I didn't see anything in the actual report that explained how their results were arrived at. For that reason alone, this report is worthless. It's just a marketing document for use in selling their own security products.
However, it did make reference to the numbers being representative of "reported vulnerabilities", which we all know is going to make Firefox look worse that IE. This is verified by realizing Opera (also closed source) scored less than IE.
Ok, so a drug sniffing dog that has been taught to 'bark' when it smells drugs is reason enough to conduct a full search, because it can only detect the presence of criminal activity, and not the type or nature of the criminal activity itself. This was ruled acceptable by the Supreme Court because:
'it did not "compromise any legitimate interest in privacy." Why? Because, according to the court, "any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed 'legitimate.'" The search was acceptable to the court because it could only reveal the possession of contraband, the concealment of which "compromises no legitimate privacy interest."'
So, can somebody please tell me why this ruling could *not* be used by police to send one officer into your house to conduct a search for *ANY* contraband (or otherwise illegal activity), and simple tell (bark at) the other officers 'clean' or 'dirty'?
As long as the searching officer did not pass specifics regarding what illegal activity they found to the other officers, the other officers could then proceed to have 'probable cause' for a full fledged offical search?
In other words, this is one step shy of not ever needing a warrant again, as long as the police can detect the presence of illegal activity without alerting themselves to the specifics of the infringment prior to the search...
That is very...very....very....did I say very?..scary!
Somebody needs to organize a campaing to ruthlessly enforce these laws on the close friends and family of the Representatives which passed this legislation.
Maybe, just maybe, if the gun they were bribed for started shooting people they cared about, they would think twice about 'doing a favor' for corporate lobbyists?
I once wrote James P. Moran (8th Congressional District of Virginia) regarding that very same question.
His response was that, due to Interstate Commerce case law not yet being sufficiently established at the time of Prohibition, an Amendment was necesary. When 'drugs' were made illegal, they were able to use Interstate Commerce regulation to restrict access to these drugs, whereas they did not, at the time, have this power to restrict Alcohol in the same way.
This brings up another interesting dilema, as growing for your own personal consumption can not be considered Interstate Commerece, which means the Federal goverment has no authority to prosecute such 'offenders'... The state still has this power, but not the Feds.
The problem is maybe the new designs are safer but at this point no one believes it or is going to trust them. The nuclear industry assured us the old ones were safe and they weren't so they've burned their credibility. The fact is most existing reactors are complex systems, they are extremely fallible and they've proven themselves to be extremely dangerous.
So the problem is with people, not the technology, right?
Mod me down. I think you deserve to be sued if you rip off music.
I think this is actually what is needed to change the current state of affairs. Let's be honest, 'most' people don't care about copyright because 'most' people are not noticeably affected by it.
Sure, the RIAA is suing the pants off a lot of people, but again, that is only affecting a very small portion of the people who don't understand the situation. We need to make 'the people' understand the situation.
Therefore, I propose we do our best to rat out our copyright infringing friends anonymously, and to do so as vigourously as possible. The more people that get negatively affected by the current laws, the more that will be proponents for change.
An unenforced, or unenforceable law, will never be changed if it doesn't affect a significant portion of the population....
People in Washington and elsewhere have noticed that terrorists use the internet in much the same way they do. They point to web sites and even combat games used as "online training camps".
Makes you wonder how the U.S. Army can justify creating a freely downloadable "online training camp" such as America's Army, eh? If the government can use the Internet to distribute a training tool to persuade American youth to join up, why would they think so-called terrorist wouldn't use the same training tool?
Maybe if they put a "Not for use by Terrorist" sticker on it then they wouldn't use it anymore......
Please don't blame all SUV owners for the worlds problems, most maybe, but not all;)
I recently bought a used Land Rover Discover I. It gets crap for gas milage (14mpg?), but I only use it on rare occasions. I typcially drive it twice a week, as it's primary use is for off-roading trips. I don't use it for commuting, I take Metro to work instead.
I understand your point was probably intended to say "most" SUV owners, but realize that by saying it that way includes people who don't fit your profile. It's just like saying all Muslims are terrorists...
