Here is a "flow" of a threat warning coming into MSFT's "business process"
Part A
[some notice of a possible problem] | yielding a warning to the general public (If there is a real problem).
Part B Develop and communicate a response/fix to mitigate the issue.
It seems ok to let premium users get a pipe from the with the understanding there will be false alerts, false positives, and of course some real early actual alerts as well. That's the sort of thing you can do with really good customers whom you know to understand the natural of the warnings (e.g., not vetted).
It is ethnically "wrong", however that vetted threats be released to some but not others. This is wrong in part given their monopoly market share.
Also it would be wrong to let premium users know about vetted problems before their is a mitigation while waiting to tell the general public only after a tested mitigation is found/released.
Waiting to tell the general public until after there is a fix is wrong in part because even if there isn't a solution users could choose to turn off their computers, disconnect from WAN/LAN or even run Read-Only based OS implementations.
It seems SCO has a new theory on how it will profit through the use of court cases rather then by shipping product. After seeing how bad a job their law firm did for them, SCO will be seeking to profit from a Legal Malpractice Claim...;)
Beauty is in the eye of the user.. and from the looks of it, it's ugly. Not trying to troll here, but i'd rather have some ergonomically trained AI/Expert system or perhaps some researcher on body motion or anyone with some idea about how machines and humans interface design a mouse. I don't really care how it looks. For me in terms of a pointing device, it should always be form following function.
I know many good designers and they are without doubt interested in human factors; so ok, I haven't tried this new mouse, but from the looks of it, it's trying to look pretty not function well.
While the software is in Beta i'll certainly cut them a break.
But the Google founders are fond of saying, "Do no Evil." Blocking 3rd party and accessory software is certainly creeping tolds Evil.
I ran into this when trying to log in from a cyberCafe. I had to keep on typing in silly words from their turing test until it let me in.
I should have the "right/power" to have a 3rd party or some software I hacked together to log in and do what ever.
[$$$-wise, it doesn't matter to me if the software/service is free or not, it's certainly Ad supported, which like TV doesn't equal Free.. I just doesnt' cost money...]
When I was at Fine Point Technology developing the Total Internet 3.0 product we focused on the small ISP segment and our product (a sign up disc for the ISP) had real productivity gains (less time on the phone) and better customer service (most clients could "self provision"; most as in your mom or dad, etc.).
Thus we were able to price the software based on savings and actual value and we offered promotions but never altered the price.
1) we didn't know it was there 2) Once we found out it was released everywhere by IBM the horse was way out of the barn. 3) IBM'S "illegal" actions have boosted the Linux market place 4) To stay competitive we have to release a copy of Linux, under GPL, to be competitive. 5) But all of this is a result of the fruit of IBM's "illegal" actions so they still owe us damages.
What I don't understand is how they can try to sell Linux lic. when their own vers. of Linux is available under GPL; that opens the door for it to go into every other linux copy legallly (assuming (even) it was there ilegally in the first place..)
Which leads me to believe their effort to sell lic. for Linux was only to show a market price for such so that they can rack up a high amount of "damage awards" against IBM, Et. Al.
e.g., we would have sold 10 zillion of these your honor but the defentant released our IP so we need 50 zillion in damages; $50 for every copy of Linux in use...
Walking is an important skill but that isn't taught either, as is speaking and using a fork and knife...
Now while I've always been thankful my parents forced me to take a typing class, there is no doubt that typing skills are needed, but shouldn't everyone be taught that "at home" the same way they learn to walk, run, eat, speak and use a fork?
I used IE and had to view the source... and most didn't, esp. Earthlink.net messages, seemed like legit URLs to me (from the source...).
My usual clue being an name brand company using a purely numeric address e.g., http://111.11.11.1 and some code telling the browser to display paypal.com
The other clue being some semi legit web site with the link being directed to some sub directory that seems like a user account.
The subject line for my previous post should have been "SCO's Rights?" asking if they have any, not "SCO's Right" implying that I agree with them. Sorry for the error/type.
I've tried to follow this case but I need some help. From what i read the Judge agreed that the first contract transfered NO Copyrights. Then their was an amendment that agreed to transer any copyright "needed to sell" what is now SCO. [None have been requested.]
My question, "How can they (SCO) sell SCO/Unixware, etc if they don't have the copyright?"
Did they get some type of License to sell?
Did they get access to the source code? [I assume yes.] Did they have some legal basis to mod the code for fixes and new releases?
My 2nd question being, "how could they sell new revisions of the product, if they didn't have copyright over the code base?"
Agreeing with the poster that is about FUD, proving claims that this open source stuff is "messy" and the "IP is murky" and so many millions wasted on legal "issues" and even top lawyer(s) feeling there was "merit" to the issues.
Even with a clear lose, this suit stinks up the room for a long time and might even force some "splits" in the linux/BSD source tree (divide then conquer).
I think it would be good from a security stand point to be able to quickly build the most minimal system, but there is still probably a lot of stuff in the Kernel that isn't needed. Still it would be great to have a tool that was based on the reserve of package dependency and removed everything you didn't want/need.
my addy has been on the net since about 1988 and so I get more than 500+ spam per day, maybe even close to 1000 on a bad day.
