This is perfect. This promotes competition by allowing the common user to replace IE as their default browser or even an OEM (pending overthrowing MS's current draconian licensing) alowing a user to make the simple choice themselves.
I disagree, I consider this to be a huge half-step. The problem I have is this: if programs are still (for example) relying on IE to render their html, a bug in IE will still affect your machine whether or not you use Mozilla as your primary browser.
This is nowhere near true modularity.
This might be beneficial in the sense that the Windows desktop is a billboard for big business, but it is not a true benefit to the consumer - running anything but IE (in my example) means that you've doubled the likelihood of system vulnerability, since you're running two separate browsers.
Eventually, MS will use market forces to regress to the old state of affairs: How long do you think it will be before MS points-out the fact that users of browsers other than IE are 2/3 more likely to have their systems exploited than straigh MS users?
Thank you. I just happened onto something which appears to be an Abe Lincoln quote that's very related to my comment - but you might want to verify the source:
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.... Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-Abraham Lincoln
if the good people working on the kernel would like to contribute [...] to national security
Don't forget, many of the kernel hackers you mention are not US citizens. If they contribute to Linux security, they aren't contributing to any one nation's national security, but all takers equally.
you get so immersed in it all that priorities become skewed
All news outlets are becoming tabloids, the Internet is helping this occur because it allows us to see the failings of people who we then consider ourselves better-than. Clicques develop around shared interests and elitism (over one crowd or another), and those clicques focus so much on one aspect of living (the one that makes them elite), that they neglect something they consider to be less important becuase it is difficult to do both at once (Nerds neglect social skills, generally). Tabloids use your interest to get your attention, and abuse their understanding of your inabilities to make you paranoid about things you would otherwise see through.
Relax, take your paranoia and apply it to something personally applicable, rather than a grand ideal, and live as you would like. If you are intelligent and moral, your actions will speak louder than a hundred Slashdot posts ever could.
Simply put: you're jaded, but only toward things which aren't within your field of expertise. If you think people who use computers, but don't know how they work are stupid, the previous sentence should be nearly self-evident. Diversify, and don't allow your peers to insert you into a heirarchy which makes you paranoid.
It's the server. Particularly the server's name: "slashdot.org" is different from "interviews.slashdot.org", therefore you shouldn't be sharing cookies (which have your login info in 'em) between servers. If you login on each and get a cookie for each, it will have you logged-in on all of them.
I'm sure there's a way to get around this limitation (on the server's side), though it might violate privacy and security policies, and may involve a hack.
I call Godwin's law. The conversation is over, please go home everyone there is nothing to see here.
I wish folks realized the post I've quoted is a troll. The entire Star Wars universe was created by a fellow who grew-up shortly after the entire Nazi fiasco occurred, I suspect that there IS a connection, and "Godwin's Law" does not apply.
That, and calling Godwin's Law in a thread where you weren't previously involved is like running into a courtroom and shouting "He pleads the fifth!", in that it's not made for your protection.
Might I note, this process can be automated with a cron job - though I recommend against it (as much as I recommend against Windows' automatic updating).
Of course a browser that fits on a floppy wouldn't offer the features that customers needed, and wouldn't have any market presence
Speaking of browsers that fit on a floppy, check out OffByOne. It's tiny, fast, functional under win32 or wine, and provides the all of the basics. While it's not the most powerful browser out there, it can handle ssl and is extremely slim.
Consider it a halfway-point between Lynx and Opera.:)
Read Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson
on
Enigma
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
It isn't a factual account of Turing's experiences, nor of WW2 in general, but it's a well-written book set during WW2 (not entirely), with a heavy focus on cryptography. The reason I bring it up is tat it is so bent on cryptography (who'd have guessed?), and Enigma has a cameo.
Cryptonomicon is engaging, I had great difficulty putting it down, though the instructional detail used to describe various technical feats compelled me to set it aside for a minute to give them a go myself. Stephenson has a solid grasp on many technical concepts, even if he doesn't get all of them 100% correct (you'll get no spoilers from me!).
All of that, and he even observes Turing's professed sexual preference in a much more honest (read: less inverted) manner.
"free if the majority of the populace likes it or agrees with it"
Which is theoretically the same mechanism which is used to create laws - the majority of the populace feels a certain way about something and it's not against the Constitution, so they make a law (formally via the appropriate mechanisms).
The difference here is that it allows arbitrary creation and enforcement, and it is against the treasured Freedom of Speech.
This makes sense now that I've stepped-back to take it all in.
Create laws that arm consumers with security information. Perhaps a grading scheme where software that doesn't connect to the internet is given a A rating. If it is a client then it gets a B rating. If it is a server it starts at C then for every three exploits within the last year the rating increments by one.
