Um, actually they often do. I still maintain that IE beat out Netscape solely by 1) being persistent and not getting uninstalled, and 2) having a more striking and recognizable icon.
Seriously, back in 1997 or so when IE was trying to overcome Netscape, most people had both browsers installed: Netscape because they were used to it, and IE because it came w/ the OS. People have crowded desktops, and they generally don't much care which browser they use. Which icon is going to stand out more, Netscape w/ it's square, busy, low-contrast "N" logo, or the bold, simple, stylized "e" for IE? Sooner or later people got used to IE, realized they didn't need 2 browsers, and got rid of the easier one to uninstall.
No, you're not a hypocrite. If you're older than a teenager (no idea), then you're definitely not. But even if you are, bear in mind that you know yourself better than you can ever know anyone else. You KNOW that the game won't give you violent tendencies, but you might have some doubts as to whether or not they could effect anyone else, including your kids. Hypocrisy is very hard to prove externally for this reason, as it depends on intent. Do YOU feel like a hypocrite?
Huh, who'da thunk it. I expected MS to buy the Eolas patent, or Eolas itself if necessary, and turn the patent against AOL/Netscape, Opera, and the rest of their competition. They're actually not being vicious bastards in this one...
This won't work realistically.
on
Get Paid To Crack?
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
They have a firewall in which they will allow only one IP address at a time to make the attempt. Thus, you sign up for a set time period and they watch you as you hack away...
Interesting. Seeing as many security tripwire programs shut out an IP as soon as they get suspicious, I can't see how this would replicate a realistic programming environment. One of a cracker's most important tools is being able to attack from unexpected (spoofed or rerouted) IPs. To come from every direction, as it were.
This reminds me of a similar study on Unix use I was in, that studied how people navigate a directory tree in a Unix shell and find relevant files and information quickly. The catch? No pipes or multi-command lines. But pipes are how a knowledgeable Unix user does things - the system is built up around it. So basically, the artificial limitations of the study cripple the performance of the participants.
This seems WAY to complicated as an answer to a problem that's solved much better by PGP/GPG... Wouldn't it be smarter to get encryption and signing, a proven and implemented technology, merged into more email clients instead?
Here's a neat toy, not exactly new, but certanly expensive and cool. The Terapin Mine is billed as a "digital camera companion", but it does a whole lot more. 10 GB of storage accessable via USB or ethernet. Mp3 playback and recording (via microphone!). Email device. Digital camera uploading (of course) and display via NTSC video out. PCMCIA card slot. Runs embedded Linux (for the added geek factor, as if it needed any). Maybe you could hack it to use a PCMCIA wifi card, although I have no evidence to support that. Beats the pants off an iPod any day, in my book. ThinkGeek sells 'em, but you might be able to find one cheaper elsewhere.
How far we've come since the days of Apple IIe and Commodore64 and Kaypro. With all this new technology, it's interesting to see the return of the "Application Diskette".
Yes I am perfectly aware that RedHat, Mandrake, and Suse sell products based on GPL code. And yes I'm aware that the GPL specifically allows you to charge people for GPL products. And yes, I'm aware that there are "commercialized" products based on GPL code, like RedHat Linux. "Made proprietary" is a better term for what I meant.
What RedHat sells is not GPL code. They sell CDs with GPL code on them, and they sell services to people using GPL software. Specifically, they charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy and offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee, as allowed specifically by the GPL This is not the same as selling GPL code.
And yes, I also realize that you can change GPL code and never distribute it. If companies like linksys ever use it in a product to their benefit, they must allow their changes to benefit everybody. It should read "Any improvements that benefit anyone besides the author of the improvements must benefit everybody."
You've just noticed the point of the GPL in the first place. Congratulations.
People license their code under the GPL because it protects their code from being commercialized. Nobody sells GPL code, and therefore anybody who uses it, must use it per the license. The GPL provides a way to ensure that if you give your copyrighted code away, then nobody will take advantage of that trust. In short, nobody can improve on your property and use those improvements to their exclusive benefit. Any improvements must necessarily benefit everybody. period.
And if companies don't like that idea, then they shouldn't use GPL code. tough.
