying the game to prevent camping is the answer, whether by not having items spawn on the same character all the time, or other anti-camping features.
Why should people care what happens outside their game? Sorry.. welcome to the real world. If something has value to someone else, then cash can be exchanged for it.
that this is very real. I know someone who definately makes very good money off selling diablo-2 equipment online.
Contrary to what people think...most of the sales are NOT for large money. They are from a couple bucks to about $20, that's it. You make the money on volume.
It's not like it takes no effort either. The time taken to acquire the gear, complete the auctions, devlier items, post new auctions, etc, can be considerable.
Some say it's rediculous; I say, it's great. Some people can play D2 for 6 hours a day or more. Some have jobs, and can only play a couple hours.. so they have the option of going online, and reliably buying a few cool items to play with, rather than spending the time (time is money).
, from what I'd guess, about people buying some really expensive video gear and then hinging it on their software.
And, although there are no guarantees, and it's OSS, etc........ they are worried that someone will sue their ass off for bugs, or for the software not performing.
Explain the quality issues to your boss.. but remember: He is not in business to write shining examples of software; he is in business to sell the product/service you are working on.
Unless the 'lack of quality' starts hurting the bottom line, there is no reason to change the way things are going. In fact, it's more reason NOT to change them.
If you can demonstrate, in financial terms, how taking longer on each project to increase quality will cut down on support costs or something, you might have an angle.
Otherwise... you can only strive to do the best you can in the time you are allotted.
I'm not sure you can compare corewars to this or the others... With corewars, the actual code is what's doing battle for it's own survival... it's not 'running a tank' or anything, and the playing field is memory space.
Their trademark and IP are not 'at stake'.
They provide software so joe average can USE the stuff, not to 'control' it. They are not in the mindstorm software business, per-se, they are in business to sell legos.
Of course they don't care if someone hacks it; it's our right to reverse engineer it and publish information about it. After all.. it doesn't hurt them one little bit.
So far, the only industry thats' managed to prevent reverse-engineering to a degree is the publishing industry in general, via the DMCA, and then, only with regards to copy protection mechanisms.
Slashdot Mirror
Though I agree with you in principle... I think outlawing web servers or other services is stupid...
If you are infected with NIMDA, then your computer, your connection, is attempting to break into hundreds or thousands of other computers from your connection. I'd shut you off as well; your computer is engaging in otherwise illegal behavior, whether you know about it or not.
If you know about it, then you are responsible.
If you don't, you should.
You could call it marketshare.. but the worm problem really isn't about an OS.. it's about individual applications and technologies.. the environments the worm can flourish in. A cross platform worm is entirely possible.
As for our 'goals'.... who's goals are those? Who wants linux everywhere? Use the right tool for the right job. If MS actually made something that was better for a job, I'd use it. (IF.. big IF)
Buy ten machines, and build it yourslef? I mean.. that's all a beowulf is... it was a project to work on using off the shelf hardware for parallel processing.
DO you have some app that needs it? I mean, you can't just run anything....
Did some department just come up with some app already designed with the PVM libraries or something?
This isn't designed to predict the weather in Omaha next Tuesday... or tell you the weather in Texas 1000 years from now....
It's designed to analyze global climate change... which you CAN do, with a reasonable amount of accuracy.
I don't even buy that it's 'easier' to secure BSD.
It may take a few less keystrokes out of the box, on any particular version, but that's where it ends.
Running *real* live systems, it takes the same amount of diligence and effort to keep them secured. You have to be aware of each new application you install, and how it impacts your security. It's no different on any OS.
Win2k is not hard to secure; neither is any other MS system.
Why do you think you don't have to accept the terms of the GPL in order to use the program?
The *ONLY* way you can use the program is under the terms of the GPL.
Well.. if stations decide not to play stuff, it's because they stand to lose marketshare if they do. It makes sound business sense.
And that's why huge corporations with huge marketshares will *always* cater to the majority of their customers. Governments are not much different.
He's not complaining about airport security checks. He's saying that increased security checks at an airport are ONLY an inconvenience, and not a threat to our rights, as long as they don't retain records on passengers who didn't do anything wrong.
And no, thet don't have to tell you about it.
Why?
You don't have a de-facto right to control your information in the US, that's why. The database of information the company lawfully collected in their business dealings is THEIR asset to do what they want with (within the law, of course).
The individual records, they aren't that valuable. You don't 'own' all information about you in the world. The database as a whole has value.
As for them getting hacked, and losing their credit card info.. why do you feel so personally burned? The credit card belongs to the issuer, not you, and it's not YOUR problem if it's abused, it's the issuers. Yes, it may be slightly inconvenient to you to get it replaced.. though they informed you. Even though they said 'everything is okay', you can still call your credit card company up and request a new card because you suspect your current one has been compromised. They will send you a new one immediately at no charge.
I don't see what the big deal is.
Boldface, Italic, and Roman *ARE* appropriate analogues, he already made reference to that.
Also.. I think what's he's saying is, why should everything on earth cater to the lowest common denominator? It shouldn't.
You don't need 20/20 vision to fly a plane. if you want to work for the Air Force in particular, to fly their jets, you have to have perfect vision. Period.
So.. if you want to work with Color Forth, as he implemented it, you need to be able to see colors. I fail to see how this is bad.
Everything relating to computers does not need to be built for the lowest common denominator.
aside form the fact that the first IBM system he first describes is vastly overpowered, and a rediculous 'solution' to supporting 5000 users.. It doesn't matter if it can scale to 50,000; that's not what it's there for.
Why compare it on big iron? Why not compare it solely on the same hardware?
I can support 50,000 users doing all kinds of neat things on the same hardware, running linux, for a LOT less money.
