And before you say that these are IE vulnerabilities, not "Windows" vulnerabilities, you might want to consider Microsoft's own position in a certain court case.
It looks like you've outsourced posting to Slashdot.
rant about stupid stuff in Crimson article
on
Gates and Security
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Maybe I'll get modded down for being "offtopic" since I'm not making a joke about Bill Gates, but I was bothered by several things in the Crimson article.
First, they leave their administrative assistants' computers (which are used to access to confidential data) apparently unprotected from viruses or their definitions are not updated regularly. Auto-updates are trivial to set up. At the campus where I work, which is *much* larger than Harvard, the default campus-wide policy is updates *every* *hour* for windows boxes. I require all systems for which I am responsible to have current antivirus software with that update policy.
Then, when asked about the situation, their comp services person seemed to think they're doing a pretty good job. They leaked confidential data! This was a failure due to his department's negligence. They only "encourage" their staff to install antivirus software and post virus announcements on a web site. That seems very irresponsible to me. It is their responsiblity to protect sensitive systems. They failed to do so even though the resources to do so are readily available.
At the end of the article they have a quote from the Dean, a comp sci prof, saying that people should use Macs to avoid viruses. Holy shit, batman! Harvard is apparently run by complete retards! How about some *real* and *useful* advice? Like install and update your antivirus software... don't normally run stuff as an admin user... don't indiscriminately open e-mail attachments... and patch patch patch those vulnerabilities!
I'm assuming he's talking about the production of the hydrogen from natural gas. There's carbon in the natural gas which I suppose is released as CO2 during the production of the hydrogen for use in the fuel cell. (natural gas is something like 93% methane - CH4) It definitely makes sense to look at the full impact of the choices. Otherwise, we're not making fair comparisons between the technologies.
I definitely think he's whining in this case. To call Eben's message "legalese" is whining. I'm just a stupid sysadmin, not a laywer, and it made perfect sense to me - no legal dictionary required.
Of course, I know nothing about the specifics of Guido's past interactions with FSF lawyers and I'm willing to believe that previous interactions may have been difficult, but this instance does nothing to support that (and he implies that it does support it, so I tend to doubt the credibility of the claim).
To you, Russ, and anyone else complaining about how annoying the GPL/FSF/"Free Software" stuff can be:
I think the FSF has a very difficult task. They want people who create "free" software and release it under the GPL to have the assurance that someone won't take their work and make it "non-free" using a legal system that seems designed around the opposite concept (keeping "non-free" property from becoming "free"). The FSF needs to be very careful in order for the GPL to have a chance in hell of being enforceable. If they're picking nits, it's because they *have* to.
It's not up the FSF to bend the GPL to meet Guido and his former employer's needs. If they want the Python license to be GPL-compatible, it's up to them, as the creators of the Python licence, to make it compatible.
Of course, the only true arbitrator of this issue would be the courts, but I hope people are smart enough to avoid that and simply allow the FSF to be the authority on what is and isn't GPL compatible.
And, Russ, I don't really understand your comment about the "state law" issue. What I understood Eben to say is that they can't say that it's GPL-compatible to add restrictions like that to a licence because that precedent would potentially allow others to add their own restrictions to GPL'd software. What's wrong with that concept?
To those offended by the use of the word FAG: get a grip, its just a word...
Hmmm...so are:
nigger
cock-sucker
asshole
homophobe
I guess since those are "just words" it's OK to ignore the fact that they are derogatory. Maybe you should shout "nigger" and the next person who gets a call on their cell phone. Dude! It's just a word!
You really need to get a clue. You used the word in a negative manner, so you obviously know that it is derogatory. I can only hope that you use the word out of ignorance and stupidity and not out of true malice towards gays.
That seems extremely unlikely. Bascially all bacteria do is reproduce. If you take that away, they won't really have any need to consume anything, which kind of defeats the whole idea.
I would think that by now this Hoax would have died.
Sure, and by now I thought that the "WIN A HOLIDAY", etc. e-mail crap would have died. No such luck. The world is full of morons. Most of them apparently watch the Fox network.
Besides, it was on FOX. Its not like the Discovery channel is broadcasting this shit.
Which, unfortunately, means a lot more people saw it and the people who did see it are probably more likely to believe it.
The people who believe this kind of conspiracy crap are the same kind of people who think that psychic guy on the sci-fi channel might be for real or believe that Bill Gates will give them a free trip to Disneyland if they just forward an e-mail fifty times.
Don't forget that little 15-pin connector on the back of your laptop. Many people connect their laptops to external displays for presentations (large-screen monitors & projectors). Those displays can be much higher quality and much faster than the internal display. For an engineer showing the latest 3D animation of her work or a scientist showing molecular structures of a protein, fast graphics hardware does matter.