Under certain operating conditions, if you lean over more than a few degrees while wearing your Reebok Human Transporters, the balancing mechanism may fail, causing the rider to fall. The CPSC has issued a voluntary recall of all Reebok Human Transporter products.
Terminal Services isn't even comparable to VNC or X. If you only need ONE user per computer, then yes it is. But Windows Terminal Services simply will not allow two Terminal Services clients to connect at the same time. This is the entire POINT of terminal services... to make it seem like you're sitting at your computer. You can't have more than 1 users logged into a windows computer at a time, and thus you can't do it with Term. Svcs. With X or VNC you can connect as many times as you want, with as many users as you want.
This isn't a scaling issue, this is a completely different league, like the difference between a motorcycle and a bus. Maybe the motorcycle is more responsive, but the bus is a hell of a lot better if you have a lot of people to move. With this NX stuff, I'd imagine the bus is going to get a hell of a lot more responsive.
I know nobody likes to talk about p... pr... proprietary applications on Linux, but in reality, commercial applications will an important part of Linux's future if it ever takes hold on the desktop. Could this functionality, delivered to any X application be perceived as a reason NOT to develop commercial applications for linux?
Citrix ICA has a very stringent license-management system, allowing licensed applications to be served remotely only to licensed clients, and only to a limited number at a time. This is important for software publishers... they don't want groups of people to buy 1 license and serve it for all their friends.
Why hasn't Windows implemented functionality like remote X applications? It's not like it would be hard for them, although you know they'd never get it secure. Imagine if ANY windows program could be served to other people indiscriminately. That would kill their licensing scheme. A perfect example of why proprietary software development works against the needs of the consumer. Windows users haven't demanded Windows network transparency because they either don't know it's possible, or think Terminal Services is "OK". (haha, good one). There's a reason why Terminal Services will only work for 1 desktop at a time.
I have a feeling that the network-transparency of X is already a barrier to many commercial applications. Now this proxy server thing is going to make it work better and faster, even with higher latencies/lower bandwidths? Not that it's a real problem, but if you were wanting commercial apps like Adobe, Macromedia, sound editing, video editing, 3d redering, etc. to come to Linux, maybe it'd be worthwhile to think about license protection mechanisms for X applications...
SCO Before: If companies really thought that we don't have a case, they would offer indemnification.
SCO Now: Since HP is offering indemnification, that means they think we DO have a case.
They don't have a SHRED of continuity in their statements, do they? The above statements are BOTH demonstrably stupid, and mutually exclusive. Methinks Darl needs to take a logic class.
Either way, they're holding each infringer for $150,000. The law states that
...the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000.
I read that as saying that $150,000 is the total amount (sum) of the damages, to be spread over all infringers. They mention this in the preceding clause, when they mention:
...any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally...
Am I interpreting this wrong? Is it possible that each of thousands of infringers are liable for the entire amount, individually? If so, then that's a foolish law.
I've been thinking about these RIAA suits, and have realized that not only are morally reprehensible misplacements of blame, but they are legally unjustifiable when looked the suits are looked at as a whole.
The suits claim damages of $150,000 per song. If one music company stole a song from another company, and published it separately, this may be a reasonable claim. The RIAA could claim maybe $150,000 TOTAL lost sales, plus whatever was made by the infringing company.
The problem is, they are holding EVERY FILESHARER liable for the entire amount of lost sales. This isn't just double-dipping on their damages, this is n-dipping. I can imagine that the company might lose $150,000 in total sales of a single song, but if only 1000 people shared the song (an extremely conservative number, probably only relevant for unpopular songs), their claims in total are $150 million in lost sales per song, which is just ludicrous.
This absolutely reeks of the record companies trying to capitalize on filesharing and count each share as a purchase. If the judges awarded the RIAA what they are asking for across the board, they stand to make orders of magnitude more money than they could ever dream of by their own devices. This puts huge questions on their claims of mitigating their damages - they allowed filesharing to go on for many years before starting lawsuits... to build up their claims of lost sales??
He concluded the banking industry is ready to scrap IBM's OS/2 operating system, which powers most ATMs today. They would prefer Windows, a platform they consider "open" in that it is compatible with their internal corporate networks. Also, it's so ubiquitous that they can add features to all their ATMs without having to write multiple pieces of code for different machines.
