Twitter -- don't you ever get tired of people calling you partisan?? You remind me of my mother. She is a devout Democrat, and I'm a Republican. My wife (also a Democrat) would agree when I call her, "the most closed-minded 'open-minded' person I know". You've gotta be the second. No matter what the topic, Microsoft is the evil empire. Don't you ever consider the good that exists in all people? or is it all just hate-hate-hate ?
Seriously... think about it and its effects on your personality. Is the opposition really that different?
I think a lot of people really like freedom to install the Google toolbar. Will you take it away from them in the name of security?
Remember what Ben Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS.
For purposes of this Act:
(B) EXCEPTION FOR COOKIES- Such term does not include a cookie or other text file, data, or computer software, that is placed on the computer system of a user by an Internet service provider, interactive computer service, or Internet website to return information to such provider, service, or website solely to enable the user subsequently to use such provider or service or to access such website.
Nice anti-Bush slant. I'm sure the liberals on/. will approve. Don't forget to mention that it was President Clinton that renewed most-favored nation for China several times, prompting congress to introduce a "resolution of disapproval".
The poster takes a lot of liberties with the defintion of "spy agencies". Here's the limitations, according to the current version of the Bill:
SEC. 5. LIMITATIONS.
(a) Law Enforcement Authority- Sections 2 and 3 of this Act shall not apply to--
(1) any act taken by a law enforcement agent in the performance of official duties; or
(2) the transmission or execution of an information collection program in compliance with a law enforcement, investigatory, national security, or regulatory agency or department of the United States in response to a request or demand made under authority granted to that agency or department, including a warrant issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an equivalent State warrant, a court order, or other lawful process.
(b) Exception Relating to Network Security- Nothing in this Act shall apply to any monitoring of, or interaction with, a subscriber's Internet or other network connection or service by a telecommunications carrier, cable operator, or provider of information service or interactive computer service for network security purposes, diagnostics or repair in connection with a network or service, or detection or prevention of fraudulent activities in connection with a service or user agreement.
(c) Good Samaritan Protection- No provider of computer software or of interactive computer service may be held liable under this Act on account of any action voluntarily taken, or service provided, in good faith to remove or disable a program used to violate section 2 or 3 that is installed on a computer of a customer of such provider, if such provider notifies the customer and obtains the consent of the customer before undertaking such action or providing such service.
Give it a rest, man. First you find the bill offensive..("The recent attempts by the American Government to control this beast are not only offensive to me as a Canadian but also stupid as it is easy for the makers of this software to simply move their operation.") and then you'd admire it..("Though I would love a flashing screen that says, Kazaa is installing spyware on your system, I don't see it a a viable option")
If you are, as a Canadian, truly offended by the bill (as you say you are), then its time for you to re-check your citizenship. What are you offended by? The fact that we, as citizens of the United States, want to take a stand against spyware? If your offense is that we think we can control the rest of the world, then the problem is yours -- we are simply setting a standard. Geez.
Re:Intel's past arrogance is killing them!
on
AMD 90nm Evaluated
·
· Score: 1
In general, all strategies of the form "I will never/always do X" are stupid.
I agree. I always call people "stupid" when they say they'll always do something.
Re:Intel's past arrogance is killing them!
on
AMD 90nm Evaluated
·
· Score: 1
In general, all strategies of the form "I will never/always do X" are stupid.
I agree. I always call people stupid when they say they will always do something.
I think it is dangerous to simply say that allow a browser to "just log you in.... is not very secure". That's a pretty absolute statement. There are cases where internal corporate websites might want to present personalized content to the user, but doesn't contain any sensitive information. Why not support an authentication method that allows each application to determine whether the user should re-authenticate?
Too often here on Slashdot we're ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because it's "IE" and "Windows Integrated Authentication" (which, by the way, has a more open-standard name called "Kerberos over SPNEGO") doesn't mean its insecure.
I think the problem is that Mozilla 1.7 for the Windows OS doesn't yet support Kerberos over SPNEGO (aka "Windows Integrated Authentication"). The Linux version of Mozilla does support this capability (and therefore true SSO). But for Windows clients, they will have to authenticate again when they hit their first SiteMinder-enabled website. Double-Sign-On ?DSO? if you like.
I dunno if Mozilla is planning to integrate Kerb or SPNEGO into its Windows release, but it sure would be a huge boon for corporate clients to start seriously considering using Mozilla in the workplace.