Don't forget that little 15-pin connector on the back of your laptop. Many people connect their laptops to external displays for presentations (large-screen monitors & projectors). Those displays can be much higher quality and much faster than the internal display. For an engineer showing the latest 3D animation of her work or a scientist showing molecular structures of a protein, fast graphics hardware does matter.
Re:Keys would be better
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
Note that some folks have said that these systems include headphones to supply audio prompts for blind users (though I can't imagine how that works) Anyway, blind folks couldn't use the system we have now in Ann Arbor or most of the other systems I've seen - including the infamous punch cards of Palm Beach. They must provide alternate means of voting for them, which could also be the case with any new system - one system doesn't have to work for everyone as long as there are alternate systems for those with special needs and it isn't made any more difficult for anybody to vote.
Re:Problems with the system
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
You must be an engineer. (hardware vs. software)
Anway, after all of that, I prefer Oregon's mail-in system over any other voting system that requires people to vote in person at a specific time in a specific place (I don't like the power that exit polls have and I like having time to do a little research *while* I fill out the *real* ballot). And if we can have an electronic equivalent (internet voting) to the mail-in system, fine, but I'm perfectly happy with Oregon's mail-in system as I've heard it described. However, I still think the touch screen systems that have been mentioned (e.g. the ones used in CA this year) here sound a whole lot nicer than the system used in my hometown (connect-the-dots next to your preferred candidate and feed the sheet into a machine). And the system in my hometown seems light-years ahead of the system used in Palm Beach County.
Both Oregon's system and the touch-screen systems seem to have been successfully tested and deployed. I like 'em and I think those who can, should think about trying to get their county's or states to use them.
Re:19,000 Botched Votes?
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
The same error that people are bitching about now would apply even if there was a confirmation screen. How many "Submit" buttons on the web have "only click once" next to them.
Huh?
What error are you talking about? If you're talking about "overvoting" (voting for more than one presidential candidate), then you're wrong. The computer would *prevent* you from overvoting. (ever used "radio buttons"?). If you're talking about unintentially voting for the wrong canditate, you're wrong there as well. The computer makes you review your vote (maybe with a picture of the candidate) which makes it much less likely that a person will make a mistake. (a person with poor eyesight peering at little holes is going to have much more difficulty making the correct choice)
Re:I voted via touchscreen...
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
It really sounds like these systems are the best "in-person" systems I've heard about. If only Palm Beach Country (and the rest of Florida) had these. Then we could all be getting on with our lives.
However, I'm still liking the Oregon mail-in idea better. Ideally, I'd like to see both options available, but I guess that would be more expensive.
Everything I hear about the Oregon mail-in ballot sounds great. It should be the model that all other states/counties follow. It would appear to solve many problems. It's more fair and it seems more likely to accurately reflect what people actually want. I'm having a hard time coming with arguments against that kind of voting system.
Hell, combine that with "approval" or a preferntial voting system like the Borda Count Method, get rid of the electoral college, and I'd be a lot happier with our election process.
Now, question is, how do we make any of that happen?
Re:Problems with the system
on
eLection '04
·
· Score: 1
You don't seem to be very aware of the problems with the current systems. The punch-card system (which is used in *many* places around the country) is known to not be accurate. A county election official from Florida stated yesterday that he would expect that out of 10 recounts, there would at least seven different results because of the inability of the machines to accurately read the punch cards. This is why, in an election this close, many people expect that a manual count will be necessary. The margin of error introduced by the inaccuracy of these machines was considered acceptable up to this point because nobody ever expected the election to be this close.
A touch-screen system would be much more accurate for many reasons. It could give feedback to the voter (confirming the voter's choices) which would have eliminated this whole mess in Palm Beach County.
You also seem to be confusing the cost of the *campaigns* with the cost of the *election process*. These are two completely different things.
Sure, each piece of paper costs very little, but you actually have to *print* on them which costs more. Plus, you have to print *millions* of them. All paper ballots are counted by machines already, and those machines are, in many places, *really* old. They need to be replaced. Those machines aren't cheap.
As these old systems are replaced, they shoudl be replaced with easier to use, more reliable systems. This seems like a no-brainer to me.
Slashdot Mirror
In every case where there has been a problem with Windows security, it's been AFTER they released a patch for the vulnerability.
That sounds great, except you're completely wrong. There are plenty of unpatched MS vulnerabilities that are being actively exploited. For example:
Microsoft Internet Explorer ADODB.Stream Object File Installation Weakness
And this certainly isn't the only example. They've earned their reputation for ignoring known vulnerabilities:
pivx list of unpatched IE vulnerabilities from 9/2003
And before you say that these are IE vulnerabilities, not "Windows" vulnerabilities, you might want to consider Microsoft's own position in a certain court case.