Now this just doesn't make sense. Sure, I'd agree with a need to upgrade from OS/2 - even finding a way to put new software on OS/2 is going to get hard as time goes on. But why the decision to go to Windows rather than a sensible decision like embedded Linux, QNX, heck ANYTHING but Windows...
Windows does not provide the needed security, stability, or reliability needed for these applications. It does not provide real-time features that could allow certain security guarantees. The quoted reason, compatibility with "internal corporate networks" doesn't even make sense. Writing an interface for the functionality that ATMs provide might be an interesting project for an undergraduate intro-to-programming class. It's not like ATMs need to interoperate with the company Outlook Exchange server...
This sounds like a bunch of ignorant suits were herded into a room by MS salespeople and told the "benefits" of XP Embedded. I seriously doubt that anyone experienced who put any technical thought into the matter would decide to use Windows for ATMs.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't plugin installations in Mozilla (and opera? no xp) not seamless? I thought this lawsuit applied only to seamless plugin installers that can isntall the plugin without asking for input. In my experience, mozilla always pops up a dialog box asking if you want to install it. That only makes sense, security-wise anyway.
But a number of factors would contribute to such a misleading article.
Linux (and all unices) are much more useful to crackers once they've been compromised, owing to the ease of remote use. Getting a remote root (or even user) shell on a linux box would be much more easy to use for mayhem than a windows exploit, no matter how bad. To use windows exploits, usually a cracker would have to compile specific exploit instructions to run on the remote machine, at best enabling something like remote desktop services. It's not that windows is more secure because of this fact, but the facilities of unix (telnet, ssh, etc) that make it so eminently useful to legitimate users, also makes it useful to crackers on a compromised system.
The source of their information is rather unclear. Did they track a certain number of similar servers? Did they search security sites for breakin reports? Either way, the system owners would have to report the breakin, and I would guess that your average linux user would be much more likely to report than your average windows system owner.
The article specifically mentions that 3rd-party applications were the most troublesome for linux. It's hardly linux's fault if sysadmins use vulnerable utilities or e-business suites. It's a general fact that there's much more 3rd-party software for windows, so it's hardly surprising that there are more secure options in that category.
For major e-business and enterprise sites, many Linux sysadmins are converted Unix sysadmins, maybe with BSD, Solaris, or AIX backgrounds. Keeping these systems secure is very different from keeping a linux system secure, although not necessarily harder. Also, there is no widely-accepted Linux Sysadmin certification. Many Windows sysadmins are MS certified, and have been that way for a while, so they keep up to date on the latest security issues.
Even a computerized proof would be interesting, if a method for proof-solving on computers were possible. And yes, it is possible to write proof-solving software that is at least as good as a human mathematician without upsetting Mr. Godel. But this brute-force type proofing is just plain dull!
My problem is certainly not with computers, which I agree are a huge aid to mathematics. Suites like Mathematica etc. are tremendous tools, visualization methods, and timesavers. The brute-force proofs, whether you do them by hand or computer, are like saying you know how to drive because you can call a taxi.
It seems to me that more and more math problems are being approached in a brute-force, computerized way. While this is certainly a legitimate way of finding answers to a problem, aren't we missing the point of these problems by using it? It's not like anyone was really waiting on the answer to that problem. It's such a lazy disappointing answer to an exciting mathematical question: "Are there any magic knight tours on an 8x8 chessboard?" "Nah, I tried 'em all out, see." Are we seeing the death of "clever" mathematics where a simple elegant solution is found, correlating known theorems in novel ways that enhance our collective understanding of the way math works?
Now before you object, I am aware of really nifty, clever mathematical breakthroughs in recent memory. The recent polynomial-time primity test comes to mind. But what is the point of "research" and "inquiry" if we only care about the answers to the problem, and not the reason why? What is the point of finding the next Optimal Golomb Ruler" if we can't find a pattern relating one to the next? What would we really do with a magic knight's tour anyway, besides reading a clever and insightful proof of it's (non)existance?
Even a computerized proof would be interesting, if a method for proof-solving on computers were possible. And yes, it is possible to write proof-solving software that is at least as good as a human mathematician without upsetting Mr. Godel. But this brute-force type proofing is just plain dull!