Interesting thread here because I'm evaluating Web SSO products.
My understanding of Netegrity (and other vendors such as Oblix) is that you can have certain applications force re-authentication on first use. They also allow per-application session expiration. In this way, you can provide direct SSO to websites that don't have sensitive information, while forcing a user to re-authenticate for sites that do.
Is this not your experience? I'm interested because we're just in the evaluation phase right now.
There is more oil being produced today than ever before. And prices are still going up. The principle of supply and demand would therefore suggest that demand is quite high. In fact, a result of globalization has been increased global demand for oil. That has been the driver for high oil prices, not some vast right-wing conspiracy that Dan Rather will report on next week.
Maybe, but I think the more likely explanation is that these "bills pop into existence" so the legislators can scare the pants off big contributors, and get some more feeding at the campaign-contribution trough.
Microsoft has lobbied particularly hard against open source, helping kill state bills that advocate for open source in Oregon and Texas
Sorry, but I fail to see how any bill (Gates or proposed legislation) that advocates in favor of either open or closed source is a good thing. Legislators ought to stick their noses somewhere else then making technology decisions.
Good idea posting anonymously. On Slashdot, suggesting that the audience is anti-Microsoft is like suggesting to Democrats that they are anti-Bush. It's obvious, but -- they hope -- discreet.
"Infineon has agreed to pay a $160m fine to the US government"
Once again, the companies profit and the US government gets cash... and joe six-pack gets screwed. I mean, with the government receiving all these settlements from Microsoft and the tobacco companies... why aren't our taxes going down?
The US government has more than a bit of conflict of interest in its role as protector of the public from price-fixing and monopolies, yet recipient of huge settlements when they are allowed to grow and blossom.
I'm sure Infineon, a company that has annual GROSS PROFITS of over $2 BILLION USD a year made a hell of a lot more that $160m. So Infineon makes out, and the government makes out.
But where's my money? You remember me, the guy that got ripped off?
Sorry, but the analogy to faulty brake parts doesn't fly. When Ford notifies its customers of a potential brake failure, do thousands of angry, anti-Ford teenagers suddenly run out to every parking lot in the world with hacksaws? I don't think they do.
In Microsoft's case, they are trying to balance knowledge of the flaw with responsible awareness. This is a problem every software vendor deals with... you don't openly publicize a flaw until there's a fix for it.
But it is a great analogy if your goal is to trash Microsoft unfairly.
I agree that it's un-american. But Al Gore, not Bush deserves your derision by proving his lack of interest in the military vote. Democrats like to scorn Republican for their "morality". Nobody cares anymore about whether it is moral to squelch the voice of those who are fighting for our country.
When Florida's sixty-seven counties gathered to tally overseas absentee ballots, Gore campaign-trained operatives descended on each location with explicit instructions for disqualifying - on techicalities - as many military ballots as possible.
In a disturbing incident revealead in the book, "At Any Cost" by Bill Sammon: When the [Duval County] canvassing board announced that the ballots of 149 soldiers, sailors, and airmen had been disqualified, a pair of jubilant Gore lawyers exchanged high-fives. A Republican, visibly shaken by this sight, demanded to know how they could celebrate the disenfranchisement of U.S. military members risking their lives around the world. One of the Gore lawyers glibly replied, 'A win's a win.'
You're missing the point. When they ask you to post your resume in cleartext on a website, it means they think you're mildly interesting. They want to index you in a searchable database so they can charge someone else to find your resume. It usually means there is no position at all -- just a scam to waste your time and help them along at your expense.
You said...
In a civilized society, prisoners are sentenced to time in jail. [...] They should not be subject to torture at the hands of other inmates, and it is the duty of the State to prevent such abuses.
Replace "prisoners" with "school children", and "jail" with "school" and you've explained why Columbine happened. Of course, nobody cares about that either... even though "saving the children" is a more resonant message than "saving the convicted felons".
If (according to you) "UNIX has traditionally been about big systems with multiple users.", while "Windows has grown from a PC background where everything is traditionally local", then perhaps you can explain why (as the parent asserts) Windows has a more scalable ACL mechanism than Unix??
Windows does not have a Kernel limitation of 16/32 groups per user. Windows supports more than simply User/Group/World permission assignments. Windows recognizes users, groups and domains, while Unix recognizes users and groups.
You say your environment is small, and UNIX works for 99% of your requirements. The problem is that it doesn't scale to large environments.
