But, yes, there's nothing about OSS that prevents buffer overflows. It just has a greater change of being caught and fixed IMO than CSS. Not that the buffer overflows will be caught immediately. Sendmail's problems went for years without being noticed. But many of them are now fixed.
You are absolutely right though -- OSS is not immune to things like security holes, viruses, worms, or othre bugs. It stands a slightly better chance, and I use it all the time, but people who think it's the holy grail are just deluding themselves.
I'm betting that their 4MB database doesn't have all the stars in it yet. It looks like there are only stars close to Earth. That's probably why when you zoom out, you don't see the familiar spiral shape.
On a different note, isn't the name of our star "Sol", hence the Solar system? I was a little surprised to see it labeled "Sun" in the viewer.
An advanced user would have no problem adapting to Linux. They're advanced because they understand the concepts that the GUI is designed to represent. It's the moderate level users who try to switch and can't figure out where everything they used to use is under Linux. It's not really anybody's fault in many cases -- Linux is just different from Windows, and with any change, there will be confusion, especially in less advanced users. If these users had started off with Linux, they would have the same trouble moving to Windows ("what do you mean there's only one virtual desktop?":) The problem is, since most people equate ease of use and user friendliness with being like Windows, Linux is by default hard to use and not user friendly. That's starting to change with more and more WMs trying to look like Windows (I won't comment on whether that is a good or bad thing).
With luck, this warning will remind AT&T employees (I'm not one, btw) to follow whatever security policy they already (I hope) have in place all the time. Or maybe they just need to hold these conferences more often:)
I'll admit, I had apprehensions when I first moved to central Florida (graduated, new job) and got the cable Internet through Road Runner installed. But so far, everything seems to be exceeding my expectations. My upload cap is something like 350kbps (about 45kBps) which is higher than I expected. They aren't blocking any ports (that I can tell, I block most ports on my own for security, but ssh and SMTP are still open) and the installer didn't really seem to care that I had two computers sitting out, one of which is a NAT (though if one of them wasn't Windows, I'm not sure what he would have done with his fancy activation CD).
But most interestingly, I've been seeing (endless) commercials about getting broadband with the choice of Road Runner, AOL, or Earthlink. I haven't investigated this further, since RR is working well for me (why break a working thing?), but this may be a first step to offering more of a choice to cable subscribers. In any case, even limited competition will help keep abusive policies down (assuming they don't collude) which is a good thing for me, the person who writes the check every month.
Maybe it's different in different parts of the country, but I can tell that both my experiences here in Florida and my parents' experiences with AT&T in northern Illinois have been positive. Maybe we've just been lucky, or have been blessed with a smart business person that realizes that keeping the customers happy is better for business than being abusive to them in a foolish attempt to recuce cost. But I'm betting on luck:)
What's wrong with how Windows Media Player and how it handles cache information?
There is a flaw in how the Windows Media Player handles a license request for a secure media file in certain situations. When Windows Media Player requests a license for a media file and that media file is located in the IE cache, Windows Media erroneously returns the obfuscated name being used by IE for caching to the server specified as the license server for that particular media file.
Kinda makes you want to go out and put lots more DRM software on your computer, doesn't it? How many more security holes can we expect in the software designed to restrict our ability to use our computers? Personally, I'm glad I still have a choice of operating systems.
I have a fully working SVQ3 codec that I reverse engineered sitting on my harddrive... I haven't released it due to blatent patent infringement:)
As I understand it, patents don't just prevent you from distributing competeting products that do the same thing the patented product does, but also prevent you from making and using them yourself. So if I create a Widget and patent it, you can't make or use a widget even for personal use without my approval.
Of course, I don't have any idea what protects the Sorenson stuff (copyright or patent), but if it is a patent, you may have already infringed just by having your player.
I don't think I've ever heard anything really bad about them, but that doesn't mean that doesn't exist...