When did our definition of "robot" become "Nifty mobile vehicle with some kind of new technology" ? A robot, sort of by definition, is an autonomous machine, capable of acting and reacting on its own without human intervention. Battlebots? They're just souped-up RC cars. ASIMO? His every step is preprogrammed; if you moved the stairs a foot forward he'd trip, because ASIMO is not a robot.
These pictures clearly show humans remotely controlling them. What makes them different than remote controlled cars that you can buy at Toys-R-Us, the fact that they can crawl up walls or have six funky legs? Please, stop referring to these fancy toys as "robots" and diminishing the accomplishments of those who make real autonomous robots.
And yes, I have worked on real robots. Last year I was on the robotics team from the University of Rochester. Our robot Mabel the Mobile Table, an autonomous robotic hors d'ourvres-serving waiter, won the AAAI Robot Host competition. Robotics means artificial intelligence, at least rudimentary AI, not just some new means of locomotion.
Slashdot Mirror
Wouldn't this already be covered in their patent of ones and zeroes?
Um, actually they often do. I still maintain that IE beat out Netscape solely by 1) being persistent and not getting uninstalled, and 2) having a more striking and recognizable icon.
Seriously, back in 1997 or so when IE was trying to overcome Netscape, most people had both browsers installed: Netscape because they were used to it, and IE because it came w/ the OS. People have crowded desktops, and they generally don't much care which browser they use. Which icon is going to stand out more, Netscape w/ it's square, busy, low-contrast "N" logo, or the bold, simple, stylized "e" for IE? Sooner or later people got used to IE, realized they didn't need 2 browsers, and got rid of the easier one to uninstall.
No, you're not a hypocrite. If you're older than a teenager (no idea), then you're definitely not. But even if you are, bear in mind that you know yourself better than you can ever know anyone else. You KNOW that the game won't give you violent tendencies, but you might have some doubts as to whether or not they could effect anyone else, including your kids. Hypocrisy is very hard to prove externally for this reason, as it depends on intent. Do YOU feel like a hypocrite?
Huh, who'da thunk it. I expected MS to buy the Eolas patent, or Eolas itself if necessary, and turn the patent against AOL/Netscape, Opera, and the rest of their competition. They're actually not being vicious bastards in this one...
Interesting. Seeing as many security tripwire programs shut out an IP as soon as they get suspicious, I can't see how this would replicate a realistic programming environment. One of a cracker's most important tools is being able to attack from unexpected (spoofed or rerouted) IPs. To come from every direction, as it were.
This reminds me of a similar study on Unix use I was in, that studied how people navigate a directory tree in a Unix shell and find relevant files and information quickly. The catch? No pipes or multi-command lines. But pipes are how a knowledgeable Unix user does things - the system is built up around it. So basically, the artificial limitations of the study cripple the performance of the participants.
What? No mention of UML?? Together with Design Patterns, these two are making my fellow software engineers less intelligible by the minute!
This seems WAY to complicated as an answer to a problem that's solved much better by PGP/GPG... Wouldn't it be smarter to get encryption and signing, a proven and implemented technology, merged into more email clients instead?
Here's a neat toy, not exactly new, but certanly expensive and cool. The Terapin Mine is billed as a "digital camera companion", but it does a whole lot more. 10 GB of storage accessable via USB or ethernet. Mp3 playback and recording (via microphone!). Email device. Digital camera uploading (of course) and display via NTSC video out. PCMCIA card slot. Runs embedded Linux (for the added geek factor, as if it needed any). Maybe you could hack it to use a PCMCIA wifi card, although I have no evidence to support that. Beats the pants off an iPod any day, in my book. ThinkGeek sells 'em, but you might be able to find one cheaper elsewhere.
How far we've come since the days of Apple IIe and Commodore64 and Kaypro. With all this new technology, it's interesting to see the return of the "Application Diskette".
Whoah! People really get upset about this!
Yes I am perfectly aware that RedHat, Mandrake, and Suse sell products based on GPL code. And yes I'm aware that the GPL specifically allows you to charge people for GPL products. And yes, I'm aware that there are "commercialized" products based on GPL code, like RedHat Linux. "Made proprietary" is a better term for what I meant.