I think this sounds pretty nice, but it has problems. For instance, clients are not necessarily more secure than servers, a well-written anonymous ftp server could theoretically be infinitely more secure than a poorly-written web browser which downloads and executes code without express permission.
Also, most linux distributions would minimally start at a "C" rating under this scheme, while windows 98 would begin at "B" (without enabling "file/printer sharing"). Which do you consider to be more secure on the average? Do the ratings reflect that?
These problems are indicative of a greater flaw in this scheme, software doesn't have to rigidly conform to _any_ model, be it client/server, P2P, etc. Laws take a long time to be changed, software can be changed in weeks (witness Microsoft's court history.. pretty soon they might be stopped from producing Windows 95;) - if we draft laws or even form committees which define certain software paradigms as insecure, software will simply change paradigms to achieve a higher rating until the ratings-board is able to change criteria to match.
Alternatively, we could have panels of elected security-analysts pore-over every piece of software that is voluntarily-submitted for a rating (in source form), at a cost to the software producer (based on some criterion I don't know), and they could arbitrarily grant ratings based on their findings.
I don't know that this is the best solution, but it sounds more practical, it's similar to other analogous (movie ratings, supreme court, etc.) systems for ideal-compliance which are already in place and doing a reasonable (not perfect) job.
Yes but perhaps not in the way you think. While something like this has a possibility of being hacked, it will only be if someone puts backdoors into the low level hardware controlling the electrical signals along with the remote controller.
You don't suppose that the different material it is made out of might be somewhat affected by properly patterned RF transmissions? I know that silicon is much more responsive to RF than the usual tissue in that area is, perhaps this could be used to give people UV or IR vision rather than (or in addition to) normal vision. Fascinating stuff either way.
all the interpretation is done in the Occipital Lobe and we don't and I don't think ever will have a great enough understanding of the brain to hack it.
I'm much more of an technological optimist in the sense that I disagree.
What kind of interference will upset the function of this device which wouldn't affect a normal eye? Can it be remotely manipulated in such a way as to malfunction or function in a way that a remote attacker may desire it to function?
The fact that I have to ask these questions makes me hesitant to put electronics in my head, but I can imagine that the concern would be less for someone who couldn't see without them.
This plan would delay the release of stories. News needs to be timely to remain news, so this would only be practical for stories which are not new - and its whole point is to discover which those are.
--insert the whole chicken and the egg thing here--
A study released this week by Jupiter Research reports that about 34 percent of veteran file swappers say they are spending more on music than they did before they started downloading files. About 14 percent of heavy file traders say they now spend less on music.
The problem with this study is that it is contingent on the credibility of people who openly admit that they're breaking the law (though that's arguable). It'll be tough to make that point stand up against the numbers that huge law-abiding (right) corporate entities are backing.
Oh, and I have pretty much dropped back to pre-napster music purchasing habits since it's become more difficult to find what I'm looking for without fear of penalty. I was spending easily 1000% what I am now.
The problem is that it will be impossible (without some miraculous new technology - like quantum cryptography) to create free software which can protect IP as proscribed, it could also make free software which attempts to ignore this aspect of computing illegal because of its functionality as a circumvention device.
Thought you might like to know - perhaps you can spread some of the same information over there that you've spread my way (since nobody else has cast their vote):
I imagine that this is just as trite and banal as Nazi analogies, considering that the Empire sort-of is a Nazi analogy. Oh, and Episode 2: AotC is coming out, which I'm sure means that this type of thing gets far too much play to remain hip.
I'll argue that artists don't create such "large" are for individuals nowadays, either. When's the last time you bought a mural, or a family mausoleum?
Art on the scale that we consume at affordable prices could easily be constructed for a few hundred bucks, and it would be easy to start a web service to help collect to prompt artists to create new goodies - like an ebay kind of deal. Raising the price of getting into the biz to the cost of buying/renting equipment would _lower_ the barrier to entry that exists now.
Got paid to create their art, was it amateur, or "PROFESSIONAL-LEVEL ART" as Ellison put it? they got paid a lot, but they didn't get paid over and over again.
...knowingly making inflammatory analogies of the type that the public is sick to death of...
That's my point, it's not my job to know, nor have I been tracking the social zeitgeist. A statement is what it is, in the context it's placed in. I consider a forum to be the context for my forum posts, or a even more narrowly - a thread, not the slashdot culture at-large. You seem to be neglecting the fact that this cultures is as much mine as it is yours, and I'm clearly not tired of that specific analogy.
Slashdot Mirror
This is perfect. This promotes competition by allowing the common user to replace IE as their default browser or even an OEM (pending overthrowing MS's current draconian licensing) alowing a user to make the simple choice themselves.
I disagree, I consider this to be a huge half-step. The problem I have is this: if programs are still (for example) relying on IE to render their html, a bug in IE will still affect your machine whether or not you use Mozilla as your primary browser.
This is nowhere near true modularity.
