This is just another reason why integrating lots of high-level applications into a OS-Application hybrid is a bad idea. Every application you integrate becomes another source of security flaws.
And don't confuse this with handling case-sensitive data, which is fine.
No, you are confused. Programs are data, too. At least they are data to compilers.
Consider a regular expression. Is it a program or is it data? Many filtering programs will load in a bunch of filters written as regular expressions. Which parts should be case-sensitive or case-insensitive? It turns out that it is relatively standard for lower and upper-case pattern elements to have opposite meanings, e.g., \w matching any alphanumeric character, and \W matching any non-alphanumeric character.
Interestingly though, LISP historically has been both case-insensitive and a language that allows programs to be easily treated as data. I
programmed in LISP for a long time, and the case-insensitivity wasn't any big deal. You'll get used to case-sensitivity and learn to take advantage of it.
Any protocol standard produces its own monoculture. It is primarily because of the HTTP protocol that we have the Internet culture we have today.
Anytime everybody is using the same software (or software specification), flaws can be exploited. Spam takes advantage of the flaws in SMTP, but email would be a mess if there were dozens of incompatible protocols.
The advantage of monoculture is convenience. The disadvantage is when there are flaws.
A lot of you want hard numbers on what you can download/upload, but as other have said, the ISP is trying to be flexible. Using up bandwidth at 2am is not as much of a problem as using it at 2pm. Using up bandwidth in the middle of a weekday might be a problem if the ISP has lots of business customers. Maybe the cable you share with lots of other people is overloaded.
In other works, bandwidth has widely varying costs depending on when you use it, how you use it, and who you share it with. The ISP cannot create identical networking environments for all its customers at all times. In this kind of variable environment with a finite resource, excessive means that you are screwing it up for everyone else. There really is no easier definition.
It would be better if the ISPs would simply throttle the excessive customers when the network becomes busy. Or maybe just cut you off midday, saying, sorry, you've caused enough problems today. See you back tomorrow.
I agree that ISPs advertising "unlimited" are lying. But it is also the case the customers expecting "unlimited" are foolish.
When UNIX came out, *it* was the user friendly operating system.
This is a good point. Anyone who ever had to do something with IBM's JPL (or was it JCL, so long ago and so horrible I have forgotten) would definitely understand.
This printer probably won't satisfy your need for high-quality images, but it's a relatively cheap (I bought new $900) network color printer for home. I've only had it long enough to set it up, not much printing on it yet. It's a Postscript printer, so you should pretty much be able to get any OS to talk to it. It took some hunting around to find Laserwriter 8.6.5 for our old Mac though. To my not very discriminating eye, the output looks good to me, but I can't say anything about the long-term yet, and I couldn't find many user comments on the internet.
Another thing I should add is that instructors should avoid putting their answers on the internet. Once you do that, the answers will be googled and available to everyone in the world.
Another aspect of cheating is the answers to exercises in popular books (e.g., Cormen et.al.) can be found on the internet.
So don't rely on exercises from the book, or perhaps modify them enough so that the answer changes substantially. Even rewording them slightly will fool clueless students.
I think human play will improve as machines improve until humans can't keep up with the machine anymore. It's hard to say when that happens because chess is an exponential problem. 10-20 years, I think.
A lawsuit about a buffer overflow would be chilling. What software does not have a potential exploit? No one (not even OpenBSD) can truthfully claim their software is completely secure.
However, the insecurity purposely designed into software (e.g., macros in your documents, automatically running executable email attachments) should be more susceptible to legal action. What is Microsoft thinking allowing any old program to run?
Maybe in isolation this action is justified, but it's stupid to keep on cutting taxes while the US is running a whopping deficit and the states and cities are struggling to balance their budgets.
There are a few idiots who keep on parroting "cutting taxes increases tax revenues". If that is true, then cutting taxes to zero will create huge revenues. In fact, the government should levy no taxes and then give money away! Hopefully, it is obvious that "cutting taxes increases tax revenues" only works if the economy increases faster than taxes decrease. So far that is not happening.
A lot of email addresses are modified to include "SPAM" or some other word so that they can't be easily spammed. Now all those emails using these addresses have someplace to go. And as long the from address is spoofed to a nonexistent.com or.net domain, then they'll give Verisign something to do.
No, I'm not suggesting that anybody intentional do this. What kind of person do think I am?
This is exactly what is wrong with applying intellectual property law to software. The law wants to assign ownership to a single entity, or failing that, separate pieces belong to different entities. However, for software to work, the pieces have to integrated, modified, ported, copied, improved, created for a program to work. And this has been going on since the beginning of computing. Trying to assign an owner to each piece is a useless exercise.
450 essays doesn't sound anywhere close to the number of examples you need to learn something like this. My guess would be that 10s of thousands essays and you might get somewhere interesting.
Software engineering is unlike a lot of other engineering in that no one can predict with much certainty what a large program is going to do. This lack of certainly is not just bad engineering, it is a mathematically proven law of software. Add to that the fact that each computer runs a slightly different set of programs and is connected to a slightly different set of peripherals, then you have even a more impossible problem.
Software on airplanes work reasonably well because they test the hell of it and two airplanes of the same model are pretty much the same. Also, the users of the software (airplane crews) are well-trained. The exteme testing and thorough training though makes it very expensive. I don't think we can afford to hire software engineer and tutor for each household.
I would be afraid that regulation would not fully take into account the difficulties of making perfect software and dealing with untrained users.
