>Ugly, complex reality: if Zimbabwe's own corn crop were adulterated with GM corn, they could lose their primary market for food exports, Europe, and then could end up suffering more down the line; if they get their local production back on track, the survivors would probably better off not having GM corn in the fields
Well, this is a complex Zimbabwe's reality.
US's reality is simple: US can pay to mill this corn, which costs only a fraction of corn's price that US already paid. This will display that there are no intentions to made Zimbabwe dependent on US GM'ed corn, make everybody happy and remove any complications. Is it a complex reality? Why US does not do it?
But as I recall, somebody had a hacking contest with default installs of Mandrake and SuSE...
I bet these "default" installs were not ".0" versions, or did not have Apache installed. Otherwise, it could be cracked by any script kiddie.
To get fair comparision, you have to install all W2K updates before connecting to the net, or install OEM version that has latest service pack included.
I am sure modern Hollywood can make that part better. Let's hope Soderburgh does not restrict himself to special effects ONLY, similar to Star Wars episode II. If he can tell phycological part of the book as well as Tarkovsky, it will be a great movie.
P.S. For me, all Lem's books are about people. While that unearthy beauty is important to the book, it is not a major element, and is mostly important because of people's reactions it causes.
>First of all, of these laws are designed to be similar to the lemon laws that protect most used car buyers, ie: you can't dump a car you *KNOW* has problems on a unsuspecting buyer.
I am afraid, the law targets more liability than just price of the software. Lemon laws just tell that you can return your car and get your money back. You can usually return software box during some time defined by store and get your money back NOW.
These laws target liability for any damage caused by software, so that if XP or Linux crashed and buried by $1M data, the vendor would be liable this $1M, not the price I paid for the software. So it will potentially affect commercial as well as Open Source software, since the damage caused by software has nothing to do with its price.
>Can printer drivers crash anything but themselves in WinXP? If so, that's a really bad design.
Well, maybe it was a bad design, but should Microsoft be liable in court for it? If yes, where is the border? Should Linux be liable for not providing ability to run user-space file-system drivers like HURD does?
P.S. Answering original question: printer driver can crash application that tries to print.
I would like to see how and who will decide if particular behavior is bug or by-design? Will it be the same technology-chalenged people who issued one-click patent, and similar stupidities?
> You can't always limit liability. For example, you can't sell a car and say that you are not liable for design defects.
The liability of car designer exists because the risks associated with it can be relatively easy calculated. There are well defined boundaries and conditions under which car manufacturer declares his car to be safe, and gives the warranty. Any deviation (wrong type of oil, gas, or tires, missed oil change, self-installed turbo charger) and the liability and warranty can be void to some extend.
For software vendor those boundaries would mean that software is run under particular certified hardware, only in combinations with particular certified third-party applications, with regular maintainence (i.e. patches), configured according to vendor's specs, etc.
You can buy such system from most large software vendors, and get some kind of warranty and liability. MS sell data center servers in this category. If you want to pay the price for it plus price for hardware, plus restrict yourself to particular list of application, you can get it with associated liability. But if you want to run it on cheap hardware with tons of random crap installed, you can't expect any reasonable liablity from vendor.
> If government offices informed Microsoft that in one year they would no longer buy software that limited the liability of the designer
Actually, if any goverment wants to buy Microsoft software with liablity, it can be easily arranged: Microsoft will find third party insurance company, add appropriate price tag to the box, and sell it to anybody.
Will one want to buy MS Word for $10,000? I can easily imagine this price if the seller has to pay mega-dollar liability in case Word crashes while editing super important goverment document.
Ever seen a rich WYSIWYG-editor that never crashes? Want software prices to sky-rocket like medical expenses in US (one of the biggest contributors is doctor's own insurance)?
Meeting governments B1 security requirements does not make system more secure. B1 differs from more often met C2 in mandatory access control (e.g. you should not be able to copy/paste data from Top Secret document into just Restricted document). This does not make any sense at all for typical user and very little sense for typical business scenarios, and thus does not make their system any more secure.
B1 does not say anything about frequency of patches, security of default install, or 'breakability' of the system.
So being sertifies as B1 does not make trusted Solaris more secure then Linux, or Win XP. It just makes it more suited for military-type computing.
Maybe it _is_ very secure, but B1 has little to do with it.
Actually, unless you have some custom hardware, standard AC->DC adapter in PC only supplies 5V and 12V to motherboard - it is just standard. And motherboard itself provides lower voltage levels, suitable for particular CPU.
I also think that battery level fluctuate much less than the result of DC->AC->DC conversion of it. And you don't have to connect batteries directly to motherboard - you can use the same stabilizer that is used in PC's AC->DC adapter.
So I think avoiding DC->AC->DC layer can be a very good idea if you build custom hardware. At least, you can spare couple of coolers and get quiter PC.
Nobody notiuced? The URL of the article ends with ASP with means they use IIS themselves. NetCraft also tells the same: The site www.eweek.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000. Just like the recent MS anti-Unix site running BSD:)
Slashdot Mirror
I like the way ppl see conspiracy everywhere.
It is not a conspiracy, just another way to make some money on hugry people.
Well, this is a complex Zimbabwe's reality.
US's reality is simple: US can pay to mill this corn, which costs only a fraction of corn's price that US already paid. This will display that there are no intentions to made Zimbabwe dependent on US GM'ed corn, make everybody happy and remove any complications. Is it a complex reality? Why US does not do it?
Makes me feel Zimbabwe did the right choice.