This might be beneficial in the sense that the Windows desktop is a billboard for big business, but it is not a true benefit to the consumer - running anything but IE (in my example) means that you've doubled the likelihood of system vulnerability, since you're running two separate browsers.
Eventually, MS will use market forces to regress to the old state of affairs: How long do you think it will be before MS points-out the fact that users of browsers other than IE are 2/3 more likely to have their systems exploited than straigh MS users?
Thank you. I just happened onto something which appears to be an Abe Lincoln quote that's very related to my comment - but you might want to verify the source:
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.... Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
-Abraham Lincoln
if the good people working on the kernel would like to contribute [...] to national security
Don't forget, many of the kernel hackers you mention are not US citizens. If they contribute to Linux security, they aren't contributing to any one nation's national security, but all takers equally.
"The remains found earlier today are in fact Chandra Levy"
A little follow-up on this: a likely candidate for Chandra Levy's remains has turned-up.
Her parents are hopeful that she's still alive and the remains are not hers, even though they were found in a park where she was known to jog.
As a side note, Condit refused to comment - though I don't wish to imply that that has any meaning whatsoever.
Anyway, that's my follow-up, hope this finds resolution soon. Oh, and thanks for the constructive comments, posters.
you get so immersed in it all that priorities become skewed
All news outlets are becoming tabloids, the Internet is helping this occur because it allows us to see the failings of people who we then consider ourselves better-than. Clicques develop around shared interests and elitism (over one crowd or another), and those clicques focus so much on one aspect of living (the one that makes them elite), that they neglect something they consider to be less important becuase it is difficult to do both at once (Nerds neglect social skills, generally). Tabloids use your interest to get your attention, and abuse their understanding of your inabilities to make you paranoid about things you would otherwise see through.
Relax, take your paranoia and apply it to something personally applicable, rather than a grand ideal, and live as you would like. If you are intelligent and moral, your actions will speak louder than a hundred Slashdot posts ever could.
Simply put: you're jaded, but only toward things which aren't within your field of expertise. If you think people who use computers, but don't know how they work are stupid, the previous sentence should be nearly self-evident. Diversify, and don't allow your peers to insert you into a heirarchy which makes you paranoid.
It's the server. Particularly the server's name: "slashdot.org" is different from "interviews.slashdot.org", therefore you shouldn't be sharing cookies (which have your login info in 'em) between servers. If you login on each and get a cookie for each, it will have you logged-in on all of them.
I'm sure there's a way to get around this limitation (on the server's side), though it might violate privacy and security policies, and may involve a hack.
I call Godwin's law. The conversation is over, please go home everyone there is nothing to see here.
I wish folks realized the post I've quoted is a troll. The entire Star Wars universe was created by a fellow who grew-up shortly after the entire Nazi fiasco occurred, I suspect that there IS a connection, and "Godwin's Law" does not apply.
That, and calling Godwin's Law in a thread where you weren't previously involved is like running into a courtroom and shouting "He pleads the fifth!", in that it's not made for your protection.
upgrading with apt is easy, and not much work.
Might I note, this process can be automated with a cron job - though I recommend against it (as much as I recommend against Windows' automatic updating).
Of course a browser that fits on a floppy wouldn't offer the features that customers needed, and wouldn't have any market presence
Speaking of browsers that fit on a floppy, check out OffByOne. It's tiny, fast, functional under win32 or wine, and provides the all of the basics. While it's not the most powerful browser out there, it can handle ssl and is extremely slim.
Consider it a halfway-point between Lynx and Opera. :)
It isn't a factual account of Turing's experiences, nor of WW2 in general, but it's a well-written book set during WW2 (not entirely), with a heavy focus on cryptography. The reason I bring it up is tat it is so bent on cryptography (who'd have guessed?), and Enigma has a cameo.
Cryptonomicon is engaging, I had great difficulty putting it down, though the instructional detail used to describe various technical feats compelled me to set it aside for a minute to give them a go myself. Stephenson has a solid grasp on many technical concepts, even if he doesn't get all of them 100% correct (you'll get no spoilers from me!).
All of that, and he even observes Turing's professed sexual preference in a much more honest (read: less inverted) manner.
"free if the majority of the populace likes it or agrees with it"
Which is theoretically the same mechanism which is used to create laws - the majority of the populace feels a certain way about something and it's not against the Constitution, so they make a law (formally via the appropriate mechanisms).
The difference here is that it allows arbitrary creation and enforcement, and it is against the treasured Freedom of Speech.
This makes sense now that I've stepped-back to take it all in.
Strangelets are strange but not dangerous
Speak for yourself, but I'm becoming increasingly afraid of spontaneous human combustion.
Create laws that arm consumers with security information. Perhaps a grading scheme where software that doesn't connect to the internet is given a A rating. If it is a client then it gets a B rating. If it is a server it starts at C then for every three exploits within the last year the rating increments by one.
