It's unfortunate that disabled people are constantly used as a reason for inventing new gadgets
Its also unfortunate that the cold war was indirectly responsible for putting men on the moon.
Its unfortunate that some of the initial research into nuclear power plants was for the development of the atomic bomb.
Its unfortunate that people die to establish and protect freedom.
Many of the luxuries we take for granted today were initially created to serve some desparate need. That humanity as a whole benefits from the results of efforts to relieve the suffering of a few, should not be taken to mean that those efforts or results are "unfortunate". Its called progress. Its motivation. Its all about the itch that needs to be scratched.
And I seriously doubt those who are disabled consider those efforts to be "unfortunate" in any way.
This is a fun formula you got going there, but the cost to send email is unreasonable. Assuming 2K per email message, you're talking 20 gigs of data transfer. Even with a capped cable modem connection at 128kbps, you're talking 14 days. So for the cost of two cable modem connections or one dsl line with better upstream, you can push that out easily in a week for less than $100 a month. Or less than $25 a week.
Even if you are forced to buy a T1 line to do it, at $1500/mo, you're still talking only $350-$400 a week, and you'll be able to send out about 8 times as much spam. Of course, all the costs go up with the size of the email, but you get the idea.
At these low rates, its obvious why you see so much spam. As long as the operating costs are so obscenely low, they don't need a high response rate. 1 out of 10,000 is enough. And there will always be enough suckers to satisfy the spammers. One of my ex girlfriend's family would spend around $300/mo on get rich quick schemes that were mailed to them (in the pre-spam days). They never seemed to get the hint. I'm sure there are are plenty of others who are the same way. Heck, I've even known people who make 6 figures who have bought into this crap. Not the same TYPE of crap mind you, but scams and spams all the way.
There's always enough gullible people out there who will believe anything. And as long as they have money to spend, the spammers will be out there fishing.
This affects the manufacturers, not the broadcasaters. So what if they simply refuse to incorporate digital receivers into their products? The TV sets don't broadcast, so they don't require a license. What they're receiving is public airwaves, so they can't be forced to receive only certain frequency ranges (think cell phones and scanners).
Of course, the broadcasters can pull the plug in 2007 and go all digital, but if the manufacturers simply refuse to comply, then suddenly 95% of the market simply doesn't exist anymore. Those who get cable, satellite, or only watch DVD's, VHS, etc don't even need it, unless the mandate covers all of those as well. That market can still buy the non-digital TV sets with the caveat that after 2007 they won't recieve traditional broadcast TV anymore.
That's right. Linux is free software. Sure, Redhat and others sell a boxed set in retail stores, and cheapbytes and others sell $5 CD's, but its available for free online for anyone with an internet connection. Of COURSE Microsoft will make more money than Linux will. The same could probably be said about a great many large software companies. Other factors need to be considered.
How many new installations of Linux were installed vs. the number of Windows installations? Sure, Microsoft will probably still win, but the ratio will be a lot tighter.
Go ahead. quit offering your movies for broadcast. Hey, while you're at it, quit offering them up for rental, as they can be copied there too. Better not sell them either. And gosh darn it, people are making illegal copies of your movies while they're still in the theatre, better quit having movies shown in theatres. Can't risk having anyone steal your precious products.
Oh, btw, you now make NO money, but at least you're secure in the fact that nobody has made a perfect copy of your movie. Must be a great relief huh?:)
I have a sneaking suspicion that there was a point to that lecture, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is.
From what I can determine from moments of coherency:
He hates Microsoft He hates Macs He hates Linux He hates Open Source He's not a programmer, nor will he ever be.
From all I can tell, he finds flaws with every philosophy, so we should probably just trash it all and start over from scratch. I'd read it again just to be sure, but I need to get back to my grueling free code development, lest he inspires me to give it all up.... to... do... whatever.
A four year study has concluded that annoying your customers is not good for business.
The study also concluded that when customer satisfaction is down, one way to improve said satisfaction is not to increase the degree of annoying factors.
AOL's on the ball here people! Better pay attention!!