Re:How does they know these things are unphysical?
on
Physics in the Movies
·
· Score: 1
I agree completely. I'm surprised I didn't see Contact make the list because of some of the technology used (like the wormhole machine), even though the movie was only barely about that. Likewise, AI wasn't concerned with how the robots are powered. Both movies use the technology as a catalyst to say something else.
And there are some times we just have to forget about physics and have a good time:)
I wouldn't be so quick to put your house on it, unless you define what lowcost means. Consumers tend to like flatrate, unlimited things. Not all consumers, but there's a market for it. Why? Because it's (a) easier to deal with, especially in a budget and (b) not going to increase sharply without warning. Other service markets have flatrate options. For example, AT&T is advertising a lot for some program that offers unlimited calling to certain people (that's the catch) for a flat rate. ISPs did flatrate service for years after it had been metered. Memberships to zoos and museums or season passes to theme parks are the same idea.
The cable market is in a crunch right now because they didn't charge enough for their flatrate. Because they're a monopoly, they may be able to get away with charging per use like electricity, but that's only because also like electric companies, there's not much competition. If there was competition in the cable market (not other forms of broadband, actual cable provider competition), there would always be a flatrate option, IMHO. It may not be lowcost (compared to the alternatives), but it would exist.
Usually, you're right -- but there are exceptions. For example, I usually only watch the superbowl to see the ads (sometimes I do care about the teams also). For some reason, ad makers haven't figured out yet that ads that are entertaining will make people _want_ to watch them. But aparently, they only put thought into their ads when they have to pay millions to show them.
The EFF lawyers just have to work really hard to sell the case to the Court (specifically one of the justices' law clerks). Their appeal must be a clear constitutional issue (1st amendment) and they should probably use the phrase "prior restraint" a lot. Of course, IANAL, so what do I know...
I agree that getting certiorari from the Court and then losing is worse than not being heard at all. The Court does sometimes reverse itself, but it does seem to hate to admit that it was ever wrong (even when it reverses itself). So if the EFF does try to go to the Court, they better be sure they can win.
I don't think people are upset because something is being added to the headers (such as the SMTP server does), but that a field in the headers is being changed. I think there's a big difference between adding a notation saying the poster is using RoadRunner at a certain location and changing the poster's identity.
Your point about running your own NNTP server is good though, but that's about the only thing you can do. Since RoadRunner has a monopoly whereever it is, it's not like you can switch to a different ISP. Personally, I think if the cable ISPs keep behaving this way, they're going to be headed towards governmental regulation. I hate to think that's necessary, but without competition, I'm not sure what else would work...
So, Microsoft will cut the licensing cost for education and other publicly financed institutions.
Possibly all way to zero.
It already (almost) is. At my university, the cost of many MS products to students, faculty, and staff is $5 per product. Add to that that I've personally gotten many boxed copies of MS products (such Visual Source Safe and Windows 2k) for free. And the local MS pusher group (called StudentDev) likes to go around to local high schools pushing MS products. Personally, I think it's like giving cocaine to kids -- the first hit's free, but the next ones will cost you.
For example, how many people watch the Superbowl on TV for the ads? I know it's one of the big reasons I watch it (especially if I don't care about the teams playing). During that one show, advertisers pay out the ass for advertising time. And because of that, they usually make quality commercials that are worth watching. Imagine if they _always_ did that? If their commercials were good, people wouldn't be fast forwarding (or PVR skipping) through them. But since they're typically worthless crap, most people just skip them. Why should I waste my time with crap? (that's what/. is for:)
Slandered? Science does work to explain what is currently unexplained, right? What do you think theistic religions do? Try to separate you from your money? (ok, some cults do have that as their primary goal) I hope that's not your belief because that would be like saying the goal of science is to waste money writing papers no one can understand. (and besides, it can't be slander because I wrote it -- it would be libel at best:)
When I say religion above, I don't mean a belief in a god; I mean a quest for knowledge. Theistic religions are religions that gain that knowledge through devine revelation (buring bush, prophets, etc). Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and lots more all fit into this category. Science is a quest for knowledge that relies on human reason and observation. If saying that science is a type of "religion" offends you, then maybe another word or phrase would be better. But it doesn't change the fact that science and (most) theistic religions have similar goals -- to explain the universe around us.