I wrote the following. From now on, I'll be giving my $0.02 directly to the authors. If everybody did that, they'd have one hell of a meaningful slashdot on their hands...:D
There are two sides to every coin, and almost always more sides to any issue at hand. Why is it then that this article points out only how this ongoing legal debate is hurting the business of Cisco/Linksys/Broadcom. You mention it cost Progress $10million in lost development and marketing work, but there is nothing regarding what kind of intelligence was exercised by Progress investing so much money into a questionable business practice? When it comes to today's software industry, whether you are working with open or closed source, you still have to exercise great caution (especially with all the IP issues currently at hand.) To not do proper research into a new prospective business area would be folly at best. Why then, is it the opinion of the author, that when a company uses free (as in beer) code with an easy to understand license (which includes the obvious clause, 'if you use this code in a distributed product, you must also distribute its source code'), that those people who put many many hours worth of volunteer work into the product in the first place, are somehow the ones at fault. No fault lies with the company for their blatant missuses of somebody else's work?
Let setup a quick example. Cisco (instead of using Linux) used WinCE in their routers. They purchase a license from Microsoft (costing them a lot more in licensing fees than using the 'free as in beer' GNU/Linux OS). Cisco then implements WinCE in a way that violates their licensing agreement with Microsoft (lets say they publish some unflattering benchmarks!). Microsoft would then be well within their rights to terminate said licensing agreement, and also probably be entitled to collect money for the damage caused. The same thing applies to Linux and the GPL, just in a slightly different way.
The real problem with Linux here, is that it doesn't operate by standard business rules. People don't use/program Linux to make money, but for the freedom it offers. They want to be free, to have choice, to fix problems they can understand. They don't want to wait around for months for some company to decide *IF* they are going to fix them problem. In short, people want control, and the GPL gives them that.
Now we have a lot of companies out there which don't understand this. They believe the blood, sweat, and tears shed by those volunteers who contributed to Linux, and made it what it is today, was done solely for their benefit? They don't feel obligated to honor a license to which they agreed, because the owner of that license is not a company? And when those volunteers setup an organization, contribute funds to it for their common defense against companies which undertake these hijacking maneuvers, they are the ones acting irrationally?
Please, let's not forget that Linux is owned by everybody who's ever contributed to it, and that by Cisco/Progress/etc using GPL'd code, they are responsible for using it they way they, and the thousands of Linux authors, agreed it should be used. This is business 101, and I hope that even Forbes would be able to recognize this.
BTW, if you'd like to discuss these comments, feel free to email me at the above provided email address. I'm truly curious as to how you view this issue, and would like to discuss it in a civil manner if you're willing. Like I said at the beginning of this, there are many sides to each issue, and I'd like to better understand where you are coming from.
"SunnComm is taking a stand here because we believe that those who own property, whether physical or digital, have the ultimate authority over how their property is used."
Does this mean they have no problem with me holding down the shift key? After all, it's my property....
That probably will not be a problem. Tribalwar (the site hosting Ledgends) is a massive server in it's own right. While a good slashdotting will surely send their bandwidth expenses through the roof, it will most likely not bring down the site...
It has, after all, survived am img link from cnn (9/11 face in the smoke pic) which TW then relinked to goatse because cnn was smashing their servers....:D
This is the exact reason I still play Tribes 1. The graphics are crap compared to today's games, but because of the awesome gameplay, it's still just as fun as the day it was released...five years later!!!:D
First of all, the Linux client was made along side the Windows client (so it's not Linux only). Second, yes, it is a clone of Tribes...but not really.
While it does look and feel, for the most part, exactly like Tribes1/2, it was made because of community demand for a more Tribes 1 version of Tribes 2.
When Dynamix/Sierra made Tribes 2, it nerfed a lot of what made Tribes 1 fun. Ledgends was created and supported by the community as a way to be able to play Tribes 1 with better graphics, as well as create a totally community driven game development team. (Kinda like Linux if you think about it!) This game is truly for/by the community!!!
Slashdot Mirror
I didn't see anything in the actual report that explained how their results were arrived at. For that reason alone, this report is worthless. It's just a marketing document for use in selling their own security products.
However, it did make reference to the numbers being representative of "reported vulnerabilities", which we all know is going to make Firefox look worse that IE. This is verified by realizing Opera (also closed source) scored less than IE.
So what incentive does the President have during his second term?
(I voted for him twice - lesser of two evils each time)
You know, each time I hear somebody say this, I ask myself: "Do people who say this realize they are admitting to voting for evil?"
For the same reason that people would sign a petition to ban Di-Hydrogen Monoxide...