Guys, read all his books, "About Face" as well as "Inmates are Running Asylum".
Before studing how to write software it is really important to learn what to write. And Cooper's books are the best I've read.
I bet these "default" installs were not ".0" versions, or did not have Apache installed. Otherwise, it could be cracked by any script kiddie.
To get fair comparision, you have to install all W2K updates before connecting to the net, or install OEM version that has latest service pack included.
This message is just plain FUD.
But obviously you don't need school education to blame all your problems on Microsoft, and post an article about this to Slashdot.
I am sure modern Hollywood can make that part better. Let's hope Soderburgh does not restrict himself to special effects ONLY, similar to Star Wars episode II.
If he can tell phycological part of the book as well as Tarkovsky, it will be a great movie.
P.S. For me, all Lem's books are about people. While that unearthy beauty is important to the book, it is not a major element, and is mostly important because of people's reactions it causes.
I am afraid, the law targets more liability than just price of the software. Lemon laws just tell that you can return your car and get your money back. You can usually return software box during some time defined by store and get your money back NOW.
These laws target liability for any damage caused by software, so that if XP or Linux crashed and buried by $1M data, the vendor would be liable this $1M, not the price I paid for the software. So it will potentially affect commercial as well as Open Source software, since the damage caused by software has nothing to do with its price.
Well, maybe it was a bad design, but should Microsoft be liable in court for it? If yes, where is the border? Should Linux be liable for not providing ability to run user-space file-system drivers like HURD does?
P.S. Answering original question: printer driver can crash application that tries to print.
I would like to see how and who will decide if particular behavior is bug or by-design? Will it be the same technology-chalenged people who issued one-click patent, and similar stupidities?
> You can't always limit liability. For example, you can't sell a car and say that you are not liable for design defects.
The liability of car designer exists because the risks associated with it can be relatively easy calculated. There are well defined boundaries and conditions under which car manufacturer declares his car to be safe, and gives the warranty. Any deviation (wrong type of oil, gas, or tires, missed oil change, self-installed turbo charger) and the liability and warranty can be void to some extend.
For software vendor those boundaries would mean that software is run under particular certified hardware, only in combinations with particular certified third-party applications, with regular maintainence (i.e. patches), configured according to vendor's specs, etc.
You can buy such system from most large software vendors, and get some kind of warranty and liability. MS sell data center servers in this category. If you want to pay the price for it plus price for hardware, plus restrict yourself to particular list of application, you can get it with associated liability. But if you want to run it on cheap hardware with tons of random crap installed, you can't expect any reasonable liablity from vendor.
> If government offices informed Microsoft that in one year they would no longer buy software that limited the liability of the designer
Actually, if any goverment wants to buy Microsoft software with liablity, it can be easily arranged: Microsoft will find third party insurance company, add appropriate price tag to the box, and sell it to anybody.
Will one want to buy MS Word for $10,000? I can easily imagine this price if the seller has to pay mega-dollar liability in case Word crashes while editing super important goverment document.
Ever seen a rich WYSIWYG-editor that never crashes?
Want software prices to sky-rocket like medical expenses in US (one of the biggest contributors is doctor's own insurance)?
They simply decided to make up for four year delay with so many releases ;)
Meeting governments B1 security requirements does not make system more secure. B1 differs from more often met C2 in mandatory access control (e.g. you should not be able to copy/paste data from Top Secret document into just Restricted document). This does not make any sense at all for typical user and very little sense for typical business scenarios, and thus does not make their system any more secure.
B1 does not say anything about frequency of patches, security of default install, or 'breakability' of the system.
So being sertifies as B1 does not make trusted Solaris more secure then Linux, or Win XP. It just makes it more suited for military-type computing.
Maybe it _is_ very secure, but B1 has little to do with it.
No, you did not read the post: "use of Free (libre) Software ... Due to high Microsoft license fees"
:)
So they always start with liberty, but end with license fees
Actually, unless you have some custom hardware, standard AC->DC adapter in PC only supplies 5V and 12V to motherboard - it is just standard. And motherboard itself provides lower voltage levels, suitable for particular CPU.
I also think that battery level fluctuate much less than the result of DC->AC->DC conversion of it. And you don't have to connect batteries directly to motherboard - you can use the same stabilizer that is used in PC's AC->DC adapter.
So I think avoiding DC->AC->DC layer can be a very good idea if you build custom hardware.
At least, you can spare couple of coolers and get quiter PC.
Nope, does not help agains /. :( I already got
http://199.57.1.141/cgi-bin/request/request.cgi
The page cannot be displayed
This is MSDE, it is also installed without network interfaces, and can only be used locally.
So it does not listen to any TCP port, and is not subject to this worm.
Just look at the list of languages
Goodle has managed to become largest search engine without Microsoft, although most seaches come from Internet Explorer too.
I wonder where you have read this BS.
It does not have to. This is just one option for purchasing MS software. If Drexel has more non-PC computers, it can choose another licensing option.
What about the third option: grab content of the screen before the game run, and display it on boss key?
After your game suspends/minimizes, close this bitmap, so that the real desktop is displayed (which should be pretty close to your image).
This is FUD.
Nobody notiuced? :)
The URL of the article ends with ASP with means they use IIS themselves.
NetCraft also tells the same: The site www.eweek.com is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
Just like the recent MS anti-Unix site running BSD
A nice article in Observer "Limit copying and we may end up copying the USSR":7 2840,00.html
http://www.observer.co.uk/business/story/0,6903,6