So many emails say "Hi" or "hey" or other subjects I use. It get's harder to see what's going on esp. if your not using a 'Nix based reader
So I can tell you i'm not accurate in picking out the good ones, esp the newest spam which uses realistic sounding email names. I'd be eager to try out one of these filters.
a) you watch commericals b) you pay per view/subscribe c) "public" TV like PBS d) make your own
HOWEVER, when you actually use a PVR and you have to fast forward you still see BITS and Pieces of Commericals and some research has shown (and my personal experience backs this up) if a commerical looks particularly interesting or revelant, you actually stop and watch. THOSE commericals are SUPER effective because instead of seeing 20 or 30 commericals (or more) per hour you see maybe 2 or 3 PER WEEK.
Who created the "Menu?" NBC? TV Guide? Microsoft? NPR?, your "smart agent?" etc
Will you stream or download?
Will you be annonymous to the Network(s)?
Will you rent? subscribe, share? PPV?
Will you see local ads, national ads? Ads that require real time attention (forcing you to watch them?), will you have to see ads only when you give your permission (and thus agree to watch them?)
I think in part the answer to all the questions is yes, no and maybe.
You might download some wild stuff from the net. Subscribe to NBC and PPV the world cup soccer finals. The super bowl is free but you have to watch 5 ads (and interact with them!).
-- Look for a pay for use formal network with real time streaming and lots of DRM options and a Ad Hoc network based more on pure internet for more less formal shows that may have to be downloaded because they don't have the bandwidth quality to stream in real time. This stuff might also be more on the margins of the copyright laws.
Slashdot Mirror
Here is a "flow" of a threat warning coming into MSFT's "business process"
Part A
[some notice of a possible problem] | yielding a warning to the general public (If there is a real problem).
Part B
Develop and communicate a response/fix to mitigate the issue.
It seems ok to let premium users get a pipe from the with the understanding there will be false alerts, false positives, and of course some real early actual alerts as well. That's the sort of thing you can do with really good customers whom you know to understand the natural of the warnings (e.g., not vetted).
It is ethnically "wrong", however that vetted threats be released to some but not others. This is wrong in part given their monopoly market share.
Also it would be wrong to let premium users know about vetted problems before their is a mitigation while waiting to tell the general public only after a tested mitigation is found/released.
Waiting to tell the general public until after there is a fix is wrong in part because even if there isn't a solution users could choose to turn off their computers, disconnect from WAN/LAN or even run Read-Only based OS implementations.
Do you mean like .forward [ing] from several accounts on various systems to which ever account I happen to want to read email from?
I think they are on the hook for legal Malpractice...
"Your firm told me we owned some unix copyrights?"
It seems SCO has a new theory on how it will profit through the use of court cases rather then by shipping product. After seeing how bad a job their law firm did for them, SCO will be seeking to profit from a Legal Malpractice Claim... ;)
Beauty is in the eye of the user.. and from the looks of it, it's ugly. Not trying to troll here, but i'd rather have some ergonomically trained AI/Expert system or perhaps some researcher on body motion or anyone with some idea about how machines and humans interface design a mouse. I don't really care how it looks. For me in terms of a pointing device, it should always be form following function.
I know many good designers and they are without doubt interested in human factors; so ok, I haven't tried this new mouse, but from the looks of it, it's trying to look pretty not function well.
While the software is in Beta i'll certainly cut them a break.
But the Google founders are fond of saying, "Do no Evil." Blocking 3rd party and accessory software is certainly creeping tolds Evil.
I ran into this when trying to log in from a cyberCafe. I had to keep on typing in silly words from their turing test until it let me in.
I should have the "right/power" to have a 3rd party or some software I hacked together to log in and do what ever.
[$$$-wise, it doesn't matter to me if the software/service is free or not, it's certainly Ad supported, which like TV doesn't equal Free.. I just doesnt' cost money...]
When I was at Fine Point Technology developing the Total Internet 3.0 product we focused on the small ISP segment and our product (a sign up disc for the ISP) had real productivity gains (less time on the phone) and better customer service (most clients could "self provision"; most as in your mom or dad, etc.).
Thus we were able to price the software based on savings and actual value and we offered promotions but never altered the price.
This seemed to work well.
Why can't SCO Claim.
1) we didn't know it was there
2) Once we found out it was released everywhere by IBM the horse was way out of the barn.
3) IBM'S "illegal" actions have boosted the Linux market place
4) To stay competitive we have to release a copy of Linux, under GPL, to be competitive.
5) But all of this is a result of the fruit of IBM's "illegal" actions so they still owe us damages.
What I don't understand is how they can try to sell Linux lic. when their own vers. of Linux is available under GPL; that opens the door for it to go into every other linux copy legallly (assuming (even) it was there ilegally in the first place..)