Perhaps because Bush didn't lie under oath? (Not that I condone either lie, just pointing out the obvious... :D)
Ok, so a drug sniffing dog that has been taught to 'bark' when it smells drugs is reason enough to conduct a full search, because it can only detect the presence of criminal activity, and not the type or nature of the criminal activity itself. This was ruled acceptable by the Supreme Court because:
'it did not "compromise any legitimate interest in privacy." Why? Because, according to the court, "any interest in possessing contraband cannot be deemed 'legitimate.'" The search was acceptable to the court because it could only reveal the possession of contraband, the concealment of which "compromises no legitimate privacy interest."'
So, can somebody please tell me why this ruling could *not* be used by police to send one officer into your house to conduct a search for *ANY* contraband (or otherwise illegal activity), and simple tell (bark at) the other officers 'clean' or 'dirty'?
As long as the searching officer did not pass specifics regarding what illegal activity they found to the other officers, the other officers could then proceed to have 'probable cause' for a full fledged offical search?
In other words, this is one step shy of not ever needing a warrant again, as long as the police can detect the presence of illegal activity without alerting themselves to the specifics of the infringment prior to the search...
That is very...very....very....did I say very?..scary!
Somebody needs to organize a campaing to ruthlessly enforce these laws on the close friends and family of the Representatives which passed this legislation.
:\
Maybe, just maybe, if the gun they were bribed for started shooting people they cared about, they would think twice about 'doing a favor' for corporate lobbyists?
But then again, maybe not....
If he can't carry a tune, then is it really copyright infringement? :p
I once wrote James P. Moran (8th Congressional District of Virginia) regarding that very same question.
His response was that, due to Interstate Commerce case law not yet being sufficiently established at the time of Prohibition, an Amendment was necesary. When 'drugs' were made illegal, they were able to use Interstate Commerce regulation to restrict access to these drugs, whereas they did not, at the time, have this power to restrict Alcohol in the same way.
This brings up another interesting dilema, as growing for your own personal consumption can not be considered Interstate Commerece, which means the Federal goverment has no authority to prosecute such 'offenders'... The state still has this power, but not the Feds.
The problem is maybe the new designs are safer but at this point no one believes it or is going to trust them. The nuclear industry assured us the old ones were safe and they weren't so they've burned their credibility. The fact is most existing reactors are complex systems, they are extremely fallible and they've proven themselves to be extremely dangerous.
So the problem is with people, not the technology, right?
Mod me down. I think you deserve to be sued if you rip off music.
I think this is actually what is needed to change the current state of affairs. Let's be honest, 'most' people don't care about copyright because 'most' people are not noticeably affected by it.
Sure, the RIAA is suing the pants off a lot of people, but again, that is only affecting a very small portion of the people who don't understand the situation. We need to make 'the people' understand the situation.
Therefore, I propose we do our best to rat out our copyright infringing friends anonymously, and to do so as vigourously as possible. The more people that get negatively affected by the current laws, the more that will be proponents for change.
An unenforced, or unenforceable law, will never be changed if it doesn't affect a significant portion of the population....
People in Washington and elsewhere have noticed that terrorists use the internet in much the same way they do. They point to web sites and even combat games used as "online training camps".
Makes you wonder how the U.S. Army can justify creating a freely downloadable "online training camp" such as America's Army, eh? If the government can use the Internet to distribute a training tool to persuade American youth to join up, why would they think so-called terrorist wouldn't use the same training tool?
Maybe if they put a "Not for use by Terrorist" sticker on it then they wouldn't use it anymore......
Please don't blame all SUV owners for the worlds problems, most maybe, but not all ;)
I recently bought a used Land Rover Discover I. It gets crap for gas milage (14mpg?), but I only use it on rare occasions. I typcially drive it twice a week, as it's primary use is for off-roading trips. I don't use it for commuting, I take Metro to work instead.
I understand your point was probably intended to say "most" SUV owners, but realize that by saying it that way includes people who don't fit your profile. It's just like saying all Muslims are terrorists...
I'm in the D.C. area as well, and would love to help with an anti-DMCA rally! Now who's going to set it up and organize it?
OMG, the guy who wrote that complaint lives a couple blocks away from me! What are the odds! HAHAHA!
I think this is the first time I can honestly say I should have read the comments before the 'article'....
:D)
(I pulled the URLs out myself, what a waste of 5 minutes!