Slashdot Mirror
Twitter -- don't you ever get tired of people calling you partisan?? You remind me of my mother. She is a devout Democrat, and I'm a Republican. My wife (also a Democrat) would agree when I call her, "the most closed-minded 'open-minded' person I know". You've gotta be the second. No matter what the topic, Microsoft is the evil empire. Don't you ever consider the good that exists in all people? or is it all just hate-hate-hate ?
Seriously... think about it and its effects on your personality. Is the opposition really that different?
I think a lot of people really like freedom to install the Google toolbar. Will you take it away from them in the name of security?
Remember what Ben Franklin said: "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety".
SEC. 9. DEFINITIONS. For purposes of this Act: (B) EXCEPTION FOR COOKIES- Such term does not include a cookie or other text file, data, or computer software, that is placed on the computer system of a user by an Internet service provider, interactive computer service, or Internet website to return information to such provider, service, or website solely to enable the user subsequently to use such provider or service or to access such website.
Nice anti-Bush slant. I'm sure the liberals on /. will approve. Don't forget to mention that it was President Clinton that renewed most-favored nation for China several times, prompting congress to introduce a "resolution of disapproval".
The poster takes a lot of liberties with the defintion of "spy agencies". Here's the limitations, according to the current version of the Bill:
SEC. 5. LIMITATIONS.
(a) Law Enforcement Authority- Sections 2 and 3 of this Act shall not apply to--
(1) any act taken by a law enforcement agent in the performance of official duties; or
(2) the transmission or execution of an information collection program in compliance with a law enforcement, investigatory, national security, or regulatory agency or department of the United States in response to a request or demand made under authority granted to that agency or department, including a warrant issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an equivalent State warrant, a court order, or other lawful process.
(b) Exception Relating to Network Security- Nothing in this Act shall apply to any monitoring of, or interaction with, a subscriber's Internet or other network connection or service by a telecommunications carrier, cable operator, or provider of information service or interactive computer service for network security purposes, diagnostics or repair in connection with a network or service, or detection or prevention of fraudulent activities in connection with a service or user agreement.
(c) Good Samaritan Protection- No provider of computer software or of interactive computer service may be held liable under this Act on account of any action voluntarily taken, or service provided, in good faith to remove or disable a program used to violate section 2 or 3 that is installed on a computer of a customer of such provider, if such provider notifies the customer and obtains the consent of the customer before undertaking such action or providing such service.
Give it a rest, man. First you find the bill offensive..("The recent attempts by the American Government to control this beast are not only offensive to me as a Canadian but also stupid as it is easy for the makers of this software to simply move their operation.") and then you'd admire it..("Though I would love a flashing screen that says, Kazaa is installing spyware on your system, I don't see it a a viable option")
If you are, as a Canadian, truly offended by the bill (as you say you are), then its time for you to re-check your citizenship. What are you offended by? The fact that we, as citizens of the United States, want to take a stand against spyware? If your offense is that we think we can control the rest of the world, then the problem is yours -- we are simply setting a standard. Geez.
In general, all strategies of the form "I will never/always do X" are stupid.
I agree. I always call people "stupid" when they say they'll always do something.
In general, all strategies of the form "I will never/always do X" are stupid.
I agree. I always call people stupid when they say they will always do something.
Yeah, I'm familiar with Liberty Alliance and WS-Fed. They are designed for org-to-org gateway style authentication. They're not for intranet Web SSO.
Thanks for the info.
I think it is dangerous to simply say that allow a browser to "just log you in .... is not very secure". That's a pretty absolute statement. There are cases where internal corporate websites might want to present personalized content to the user, but doesn't contain any sensitive information. Why not support an authentication method that allows each application to determine whether the user should re-authenticate?
Too often here on Slashdot we're ready to throw the baby out with the bath water. Just because it's "IE" and "Windows Integrated Authentication" (which, by the way, has a more open-standard name called "Kerberos over SPNEGO") doesn't mean its insecure.
Sorry if this is a little rant-ish.
I think the problem is that Mozilla 1.7 for the Windows OS doesn't yet support Kerberos over SPNEGO (aka "Windows Integrated Authentication"). The Linux version of Mozilla does support this capability (and therefore true SSO). But for Windows clients, they will have to authenticate again when they hit their first SiteMinder-enabled website. Double-Sign-On ?DSO? if you like.
I dunno if Mozilla is planning to integrate Kerb or SPNEGO into its Windows release, but it sure would be a huge boon for corporate clients to start seriously considering using Mozilla in the workplace.