I think this sounds pretty nice, but it has problems. For instance, clients are not necessarily more secure than servers, a well-written anonymous ftp server could theoretically be infinitely more secure than a poorly-written web browser which downloads and executes code without express permission.
Also, most linux distributions would minimally start at a "C" rating under this scheme, while windows 98 would begin at "B" (without enabling "file/printer sharing"). Which do you consider to be more secure on the average? Do the ratings reflect that?
These problems are indicative of a greater flaw in this scheme, software doesn't have to rigidly conform to _any_ model, be it client/server, P2P, etc. Laws take a long time to be changed, software can be changed in weeks (witness Microsoft's court history.. pretty soon they might be stopped from producing Windows 95 ;) - if we draft laws or even form committees which define certain software paradigms as insecure, software will simply change paradigms to achieve a higher rating until the ratings-board is able to change criteria to match.
Alternatively, we could have panels of elected security-analysts pore-over every piece of software that is voluntarily-submitted for a rating (in source form), at a cost to the software producer (based on some criterion I don't know), and they could arbitrarily grant ratings based on their findings.
I don't know that this is the best solution, but it sounds more practical, it's similar to other analogous (movie ratings, supreme court, etc.) systems for ideal-compliance which are already in place and doing a reasonable (not perfect) job.
Thoughts?
Yes but perhaps not in the way you think. While something like this has a possibility of being hacked, it will only be if someone puts backdoors into the low level hardware controlling the electrical signals along with the remote controller.
You don't suppose that the different material it is made out of might be somewhat affected by properly patterned RF transmissions? I know that silicon is much more responsive to RF than the usual tissue in that area is, perhaps this could be used to give people UV or IR vision rather than (or in addition to) normal vision. Fascinating stuff either way.
all the interpretation is done in the Occipital Lobe and we don't and I don't think ever will have a great enough understanding of the brain to hack it.
I'm much more of an technological optimist in the sense that I disagree.
What kind of interference will upset the function of this device which wouldn't affect a normal eye? Can it be remotely manipulated in such a way as to malfunction or function in a way that a remote attacker may desire it to function?
The fact that I have to ask these questions makes me hesitant to put electronics in my head, but I can imagine that the concern would be less for someone who couldn't see without them.
Speaking of... what ever happened to Gary condit and Chandra Levy?
I must have missed it.
This plan would delay the release of stories. News needs to be timely to remain news, so this would only be practical for stories which are not new - and its whole point is to discover which those are.
--insert the whole chicken and the egg thing here--
A study released this week by Jupiter Research reports that about 34 percent of veteran file swappers say they are spending more on music than they did before they started downloading files. About 14 percent of heavy file traders say they now spend less on music.
The problem with this study is that it is contingent on the credibility of people who openly admit that they're breaking the law (though that's arguable). It'll be tough to make that point stand up against the numbers that huge law-abiding (right) corporate entities are backing.
Oh, and I have pretty much dropped back to pre-napster music purchasing habits since it's become more difficult to find what I'm looking for without fear of penalty. I was spending easily 1000% what I am now.
The problem is that it will be impossible (without some miraculous new technology - like quantum cryptography) to create free software which can protect IP as proscribed, it could also make free software which attempts to ignore this aspect of computing illegal because of its functionality as a circumvention device.
Thought you might like to know - perhaps you can spread some of the same information over there that you've spread my way (since nobody else has cast their vote):
Comparing the BSA to the Empire (of Star Wars fame)
I imagine that this is just as trite and banal as Nazi analogies, considering that the Empire sort-of is a Nazi analogy. Oh, and Episode 2: AotC is coming out, which I'm sure means that this type of thing gets far too much play to remain hip.
This is a good angle.
I'll argue that artists don't create such "large" are for individuals nowadays, either. When's the last time you bought a mural, or a family mausoleum?
Art on the scale that we consume at affordable prices could easily be constructed for a few hundred bucks, and it would be easy to start a web service to help collect to prompt artists to create new goodies - like an ebay kind of deal. Raising the price of getting into the biz to the cost of buying/renting equipment would _lower_ the barrier to entry that exists now.
Of course, if they create it and get paid once - and you can copy it freely thereafter, this isn't a concern.
Got paid to create their art, was it amateur, or "PROFESSIONAL-LEVEL ART" as Ellison put it? they got paid a lot, but they didn't get paid over and over again.
Why should modern works be different?
That's my point, it's not my job to know, nor have I been tracking the social zeitgeist. A statement is what it is, in the context it's placed in. I consider a forum to be the context for my forum posts, or a even more narrowly - a thread, not the slashdot culture at-large. You seem to be neglecting the fact that this cultures is as much mine as it is yours, and I'm clearly not tired of that specific analogy.