Which leads me to believe their effort to sell lic. for Linux was only to show a market price for such so that they can rack up a high amount of "damage awards" against IBM, Et. Al.
e.g., we would have sold 10 zillion of these your honor but the defentant released our IP so we need 50 zillion in damages; $50 for every copy of Linux in use...
As I point out above... You can have a VCR/VTR and share the tapes because the media companies took Sony to Court over the Betamax and lost...
Walking is an important skill but that isn't taught either, as is speaking and using a fork and knife...
Now while I've always been thankful my parents forced me to take a typing class, there is no doubt that typing skills are needed, but shouldn't everyone be taught that "at home" the same way they learn to walk, run, eat, speak and use a fork?
Let's just remember that the Supreme Court sided with Sony on the famous Betamax case that allowed VCRs/VRTs in the first place.
Also, if there wasn't some type of DRM here they wouldn't have gotten certified.
But if they hadn't granted some type of certification they would have run afoul of the Betamax ruling...
I used IE and had to view the source... and most didn't, esp. Earthlink.net messages, seemed like legit URLs to me (from the source...).
My usual clue being an name brand company using a purely numeric address e.g., http://111.11.11.1 and some code telling the browser to display paypal.com
The other clue being some semi legit web site with the link being directed to some sub directory that seems like a user account.
www.genericCyberCompany.com/jackie/fraud.php
Yep, you'd figure we'd be more technology literate on /.
fyi, WANG used to be a big Broadband "company" because their "WangNet" piped data and TV through your company...
I remember when there were two types of network cabling.. Baseband and Broadband... then one day Broadband just meant "fast."
Assuming they were disabled, I would think in a secure environment you would still want to ban such devices.
Or if I read this correctly, it executes code on the cd disc but doesn't install the software into your hard disk.
The subject line for my previous post should have been "SCO's Rights?" asking if they have any, not "SCO's Right" implying that I agree with them. Sorry for the error/type.
I've tried to follow this case but I need some help. From what i read the Judge agreed that the first contract transfered NO Copyrights. Then their was an amendment that agreed to transer any copyright "needed to sell" what is now SCO. [None have been requested.]
My question, "How can they (SCO) sell SCO/Unixware, etc if they don't have the copyright?"
Did they get some type of License to sell?
Did they get access to the source code? [I assume yes.] Did they have some legal basis to mod the code for fixes and new releases?
My 2nd question being, "how could they sell new revisions of the product, if they didn't have copyright over the code base?"
Agreeing with the poster that is about FUD, proving claims that this open source stuff is "messy" and the "IP is murky" and so many millions wasted on legal "issues" and even top lawyer(s) feeling there was "merit" to the issues.
Even with a clear lose, this suit stinks up the room for a long time and might even force some "splits" in the linux/BSD source tree (divide then conquer).
I think it would be good from a security stand point to be able to quickly build the most minimal system, but there is still probably a lot of stuff in the Kernel that isn't needed. Still it would be great to have a tool that was based on the reserve of package dependency and removed everything you didn't want/need.
my addy has been on the net since about 1988 and so I get more than 500+ spam per day, maybe even close to 1000 on a bad day.
So many emails say "Hi" or "hey" or other subjects I use. It get's harder to see what's going on esp. if your not using a 'Nix based reader
So I can tell you i'm not accurate in picking out the good ones, esp the newest spam which uses realistic sounding email names. I'd be eager to try out one of these filters.
Perhaps part of the lack of love been Jobs/Pixar and Disney.
my understanding was:
Mach 1 = Warp 1
Mach 2 = Warp 2
Mach 4 = Warp 3
Mach 8 = Warp 4
Mach 16 = Warp 5
Or something like that, but that there wasn't a 1:1 ratio between Warp and Mach
Commericals pay for the Stream.
There are only 4 ways it can work...
a) you watch commericals
b) you pay per view/subscribe
c) "public" TV like PBS
d) make your own
HOWEVER, when you actually use a PVR and you have to fast forward you still see BITS and Pieces of Commericals and some research has shown (and my personal experience backs this up) if a commerical looks particularly interesting or revelant, you actually stop and watch. THOSE commericals are SUPER effective because instead of seeing 20 or 30 commericals (or more) per hour you see maybe 2 or 3 PER WEEK.
A few concepts related... or really questions...
Who created the "Menu?" NBC? TV Guide? Microsoft? NPR?, your "smart agent?" etc
Will you stream or download?
Will you be annonymous to the Network(s)?
Will you rent? subscribe, share? PPV?
Will you see local ads, national ads? Ads that require real time attention (forcing you to watch them?), will you have to see ads only when you give your permission (and thus agree to watch them?)
I think in part the answer to all the questions is yes, no and maybe.
You might download some wild stuff from the net. Subscribe to NBC and PPV the world cup soccer finals. The super bowl is free but you have to watch 5 ads (and interact with them!).
-- Look for a pay for use formal network with real time streaming and lots of DRM options and a Ad Hoc network based more on pure internet for more less formal shows that may have to be downloaded because they don't have the bandwidth quality to stream in real time. This stuff might also be more on the margins of the copyright laws.