The proposed software rights are very good. I would propose modifying "Let software be installed on multiple machines" to "users get fair use rights for software". Isn't it fair use that allows us to legally make recordings of music CDs that we own? Making an analogy between playing music and running software seems reasonable to me.
Client-side filtering destroys false positives rather than bouncing them.
Please, please don't bounce your spam. I've been buried by emailers bouncing spam back to me that have been spoofed.
Also, this kind of bouncing significantly increases bandwidth usage.
It's not that hard to check your spam folder to make sure it's spam.
Apparently, Linus should have hired an IP lawyer before he started Linux. If Linus had tried to do this, he would have ended up in more trouble, and Linux would not have been as good.
Slashdot Mirror
This is just another reason why integrating lots of high-level applications into a OS-Application hybrid is a bad idea. Every application you integrate becomes another source of security flaws.
No, you are confused. Programs are data, too. At least they are data to compilers.
Consider a regular expression. Is it a program or is it data? Many filtering programs will load in a bunch of filters written as regular expressions. Which parts should be case-sensitive or case-insensitive? It turns out that it is relatively standard for lower and upper-case pattern elements to have opposite meanings, e.g., \w matching any alphanumeric character, and \W matching any non-alphanumeric character.
Interestingly though, LISP historically has been both case-insensitive and a language that allows programs to be easily treated as data. I programmed in LISP for a long time, and the case-insensitivity wasn't any big deal. You'll get used to case-sensitivity and learn to take advantage of it.
Anytime everybody is using the same software (or software specification), flaws can be exploited. Spam takes advantage of the flaws in SMTP, but email would be a mess if there were dozens of incompatible protocols.
The advantage of monoculture is convenience. The disadvantage is when there are flaws.
In other works, bandwidth has widely varying costs depending on when you use it, how you use it, and who you share it with. The ISP cannot create identical networking environments for all its customers at all times. In this kind of variable environment with a finite resource, excessive means that you are screwing it up for everyone else. There really is no easier definition.
It would be better if the ISPs would simply throttle the excessive customers when the network becomes busy. Or maybe just cut you off midday, saying, sorry, you've caused enough problems today. See you back tomorrow.
I agree that ISPs advertising "unlimited" are lying. But it is also the case the customers expecting "unlimited" are foolish.
Paper is better, but it wouldn't make as much money for Bush's cronies.
I like the scroll wheel as the middle button. My fingers can find the middle button by feel rather than me having to look.
You can also configure the panel to hide unless you bring your mouse to the bottom of the screen.
This printer probably won't satisfy your need for high-quality images, but it's a relatively cheap (I bought new $900) network color printer for home. I've only had it long enough to set it up, not much printing on it yet. It's a Postscript printer, so you should pretty much be able to get any OS to talk to it. It took some hunting around to find Laserwriter 8.6.5 for our old Mac though. To my not very discriminating eye, the output looks good to me, but I can't say anything about the long-term yet, and I couldn't find many user comments on the internet.
Another thing I should add is that instructors should avoid putting their answers on the internet. Once you do that, the answers will be googled and available to everyone in the world.
So don't rely on exercises from the book, or perhaps modify them enough so that the answer changes substantially. Even rewording them slightly will fool clueless students.
I think human play will improve as machines improve until humans can't keep up with the machine anymore. It's hard to say when that happens because chess is an exponential problem. 10-20 years, I think.
Another hole is that you can embed programs in Word documents and the like.
However, the insecurity purposely designed into software (e.g., macros in your documents, automatically running executable email attachments) should be more susceptible to legal action. What is Microsoft thinking allowing any old program to run?
There are a few idiots who keep on parroting "cutting taxes increases tax revenues". If that is true, then cutting taxes to zero will create huge revenues. In fact, the government should levy no taxes and then give money away! Hopefully, it is obvious that "cutting taxes increases tax revenues" only works if the economy increases faster than taxes decrease. So far that is not happening.
No, I'm not suggesting that anybody intentional do this. What kind of person do think I am?
This is exactly what is wrong with applying intellectual property law to software. The law wants to assign ownership to a single entity, or failing that, separate pieces belong to different entities. However, for software to work, the pieces have to integrated, modified, ported, copied, improved, created for a program to work. And this has been going on since the beginning of computing. Trying to assign an owner to each piece is a useless exercise.
The tiles are a Thetan technology to maintain and increase their subjucation of the human race.
450 essays doesn't sound anywhere close to the number of examples you need to learn something like this. My guess would be that 10s of thousands essays and you might get somewhere interesting.
Isn't this equivalent to outlawing any networked computer? What do networks do except to transfer information of one sort or another?
Software on airplanes work reasonably well because they test the hell of it and two airplanes of the same model are pretty much the same. Also, the users of the software (airplane crews) are well-trained. The exteme testing and thorough training though makes it very expensive. I don't think we can afford to hire software engineer and tutor for each household.
I would be afraid that regulation would not fully take into account the difficulties of making perfect software and dealing with untrained users.
The proposed software rights are very good. I would propose modifying "Let software be installed on multiple machines" to "users get fair use rights for software". Isn't it fair use that allows us to legally make recordings of music CDs that we own? Making an analogy between playing music and running software seems reasonable to me.
Please, please don't bounce your spam. I've been buried by emailers bouncing spam back to me that have been spoofed. Also, this kind of bouncing significantly increases bandwidth usage.
It's not that hard to check your spam folder to make sure it's spam.
Apparently, Linus should have hired an IP lawyer before he started Linux. If Linus had tried to do this, he would have ended up in more trouble, and Linux would not have been as good.