And that doesn't mean that science and theistic religions are mutally exclusive. Christianity, for example, doesn't say anything about why toilets flush clockwise in the northern hemisphere and couter-clockwise in the southern. But science does. Science doesn't tell us what will happen when we die, but Christianity does. You can be both a scientist and a Christian, you just have to realize that both have their strong and weak points. And you can't consider scientific theories to be absolute fact (I've met people who do this and they're as bad as Christian zealots). The worst are the ones that think we shouldn't have any semblence of theistic religion in schools but also think we should teach evolution as a proven fact (which despite the evidence, it is not).
If there was sufficient evidence that one of these assumptions was wrong, it would be (eventually) discarded.
True enough, but that applies to most theistic religions as well. As of yet, no one has disproven the existence of God (AFAIK).
Religion searches for evidence to fit its convictions. Science searches for convictions to fit its evidence.
You make it sound as if there was a group of people sitting around in the Conspiracy Room where they wrote the Bible/Torah/Koran/other religious texts. The only difference between monotheistic religious texts and scientific texts (papers) is that scientific papers are subject to peer review. You obviously can't have that in a monotheistic religion since the texts are assumed to be written/inspired by God (though I guess you could in a polytheistic one). Of course, we as humans have the free will to choose to believe the work or not, based on whatever criteria we want.
And what makes you think scientists don't look for the evidence to fit their hypothesis? If you ask me, I think that hypothesis step in the scientific method shouldn't be there -- it prejudices the outcome. For example, in high school AP Chemistry we had to titrate something (I think it was acids and bases, but I don't remember) two times within 10% of each other. So we did it the first time as best we could, then figured out the acceptable range for the second time. When we did it the second time, it almost always came out in that range. It wasn't falsifying the results, just making the numbers work better. Definitely searching for evidence to fit our convictions (that we didn't want to do it a thrid time).
Like it or not, science and theistic religions have a lot in common. And they do not have to be mutally exclusive, like many people assume today. It's not about choosing one over the other, it's about learning about the world around us. If that knowledge comes from a scientific paper or a burning bush, in the end, what does it matter?
What do you think faith is? Belief in a god? Faith is believing in something (assuming it to be true) even though you cannot prove it. Based on your reasoning, I could say that Christianity has no faith, just assumptions that God exists. Would Christianity then be considered a science? Christianity's beliefs are explicitly declared and if any one of them is proven wrong (i.e., God does not exist and here's why), then it would obviously have to change. You don't think the theistic religions (not just Christianity, but all the others) would die quickly if someone could prove God could not exist? We can believe that God does not exist (atheism), but AFAIK, we cannot prove that.
[Educational requirements for voting] is an absolutely horrible idea. What you're proposing is basically disfranchisement, which the Voting Rights Act did away with (and only in 1965!), and for good reason. It would just be horribly, horribly abused.
Though I tend to agree, it's not without precedent. Currently, people under the age of 18 are not allowed to vote. Presumably, this is because they are not mature/intelligent/informed enough to vote responsibly. And this seems like a good idea. But there are plenty of people out there who are voting who probably shouldn't be voting for the same reasons.
But a lack of knowledge doesn't necessairly mean an inability to reason. There were plenty of smart people a thousand years ago who thought the sun revolved around the earth. So it's not really fair to call people stupid or unintelligent simply because of their ignorance. And the right to vote shouldn't be denied based on SAT scores.
Kind of like democracy itself (democracy is one of the worst forms of govenment, only surpassed by all the rest), age is a terrible way to judge if a person is capable to vote, but it's the best method we have overall.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, that's only one word :)
But, yes, there's nothing about OSS that prevents buffer overflows. It just has a greater change of being caught and fixed IMO than CSS. Not that the buffer overflows will be caught immediately. Sendmail's problems went for years without being noticed. But many of them are now fixed.