You were using NIPRNET, which is connected to the Internet at only a few (very controlled) locations in the world...
Any sensitve IP communications are handled over SIPRNET, which is never (or should never be) connected to NIPRNET.
Anybody else think 'not work safe' when they read the title?
catherine_yang@businessweek.com
:)
Send something nice...
I wrote the following. From now on, I'll be giving my $0.02 directly to the authors. If everybody did that, they'd have one hell of a meaningful slashdot on their hands... :D
There are two sides to every coin, and almost always more sides to any issue at hand. Why is it then that this article points out only how this ongoing legal debate is hurting the business of Cisco/Linksys/Broadcom. You mention it cost Progress $10million in lost development and marketing work, but there is nothing regarding what kind of intelligence was exercised by Progress investing so much money into a questionable business practice?
When it comes to today's software industry, whether you are working with open or closed source, you still have to exercise great caution (especially with all the IP issues currently at hand.) To not do proper research into a new prospective business area would be folly at best. Why then, is it the opinion of the author, that when a company uses free (as in beer) code with an easy to understand license (which includes the obvious clause, 'if you use this code in a distributed product, you must also distribute its source code'), that those people who put many many hours worth of volunteer work into the product in the first place, are somehow the ones at fault. No fault lies with the company for their blatant missuses of somebody else's work?
Let setup a quick example. Cisco (instead of using Linux) used WinCE in their routers. They purchase a license from Microsoft (costing them a lot more in licensing fees than using the 'free as in beer' GNU/Linux OS). Cisco then implements WinCE in a way that violates their licensing agreement with Microsoft (lets say they publish some unflattering benchmarks!). Microsoft would then be well within their rights to terminate said licensing agreement, and also probably be entitled to collect money for the damage caused. The same thing applies to Linux and the GPL, just in a slightly different way.
The real problem with Linux here, is that it doesn't operate by standard business rules. People don't use/program Linux to make money, but for the freedom it offers. They want to be free, to have choice, to fix problems they can understand. They don't want to wait around for months for some company to decide *IF* they are going to fix them problem. In short, people want control, and the GPL gives them that.
Now we have a lot of companies out there which don't understand this. They believe the blood, sweat, and tears shed by those volunteers who contributed to Linux, and made it what it is today, was done solely for their benefit? They don't feel obligated to honor a license to which they agreed, because the owner of that license is not a company? And when those volunteers setup an organization, contribute funds to it for their common defense against companies which undertake these hijacking maneuvers, they are the ones acting irrationally?
Please, let's not forget that Linux is owned by everybody who's ever contributed to it, and that by Cisco/Progress/etc using GPL'd code, they are responsible for using it they way they, and the thousands of Linux authors, agreed it should be used. This is business 101, and I hope that even Forbes would be able to recognize this.
BTW, if you'd like to discuss these comments, feel free to email me at the above provided email address. I'm truly curious as to how you view this issue, and would like to discuss it in a civil manner if you're willing. Like I said at the beginning of this, there are many sides to each issue, and I'd like to better understand where you are coming from.
Thanks,
Sean
Quoted from article above (Concluded Jacobs):
"SunnComm is taking a stand here because we believe that those who own property, whether physical or digital, have the ultimate authority over how their property is used."
Does this mean they have no problem with me holding down the shift key? After all, it's my property....
definitely one of the funniest :D
Rayn did what?!
That probably will not be a problem. Tribalwar (the site hosting Ledgends) is a massive server in it's own right. While a good slashdotting will surely send their bandwidth expenses through the roof, it will most likely not bring down the site...
:D
It has, after all, survived am img link from cnn (9/11 face in the smoke pic) which TW then relinked to goatse because cnn was smashing their servers....
This is the exact reason I still play Tribes 1. The graphics are crap compared to today's games, but because of the awesome gameplay, it's still just as fun as the day it was released...five years later!!! :D
First of all, the Linux client was made along side the Windows client (so it's not Linux only). Second, yes, it is a clone of Tribes...but not really.
While it does look and feel, for the most part, exactly like Tribes1/2, it was made because of community demand for a more Tribes 1 version of Tribes 2.
When Dynamix/Sierra made Tribes 2, it nerfed a lot of what made Tribes 1 fun. Ledgends was created and supported by the community as a way to be able to play Tribes 1 with better graphics, as well as create a totally community driven game development team. (Kinda like Linux if you think about it!) This game is truly for/by the community!!!