I just go through this process
It looks like you've outsourced posting to Slashdot.
Maybe I'll get modded down for being "offtopic" since I'm not making a joke about Bill Gates, but I was bothered by several things in the Crimson article.
First, they leave their administrative assistants' computers (which are used to access to confidential data) apparently unprotected from viruses or their definitions are not updated regularly. Auto-updates are trivial to set up. At the campus where I work, which is *much* larger than Harvard, the default campus-wide policy is updates *every* *hour* for windows boxes. I require all systems for which I am responsible to have current antivirus software with that update policy.
Then, when asked about the situation, their comp services person seemed to think they're doing a pretty good job. They leaked confidential data! This was a failure due to his department's negligence. They only "encourage" their staff to install antivirus software and post virus announcements on a web site. That seems very irresponsible to me. It is their responsiblity to protect sensitive systems. They failed to do so even though the resources to do so are readily available.
At the end of the article they have a quote from the Dean, a comp sci prof, saying that people should use Macs to avoid viruses. Holy shit, batman! Harvard is apparently run by complete retards! How about some *real* and *useful* advice? Like install and update your antivirus software... don't normally run stuff as an admin user... don't indiscriminately open e-mail attachments... and patch patch patch those vulnerabilities!
I'm assuming he's talking about the production of the hydrogen from natural gas. There's carbon in the natural gas which I suppose is released as CO2 during the production of the hydrogen for use in the fuel cell. (natural gas is something like 93% methane - CH4) It definitely makes sense to look at the full impact of the choices. Otherwise, we're not making fair comparisons between the technologies.
It has been said that all PR, is good PR.
I think Firestone would beg to differ.
I definitely think he's whining in this case. To call Eben's message "legalese" is whining. I'm just a stupid sysadmin, not a laywer, and it made perfect sense to me - no legal dictionary required.
Of course, I know nothing about the specifics of Guido's past interactions with FSF lawyers and I'm willing to believe that previous interactions may have been difficult, but this instance does nothing to support that (and he implies that it does support it, so I tend to doubt the credibility of the claim).
To you, Russ, and anyone else complaining about how annoying the GPL/FSF/"Free Software" stuff can be:
I think the FSF has a very difficult task. They want people who create "free" software and release it under the GPL to have the assurance that someone won't take their work and make it "non-free" using a legal system that seems designed around the opposite concept (keeping "non-free" property from becoming "free"). The FSF needs to be very careful in order for the GPL to have a chance in hell of being enforceable. If they're picking nits, it's because they *have* to.
It's not up the FSF to bend the GPL to meet Guido and his former employer's needs. If they want the Python license to be GPL-compatible, it's up to them, as the creators of the Python licence, to make it compatible.
Of course, the only true arbitrator of this issue would be the courts, but I hope people are smart enough to avoid that and simply allow the FSF to be the authority on what is and isn't GPL compatible.
And, Russ, I don't really understand your comment about the "state law" issue. What I understood Eben to say is that they can't say that it's GPL-compatible to add restrictions like that to a licence because that precedent would potentially allow others to add their own restrictions to GPL'd software. What's wrong with that concept?
I don't understand what Guido is whining about. Eben's response seemed polite, rational, and reasonable.
The issues with the license are very minor and I'd like to know why Guido has a problem with the FSF's recommendations.
(sorry about the repost - why does slashdot keep randomly forgetting who I am?)
To those offended by the use of the word FAG: get a grip, its just a word ...
Hmmm...so are:
nigger
cock-sucker
asshole
homophobe
I guess since those are "just words" it's OK to ignore the fact that they are derogatory. Maybe you should shout "nigger" and the next person who gets a call on their cell phone. Dude! It's just a word!
You really need to get a clue. You used the word in a negative manner, so you obviously know that it is derogatory. I can only hope that you use the word out of ignorance and stupidity and not out of true malice towards gays.
Everytime I'm in class and some guys phone rings during class I shout "FAG!"
It sounds like you're the social problem.
What have you been smoking?
You must be fun at parties.
Gee...I didn't realize that my coffee can full of pennies could be RUINING SOMEONE'S LIFE!!!
(i.e. gimme a break)
Tell it to the coin collectors buddy.
That seems extremely unlikely. Bascially all bacteria do is reproduce. If you take that away, they won't really have any need to consume anything, which kind of defeats the whole idea.
Actually, mutations are extremely common. Mutations that make a significant difference are more rare.
I would think that by now this Hoax would have died.
Sure, and by now I thought that the "WIN A HOLIDAY", etc. e-mail crap would have died. No such luck. The world is full of morons. Most of them apparently watch the Fox network.