You are absolutely right though -- OSS is not immune to things like security holes, viruses, worms, or othre bugs. It stands a slightly better chance, and I use it all the time, but people who think it's the holy grail are just deluding themselves.
I'm betting that their 4MB database doesn't have all the stars in it yet. It looks like there are only stars close to Earth. That's probably why when you zoom out, you don't see the familiar spiral shape.
On a different note, isn't the name of our star "Sol", hence the Solar system? I was a little surprised to see it labeled "Sun" in the viewer.
Sounds like static to me :)
An advanced Win32 GUI user...
:) The problem is, since most people equate ease of use and user friendliness with being like Windows, Linux is by default hard to use and not user friendly. That's starting to change with more and more WMs trying to look like Windows (I won't comment on whether that is a good or bad thing).
[emphasis mine]
An advanced user would have no problem adapting to Linux. They're advanced because they understand the concepts that the GUI is designed to represent. It's the moderate level users who try to switch and can't figure out where everything they used to use is under Linux. It's not really anybody's fault in many cases -- Linux is just different from Windows, and with any change, there will be confusion, especially in less advanced users. If these users had started off with Linux, they would have the same trouble moving to Windows ("what do you mean there's only one virtual desktop?"
What I found even more ironic is that the particular domain in question isn't due for another year and some months!
:)
Yeah, but they want your money now! You don't expect scam artists to wait, do you?
With luck, this warning will remind AT&T employees (I'm not one, btw) to follow whatever security policy they already (I hope) have in place all the time. Or maybe they just need to hold these conferences more often :)
I'll admit, I had apprehensions when I first moved to central Florida (graduated, new job) and got the cable Internet through Road Runner installed. But so far, everything seems to be exceeding my expectations. My upload cap is something like 350kbps (about 45kBps) which is higher than I expected. They aren't blocking any ports (that I can tell, I block most ports on my own for security, but ssh and SMTP are still open) and the installer didn't really seem to care that I had two computers sitting out, one of which is a NAT (though if one of them wasn't Windows, I'm not sure what he would have done with his fancy activation CD).
:)
But most interestingly, I've been seeing (endless) commercials about getting broadband with the choice of Road Runner, AOL, or Earthlink. I haven't investigated this further, since RR is working well for me (why break a working thing?), but this may be a first step to offering more of a choice to cable subscribers. In any case, even limited competition will help keep abusive policies down (assuming they don't collude) which is a good thing for me, the person who writes the check every month.
Maybe it's different in different parts of the country, but I can tell that both my experiences here in Florida and my parents' experiences with AT&T in northern Illinois have been positive. Maybe we've just been lucky, or have been blessed with a smart business person that realizes that keeping the customers happy is better for business than being abusive to them in a foolish attempt to recuce cost. But I'm betting on luck
Am I missing something? Why is this under the Apache section?
Kinda makes you want to go out and put lots more DRM software on your computer, doesn't it? How many more security holes can we expect in the software designed to restrict our ability to use our computers? Personally, I'm glad I still have a choice of operating systems.
I have a fully working SVQ3 codec that I reverse engineered sitting on my harddrive ... I haven't released it due to blatent patent infringement :)
:)
As I understand it, patents don't just prevent you from distributing competeting products that do the same thing the patented product does, but also prevent you from making and using them yourself. So if I create a Widget and patent it, you can't make or use a widget even for personal use without my approval.
Of course, I don't have any idea what protects the Sorenson stuff (copyright or patent), but if it is a patent, you may have already infringed just by having your player.
Then again, IANAL, so it's probably all wrong
GE?
I don't think I've ever heard anything really bad about them, but that doesn't mean that doesn't exist...
I agree completely. I'm surprised I didn't see Contact make the list because of some of the technology used (like the wormhole machine), even though the movie was only barely about that. Likewise, AI wasn't concerned with how the robots are powered. Both movies use the technology as a catalyst to say something else.