What RedHat sells is not GPL code. They sell CDs with GPL code on them, and they sell services to people using GPL software. Specifically, they charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy and offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee, as allowed specifically by the GPL This is not the same as selling GPL code.
And yes, I also realize that you can change GPL code and never distribute it. If companies like linksys ever use it in a product to their benefit, they must allow their changes to benefit everybody. It should read "Any improvements that benefit anyone besides the author of the improvements must benefit everybody."
You've just noticed the point of the GPL in the first place. Congratulations.
People license their code under the GPL because it protects their code from being commercialized. Nobody sells GPL code, and therefore anybody who uses it, must use it per the license. The GPL provides a way to ensure that if you give your copyrighted code away, then nobody will take advantage of that trust. In short, nobody can improve on your property and use those improvements to their exclusive benefit. Any improvements must necessarily benefit everybody. period.
And if companies don't like that idea, then they shouldn't use GPL code. tough.
Under certain operating conditions, if you lean over more than a few degrees while wearing your Reebok Human Transporters, the balancing mechanism may fail, causing the rider to fall. The CPSC has issued a voluntary recall of all Reebok Human Transporter products.
Terminal Services isn't even comparable to VNC or X. If you only need ONE user per computer, then yes it is. But Windows Terminal Services simply will not allow two Terminal Services clients to connect at the same time. This is the entire POINT of terminal services... to make it seem like you're sitting at your computer. You can't have more than 1 users logged into a windows computer at a time, and thus you can't do it with Term. Svcs. With X or VNC you can connect as many times as you want, with as many users as you want.
This isn't a scaling issue, this is a completely different league, like the difference between a motorcycle and a bus. Maybe the motorcycle is more responsive, but the bus is a hell of a lot better if you have a lot of people to move. With this NX stuff, I'd imagine the bus is going to get a hell of a lot more responsive.
I know nobody likes to talk about p... pr... proprietary applications on Linux, but in reality, commercial applications will an important part of Linux's future if it ever takes hold on the desktop. Could this functionality, delivered to any X application be perceived as a reason NOT to develop commercial applications for linux?
Citrix ICA has a very stringent license-management system, allowing licensed applications to be served remotely only to licensed clients, and only to a limited number at a time. This is important for software publishers... they don't want groups of people to buy 1 license and serve it for all their friends.
Why hasn't Windows implemented functionality like remote X applications? It's not like it would be hard for them, although you know they'd never get it secure. Imagine if ANY windows program could be served to other people indiscriminately. That would kill their licensing scheme. A perfect example of why proprietary software development works against the needs of the consumer. Windows users haven't demanded Windows network transparency because they either don't know it's possible, or think Terminal Services is "OK". (haha, good one). There's a reason why Terminal Services will only work for 1 desktop at a time.
I have a feeling that the network-transparency of X is already a barrier to many commercial applications. Now this proxy server thing is going to make it work better and faster, even with higher latencies/lower bandwidths? Not that it's a real problem, but if you were wanting commercial apps like Adobe, Macromedia, sound editing, video editing, 3d redering, etc. to come to Linux, maybe it'd be worthwhile to think about license protection mechanisms for X applications...
SCO Before: If companies really thought that we don't have a case, they would offer indemnification.
SCO Now: Since HP is offering indemnification, that means they think we DO have a case.
They don't have a SHRED of continuity in their statements, do they? The above statements are BOTH demonstrably stupid, and mutually exclusive. Methinks Darl needs to take a logic class.
I read that as saying that $150,000 is the total amount (sum) of the damages, to be spread over all infringers. They mention this in the preceding clause, when they mention:
Am I interpreting this wrong? Is it possible that each of thousands of infringers are liable for the entire amount, individually? If so, then that's a foolish law.
I've been thinking about these RIAA suits, and have realized that not only are morally reprehensible misplacements of blame, but they are legally unjustifiable when looked the suits are looked at as a whole.
The suits claim damages of $150,000 per song. If one music company stole a song from another company, and published it separately, this may be a reasonable claim. The RIAA could claim maybe $150,000 TOTAL lost sales, plus whatever was made by the infringing company.
The problem is, they are holding EVERY FILESHARER liable for the entire amount of lost sales. This isn't just double-dipping on their damages, this is n-dipping. I can imagine that the company might lose $150,000 in total sales of a single song, but if only 1000 people shared the song (an extremely conservative number, probably only relevant for unpopular songs), their claims in total are $150 million in lost sales per song, which is just ludicrous.