Notice the Exchange licensing costs? a quarter million bucks?
Keep in mind; most companies do NOT use exchange for what it is good at.. they use it for pure email, though they may purchase it thinking they will use all the groupware features.
it's not that black and white.
A better analogy is if you took some Rambus memory, and discovered that it actually acted as a high-gain subspace antennae. You COULD patent that, even though someone else built the ram, and held patents on it, because it's a new discovery.
Patent holders have the right to selectively enforce their patents. It is not trademark. The only thing 'allowing' people to use their patent limits is the amount of damages they can claim, because they chose to do nothing.
What is investigated here is different; this is about companies entering negotiations and striking deals/standards/etc, while keeping it a secret that they have filed for patents covering parts of the deal/standard/etc, and then later trying to profit from that. The premise is that if the other parties involved knew about the patent, they would have done something else.
is that these companies had *applied* for patents, but not received them, so they had nothing to declare, or so they said.
This was the case with Rambus... they participated in standards writing.. and then *afterwards* were granted the patent.
New precedent is required to prevent this in the future.
The letter you ask for sounds great, but the problem is, who do you send the letter TO?
Rather.. companies involved in standards negotiations should be forced to sign declarations that they are not holding or attempting ot hold IP rights over the standards in question.
From the crowd that normally screams at how 'harsh' penalties for hackeres are, this shocks me.
A 17 year old kid.. under our legal system, he's a *kid*, a jeuvenile. Why should he do hard prison time for this? How will that benefit society? 8 months in juvie is *plenty*, especially considering he didn't really hurt anyone. Sorry.. he may have, on paper, cost some *huge* *foreign* companies some cash..... but that's about it.
First, let me say I'm not sure what I'm saying is accurate, it's only based on what I've heard.
I recall seeing on Television a year ago or so about the Sky Martials... trained agents who randomly rode flights, armed, to prevent hijackings. Apparently, according to what one conrgressman or senator was saying on TV last night, they no longer use the sky martials.
Second.. is airline policy of doing what hijackers say.
I would guess, perhaps, if those on the plane new what the hijackers were going to do, it would have been trivial to ovwerwhelm them. The problem is we are not used to such things. Now that people realize that hijackers could be killing a great many people.....it may be much tougher to hijack a plane in the united states.
The reason there is a problem in some games, like EQ, where guilds will camp out and lock down areas of the game to get the items to sell them....is because the real-world value of the items creates a demand for the items in-game that was not forseen by the developers. But it is the players who create this demand, by buying the items in the first place.
The problem, of course, is there are some players with jobs/money to burn, and others who don't, and it would seem unfair to those who don't.
However.. I know full well that people also monopolize areas of a game for OTHER reasons besides e-bay... in-game reasons... so really, it's an overall game-design problem.
First, you won't see a game that says this. Why? Because their has to be DEMAND in order to get money. And there is never demand without a reason.
How can you sell things that belong on someone elses server? You aren't 'selling' an item. You are simply giving someone the benefit of the results of your own work in exchange for money.
Why do you have a problem with people selling the items to others who wish to buy them?
How does it ruin the game? and what game are you referring to? It certainly doesn't ruin diablo2....
Games where you get people camping out to sell stuff online.. I can see your point. But banning the online sale is not the answer; modifying the game to prevent camping is the answer, whether by not having items spawn on the same character all the time, or other anti-camping features.
Why should people care what happens outside their game? Sorry.. welcome to the real world. If something has value to someone else, then cash can be exchanged for it.
that this is very real. I know someone who definately makes very good money off selling diablo-2 equipment online.
Contrary to what people think...most of the sales are NOT for large money. They are from a couple bucks to about $20, that's it. You make the money on volume.
It's not like it takes no effort either. The time taken to acquire the gear, complete the auctions, devlier items, post new auctions, etc, can be considerable.
Some say it's rediculous; I say, it's great. Some people can play D2 for 6 hours a day or more. Some have jobs, and can only play a couple hours.. so they have the option of going online, and reliably buying a few cool items to play with, rather than spending the time (time is money).
Cheers.
, from what I'd guess, about people buying some really expensive video gear and then hinging it on their software.
And, although there are no guarantees, and it's OSS, etc........ they are worried that someone will sue their ass off for bugs, or for the software not performing.
Sounds like a load of crap.
Explain the quality issues to your boss.. but remember: He is not in business to write shining examples of software; he is in business to sell the product/service you are working on.
Unless the 'lack of quality' starts hurting the bottom line, there is no reason to change the way things are going. In fact, it's more reason NOT to change them.
If you can demonstrate, in financial terms, how taking longer on each project to increase quality will cut down on support costs or something, you might have an angle.
Otherwise... you can only strive to do the best you can in the time you are allotted.
I'm not sure you can compare corewars to this or the others... With corewars, the actual code is what's doing battle for it's own survival... it's not 'running a tank' or anything, and the playing field is memory space.
Except.. the guy called his replacement oS LegOS, which is a quite obvious threat to their trademark, even though it's not intended to be so.
THAT is the issue. They have no problems with people hacking on their gear... they are just protecting their mark.
Their trademark and IP are not 'at stake'.
They provide software so joe average can USE the stuff, not to 'control' it. They are not in the mindstorm software business, per-se, they are in business to sell legos.
Of course they don't care if someone hacks it; it's our right to reverse engineer it and publish information about it. After all.. it doesn't hurt them one little bit.
So far, the only industry thats' managed to prevent reverse-engineering to a degree is the publishing industry in general, via the DMCA, and then, only with regards to copy protection mechanisms.
Who is your target audience/market? That's where you get your answer. Nobody can tell you what to write, especially if we don't know what it is.