:)
And there are some times we just have to forget about physics and have a good time
I wouldn't be so quick to put your house on it, unless you define what lowcost means. Consumers tend to like flatrate, unlimited things. Not all consumers, but there's a market for it. Why? Because it's (a) easier to deal with, especially in a budget and (b) not going to increase sharply without warning. Other service markets have flatrate options. For example, AT&T is advertising a lot for some program that offers unlimited calling to certain people (that's the catch) for a flat rate. ISPs did flatrate service for years after it had been metered. Memberships to zoos and museums or season passes to theme parks are the same idea.
The cable market is in a crunch right now because they didn't charge enough for their flatrate. Because they're a monopoly, they may be able to get away with charging per use like electricity, but that's only because also like electric companies, there's not much competition. If there was competition in the cable market (not other forms of broadband, actual cable provider competition), there would always be a flatrate option, IMHO. It may not be lowcost (compared to the alternatives), but it would exist.
Usually, you're right -- but there are exceptions. For example, I usually only watch the superbowl to see the ads (sometimes I do care about the teams also). For some reason, ad makers haven't figured out yet that ads that are entertaining will make people _want_ to watch them. But aparently, they only put thought into their ads when they have to pay millions to show them.
spread Linux on your toast
:)
I had no idea that the Linux kernal was so versatile! I look forward to the day when I can spread Linux on my toast
The EFF lawyers just have to work really hard to sell the case to the Court (specifically one of the justices' law clerks). Their appeal must be a clear constitutional issue (1st amendment) and they should probably use the phrase "prior restraint" a lot. Of course, IANAL, so what do I know...
I agree that getting certiorari from the Court and then losing is worse than not being heard at all. The Court does sometimes reverse itself, but it does seem to hate to admit that it was ever wrong (even when it reverses itself). So if the EFF does try to go to the Court, they better be sure they can win.
Karma 39 and still posting at 0.
How do you do that? It'd be great for off-topic posts like this one (that should be modded to 0 anyway)
... and would only cost $3
I don't think people are upset because something is being added to the headers (such as the SMTP server does), but that a field in the headers is being changed. I think there's a big difference between adding a notation saying the poster is using RoadRunner at a certain location and changing the poster's identity.
Your point about running your own NNTP server is good though, but that's about the only thing you can do. Since RoadRunner has a monopoly whereever it is, it's not like you can switch to a different ISP. Personally, I think if the cable ISPs keep behaving this way, they're going to be headed towards governmental regulation. I hate to think that's necessary, but without competition, I'm not sure what else would work...
So, Microsoft will cut the licensing cost for education and other publicly financed institutions.
Possibly all way to zero.
It already (almost) is. At my university, the cost of many MS products to students, faculty, and staff is $5 per product. Add to that that I've personally gotten many boxed copies of MS products (such Visual Source Safe and Windows 2k) for free. And the local MS pusher group (called StudentDev) likes to go around to local high schools pushing MS products. Personally, I think it's like giving cocaine to kids -- the first hit's free, but the next ones will cost you.
Here's my suggestion: Get better ADs.
/. is for :)
Exactly!
For example, how many people watch the Superbowl on TV for the ads? I know it's one of the big reasons I watch it (especially if I don't care about the teams playing). During that one show, advertisers pay out the ass for advertising time. And because of that, they usually make quality commercials that are worth watching. Imagine if they _always_ did that? If their commercials were good, people wouldn't be fast forwarding (or PVR skipping) through them. But since they're typically worthless crap, most people just skip them. Why should I waste my time with crap? (that's what
I wasn't very impressed... it didn't work on my system (win2k, moz 0.9.9)! Why can't I get to play with all the fun exploits?