Interesting thread here because I'm evaluating Web SSO products.
My understanding of Netegrity (and other vendors such as Oblix) is that you can have certain applications force re-authentication on first use. They also allow per-application session expiration. In this way, you can provide direct SSO to websites that don't have sensitive information, while forcing a user to re-authenticate for sites that do.
Is this not your experience? I'm interested because we're just in the evaluation phase right now.
I call FUD on this.
There is more oil being produced today than ever before. And prices are still going up. The principle of supply and demand would therefore suggest that demand is quite high.
In fact, a result of globalization has been increased global demand for oil. That has been the driver for high oil prices, not some vast right-wing conspiracy that Dan Rather will report on next week.
Maybe, but I think the more likely explanation is that these "bills pop into existence" so the legislators can scare the pants off big contributors, and get some more feeding at the campaign-contribution trough.
Thanks. I'll try to not "loose" that "advise".
Microsoft has lobbied particularly hard against open source, helping kill state bills that advocate for open source in Oregon and Texas
Sorry, but I fail to see how any bill (Gates or proposed legislation) that advocates in favor of either open or closed source is a good thing. Legislators ought to stick their noses somewhere else then making technology decisions.
Good idea posting anonymously. On Slashdot, suggesting that the audience is anti-Microsoft is like suggesting to Democrats that they are anti-Bush. It's obvious, but -- they hope -- discreet.
"Infineon has agreed to pay a $160m fine to the US government"
Once again, the companies profit and the US government gets cash... and joe six-pack gets screwed. I mean, with the government receiving all these settlements from Microsoft and the tobacco companies... why aren't our taxes going down?
The US government has more than a bit of conflict of interest in its role as protector of the public from price-fixing and monopolies, yet recipient of huge settlements when they are allowed to grow and blossom.
I'm sure Infineon, a company that has annual GROSS PROFITS of over $2 BILLION USD a year made a hell of a lot more that $160m. So Infineon makes out, and the government makes out.
But where's my money? You remember me, the guy that got ripped off?
Sorry, but the analogy to faulty brake parts doesn't fly. When Ford notifies its customers of a potential brake failure, do thousands of angry, anti-Ford teenagers suddenly run out to every parking lot in the world with hacksaws? I don't think they do.
In Microsoft's case, they are trying to balance knowledge of the flaw with responsible awareness. This is a problem every software vendor deals with... you don't openly publicize a flaw until there's a fix for it.
But it is a great analogy if your goal is to trash Microsoft unfairly.
I agree that it's un-american. But Al Gore, not Bush deserves your derision by proving his lack of interest in the military vote. Democrats like to scorn Republican for their "morality". Nobody cares anymore about whether it is moral to squelch the voice of those who are fighting for our country.
When Florida's sixty-seven counties gathered to tally overseas absentee ballots, Gore campaign-trained operatives descended on each location with explicit instructions for disqualifying - on techicalities - as many military ballots as possible.
In a disturbing incident revealead in the book, "At Any Cost" by Bill Sammon:
When the [Duval County] canvassing board announced that the ballots of 149 soldiers, sailors, and airmen had been disqualified, a pair of jubilant Gore lawyers exchanged high-fives. A Republican, visibly shaken by this sight, demanded to know how they could celebrate the disenfranchisement of U.S. military members risking their lives around the world. One of the Gore lawyers glibly replied, 'A win's a win.'
Being born with an extra right hand: Priceless.
You're missing the point. When they ask you to post your resume in cleartext on a website, it means they think you're mildly interesting. They want to index you in a searchable database so they can charge someone else to find your resume. It usually means there is no position at all -- just a scam to waste your time and help them along at your expense.
Replace "prisoners" with "school children", and "jail" with "school" and you've explained why Columbine happened. Of course, nobody cares about that either... even though "saving the children" is a more resonant message than "saving the convicted felons".
If (according to you) "UNIX has traditionally been about big systems with multiple users.", while "Windows has grown from a PC background where everything is traditionally local", then perhaps you can explain why (as the parent asserts) Windows has a more scalable ACL mechanism than Unix??
Windows does not have a Kernel limitation of 16/32 groups per user.
Windows supports more than simply User/Group/World permission assignments.
Windows recognizes users, groups and domains, while Unix recognizes users and groups.
You say your environment is small, and UNIX works for 99% of your requirements. The problem is that it doesn't scale to large environments.