Besides, it was on FOX. Its not like the Discovery channel is broadcasting this shit.
Which, unfortunately, means a lot more people saw it and the people who did see it are probably more likely to believe it.
The people who believe this kind of conspiracy crap are the same kind of people who think that psychic guy on the sci-fi channel might be for real or believe that Bill Gates will give them a free trip to Disneyland if they just forward an e-mail fifty times.
Idiots.
Maybe all we need is such a group for the *press* to go to when reporting on such stories.
Don't forget that little 15-pin connector on the back of your laptop. Many people connect their laptops to external displays for presentations (large-screen monitors & projectors). Those displays can be much higher quality and much faster than the internal display. For an engineer showing the latest 3D animation of her work or a scientist showing molecular structures of a protein, fast graphics hardware does matter.
Don't forget that little 15-pin connector on the back of your laptop. Many people connect their laptops to external displays for presentations (large-screen monitors & projectors). Those displays can be much higher quality and much faster than the internal display. For an engineer showing the latest 3D animation of her work or a scientist showing molecular structures of a protein, fast graphics hardware does matter.
Note that some folks have said that these systems include headphones to supply audio prompts for blind users (though I can't imagine how that works) Anyway, blind folks couldn't use the system we have now in Ann Arbor or most of the other systems I've seen - including the infamous punch cards of Palm Beach. They must provide alternate means of voting for them, which could also be the case with any new system - one system doesn't have to work for everyone as long as there are alternate systems for those with special needs and it isn't made any more difficult for anybody to vote.
You must be an engineer. (hardware vs. software)
Anway, after all of that, I prefer Oregon's mail-in system over any other voting system that requires people to vote in person at a specific time in a specific place (I don't like the power that exit polls have and I like having time to do a little research *while* I fill out the *real* ballot). And if we can have an electronic equivalent (internet voting) to the mail-in system, fine, but I'm perfectly happy with Oregon's mail-in system as I've heard it described. However, I still think the touch screen systems that have been mentioned (e.g. the ones used in CA this year) here sound a whole lot nicer than the system used in my hometown (connect-the-dots next to your preferred candidate and feed the sheet into a machine). And the system in my hometown seems light-years ahead of the system used in Palm Beach County.
Both Oregon's system and the touch-screen systems seem to have been successfully tested and deployed. I like 'em and I think those who can, should think about trying to get their county's or states to use them.
The same error that people are bitching about now would apply even if there was a confirmation screen. How many "Submit" buttons on the web have "only click once" next to them.
Huh?
What error are you talking about? If you're talking about "overvoting" (voting for more than one presidential candidate), then you're wrong. The computer would *prevent* you from overvoting. (ever used "radio buttons"?). If you're talking about unintentially voting for the wrong canditate, you're wrong there as well. The computer makes you review your vote (maybe with a picture of the candidate) which makes it much less likely that a person will make a mistake. (a person with poor eyesight peering at little holes is going to have much more difficulty making the correct choice)
It really sounds like these systems are the best "in-person" systems I've heard about. If only Palm Beach Country (and the rest of Florida) had these. Then we could all be getting on with our lives.
However, I'm still liking the Oregon mail-in idea better. Ideally, I'd like to see both options available, but I guess that would be more expensive.
Screw this computer voting crap...
Everything I hear about the Oregon mail-in ballot sounds great. It should be the model that all other states/counties follow. It would appear to solve many problems. It's more fair and it seems more likely to accurately reflect what people actually want. I'm having a hard time coming with arguments against that kind of voting system.
Hell, combine that with "approval" or a preferntial voting system like the Borda Count Method, get rid of the electoral college, and I'd be a lot happier with our election process.
Now, question is, how do we make any of that happen?
You don't seem to be very aware of the problems with the current systems. The punch-card system (which is used in *many* places around the country) is known to not be accurate. A county election official from Florida stated yesterday that he would expect that out of 10 recounts, there would at least seven different results because of the inability of the machines to accurately read the punch cards. This is why, in an election this close, many people expect that a manual count will be necessary. The margin of error introduced by the inaccuracy of these machines was considered acceptable up to this point because nobody ever expected the election to be this close.
A touch-screen system would be much more accurate for many reasons. It could give feedback to the voter (confirming the voter's choices) which would have eliminated this whole mess in Palm Beach County.
You also seem to be confusing the cost of the *campaigns* with the cost of the *election process*. These are two completely different things.
Sure, each piece of paper costs very little, but you actually have to *print* on them which costs more. Plus, you have to print *millions* of them. All paper ballots are counted by machines already, and those machines are, in many places, *really* old. They need to be replaced. Those machines aren't cheap.
As these old systems are replaced, they shoudl be replaced with easier to use, more reliable systems. This seems like a no-brainer to me.