This absolutely reeks of the record companies trying to capitalize on filesharing and count each share as a purchase. If the judges awarded the RIAA what they are asking for across the board, they stand to make orders of magnitude more money than they could ever dream of by their own devices. This puts huge questions on their claims of mitigating their damages - they allowed filesharing to go on for many years before starting lawsuits... to build up their claims of lost sales??
I'll admit, I laughed when I first heard the joke about clueless users who couldn't find the "any" key.
And that might have been 8 years ago.
Stop it, it's nowhere near funny anymore. And if you refer to the CDROM tray as a cupholder again, I'll strangle you.
Now this just doesn't make sense. Sure, I'd agree with a need to upgrade from OS/2 - even finding a way to put new software on OS/2 is going to get hard as time goes on. But why the decision to go to Windows rather than a sensible decision like embedded Linux, QNX, heck ANYTHING but Windows...
Windows does not provide the needed security, stability, or reliability needed for these applications. It does not provide real-time features that could allow certain security guarantees. The quoted reason, compatibility with "internal corporate networks" doesn't even make sense. Writing an interface for the functionality that ATMs provide might be an interesting project for an undergraduate intro-to-programming class. It's not like ATMs need to interoperate with the company Outlook Exchange server...
This sounds like a bunch of ignorant suits were herded into a room by MS salespeople and told the "benefits" of XP Embedded. I seriously doubt that anyone experienced who put any technical thought into the matter would decide to use Windows for ATMs.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't plugin installations in Mozilla (and opera? no xp) not seamless? I thought this lawsuit applied only to seamless plugin installers that can isntall the plugin without asking for input. In my experience, mozilla always pops up a dialog box asking if you want to install it. That only makes sense, security-wise anyway.
My problem is certainly not with computers, which I agree are a huge aid to mathematics. Suites like Mathematica etc. are tremendous tools, visualization methods, and timesavers. The brute-force proofs, whether you do them by hand or computer, are like saying you know how to drive because you can call a taxi.
It seems to me that more and more math problems are being approached in a brute-force, computerized way. While this is certainly a legitimate way of finding answers to a problem, aren't we missing the point of these problems by using it? It's not like anyone was really waiting on the answer to that problem. It's such a lazy disappointing answer to an exciting mathematical question: "Are there any magic knight tours on an 8x8 chessboard?" "Nah, I tried 'em all out, see." Are we seeing the death of "clever" mathematics where a simple elegant solution is found, correlating known theorems in novel ways that enhance our collective understanding of the way math works?
Now before you object, I am aware of really nifty, clever mathematical breakthroughs in recent memory. The recent polynomial-time primity test comes to mind. But what is the point of "research" and "inquiry" if we only care about the answers to the problem, and not the reason why? What is the point of finding the next Optimal Golomb Ruler" if we can't find a pattern relating one to the next? What would we really do with a magic knight's tour anyway, besides reading a clever and insightful proof of it's (non)existance?
Even a computerized proof would be interesting, if a method for proof-solving on computers were possible. And yes, it is possible to write proof-solving software that is at least as good as a human mathematician without upsetting Mr. Godel. But this brute-force type proofing is just plain dull!
When did our definition of "robot" become "Nifty mobile vehicle with some kind of new technology" ? A robot, sort of by definition, is an autonomous machine, capable of acting and reacting on its own without human intervention. Battlebots? They're just souped-up RC cars. ASIMO? His every step is preprogrammed; if you moved the stairs a foot forward he'd trip, because ASIMO is not a robot.
These pictures clearly show humans remotely controlling them. What makes them different than remote controlled cars that you can buy at Toys-R-Us, the fact that they can crawl up walls or have six funky legs? Please, stop referring to these fancy toys as "robots" and diminishing the accomplishments of those who make real autonomous robots.
And yes, I have worked on real robots. Last year I was on the robotics team from the University of Rochester. Our robot Mabel the Mobile Table, an autonomous robotic hors d'ourvres-serving waiter, won the AAAI Robot Host competition. Robotics means artificial intelligence, at least rudimentary AI, not just some new means of locomotion.