Slandered? Science does work to explain what is currently unexplained, right? What do you think theistic religions do? Try to separate you from your money? (ok, some cults do have that as their primary goal) I hope that's not your belief because that would be like saying the goal of science is to waste money writing papers no one can understand. :)
(and besides, it can't be slander because I wrote it -- it would be libel at best
When I say religion above, I don't mean a belief in a god; I mean a quest for knowledge. Theistic religions are religions that gain that knowledge through devine revelation (buring bush, prophets, etc). Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and lots more all fit into this category. Science is a quest for knowledge that relies on human reason and observation. If saying that science is a type of "religion" offends you, then maybe another word or phrase would be better. But it doesn't change the fact that science and (most) theistic religions have similar goals -- to explain the universe around us.
And that doesn't mean that science and theistic religions are mutally exclusive. Christianity, for example, doesn't say anything about why toilets flush clockwise in the northern hemisphere and couter-clockwise in the southern. But science does. Science doesn't tell us what will happen when we die, but Christianity does. You can be both a scientist and a Christian, you just have to realize that both have their strong and weak points. And you can't consider scientific theories to be absolute fact (I've met people who do this and they're as bad as Christian zealots). The worst are the ones that think we shouldn't have any semblence of theistic religion in schools but also think we should teach evolution as a proven fact (which despite the evidence, it is not).
If there was sufficient evidence that one of these assumptions was wrong, it would be (eventually) discarded.
True enough, but that applies to most theistic religions as well. As of yet, no one has disproven the existence of God (AFAIK).
Religion searches for evidence to fit its convictions. Science searches for convictions to fit its evidence.
You make it sound as if there was a group of people sitting around in the Conspiracy Room where they wrote the Bible/Torah/Koran/other religious texts. The only difference between monotheistic religious texts and scientific texts (papers) is that scientific papers are subject to peer review. You obviously can't have that in a monotheistic religion since the texts are assumed to be written/inspired by God (though I guess you could in a polytheistic one). Of course, we as humans have the free will to choose to believe the work or not, based on whatever criteria we want.
And what makes you think scientists don't look for the evidence to fit their hypothesis? If you ask me, I think that hypothesis step in the scientific method shouldn't be there -- it prejudices the outcome. For example, in high school AP Chemistry we had to titrate something (I think it was acids and bases, but I don't remember) two times within 10% of each other. So we did it the first time as best we could, then figured out the acceptable range for the second time. When we did it the second time, it almost always came out in that range. It wasn't falsifying the results, just making the numbers work better. Definitely searching for evidence to fit our convictions (that we didn't want to do it a thrid time).
Like it or not, science and theistic religions have a lot in common. And they do not have to be mutally exclusive, like many people assume today. It's not about choosing one over the other, it's about learning about the world around us. If that knowledge comes from a scientific paper or a burning bush, in the end, what does it matter?
What do you think faith is? Belief in a god? Faith is believing in something (assuming it to be true) even though you cannot prove it. Based on your reasoning, I could say that Christianity has no faith, just assumptions that God exists. Would Christianity then be considered a science? Christianity's beliefs are explicitly declared and if any one of them is proven wrong (i.e., God does not exist and here's why), then it would obviously have to change. You don't think the theistic religions (not just Christianity, but all the others) would die quickly if someone could prove God could not exist? We can believe that God does not exist (atheism), but AFAIK, we cannot prove that.
[Educational requirements for voting] is an absolutely horrible idea. What you're proposing is basically disfranchisement, which the Voting Rights Act did away with (and only in 1965!), and for good reason. It would just be horribly, horribly abused.
Though I tend to agree, it's not without precedent. Currently, people under the age of 18 are not allowed to vote. Presumably, this is because they are not mature/intelligent/informed enough to vote responsibly. And this seems like a good idea. But there are plenty of people out there who are voting who probably shouldn't be voting for the same reasons.
But a lack of knowledge doesn't necessairly mean an inability to reason. There were plenty of smart people a thousand years ago who thought the sun revolved around the earth. So it's not really fair to call people stupid or unintelligent simply because of their ignorance. And the right to vote shouldn't be denied based on SAT scores.
Kind of like democracy itself (democracy is one of the worst forms of govenment, only surpassed by all the rest), age is a terrible way to judge if a person is capable to vote, but it's the best method we have overall.