It is illegal to attack a machine that is attacking you. It's illegal to release a worm/virus into the wild. However, its NOT illegal to participate in its distribution simply because you're too inept to keep your machines patched. Those who are indirectly causing all the damage will suffer no liabilities as a result. And perhaps punishing them isn't the answer.
However, look at it from the worm's perspective. It seeks only to invade and to reproduce. It doesn't care about legalities or consequences. It will do what its designed to do, and will do so indefinitely until its means of propagation has been eliminated. The vulnerable machines are out there. They will always be out there. And as long as they're out there, there will be breeding grounds for worms.
We need to meet halfway on this one. If we can't attack the machines that are already attacking us, we should at the very least be able to stop the problem. In fact, it makes sense to stop the problem before it even starts. If someone is running an unpatched system, they're going to be the participants in a worm redistribution program eventually. If it has to happen, let it be a benign worm that hits it. Invade the machine, fix all known holes, then propagate to a set range of addresses, then die. No more worms for that host, and in a matter of hours, that exploit will have been completely removed from the world, or at least as well as the worms could find it.
Perhaps at least with XP's automatic updates, these patches might be implemented on a regular basis. However, what about all the people that don't allow themselves to use the automatic update features? There are plenty of pirates and security wary but otherwise legitimate users who won't use the automatic update features. Those machines are just as vulnerable. IF the user isn't willing to patch them, then let someone legitimately be allowed to do so. Or at least look the other way when it happens.
-Restil
Printer trojans
on
Network Hacking
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
At first I took the notion with apprehension. But then I recalled, there was a time when we told people "You can't get a virus in a document file", "You can't get a virus from your email message" But even back in the day, you could cause extensive damage to your dos machine just by typing a text file with malicious ansi codes. Microsoft and others who have opted for the "feature rich" approach to dynamic documents have created more security problems than convienences.
Postscript is a pretty powerful programming language, and most printers today have it embedded. While I don't think it has TCP/IP capability yet, it wouldn't surprise me if someone doesn't find a stupid reason to implement at feature into the printer language, or even something that allows more low level control of the printer hardware could be used to gain access to the network. Remember people, it doesn't have to be easy. Virus/Trojan writers pride themselves on invading the bold new frontier. Don't get complacent.
As more appliances get network connectivity and more flexible embedded processors and operating systems, they'll all be subject to the same concerns. I'm already addressing some of these issues with my simple home automation projects. The computer I use to control things is isolated from the rest of the network other than the single open port for commands. Despite the security I might have implemented on my network, I can't assume that the network is always safe. And while right now I only have lamps and sprinklers on this system, when more complex (and potentially dangerous) appliances get added, a comprised system becomes a serious liability.
The next time they have to write off inventory because of a needed security change. Sure, hackers might not be the best friends to that contractual agreemnt NVidia has going, but at some point, they're going to get tired of writing off inventory and flushing money down the toilet just because Microsoft doesn't want people using the Xbox for ANYTHING but an XBox.
That's better than my account is doing right now. Of course, I don't get much email as I don't really use it for correspondance. This goes to show just how useless email is slowly becoming for anything worthwhile. It may very well be that in the near future we will need to design a new spamproof (or at least spam resistant) mail protocol to prevent this problem.
It has already been shown that the amount of money an author will typically make off of old books is so small as to be considered insignificant. Even if people obtain copies of the books legitimately, they might loan them from a library, buy them from half-price books or a book faire, or just plop down in B&N and read them there (Starbucks is making a killing).
To include all the books on CDROM adds no cost to the book (CDs are dirt cheap to mass produce), but it gives the reader an enormous additional benefit. In many cases, someone who actually wants to read the books cover to cover will probably buy them anyway, as books are still rather more convienent for most people than text files are. However, this gives them the opportunity to preview them, and if they DO want to read them via PDA, they have that option.
That the primary purpose of reviewing this is to "fix" the "joke" copyprotection that's on the classic DVD. The first time around they either poorly underestimated the abilities of a few dedicated hackers or they just didn't understand simple technology when it came to encryption. of course, as much as the copy protection was considered an important factor on DVDs, the storage capacity, image quality, and lack of degregation were more important when it was designed. The copy protection was an industry requirement, one that despite their efforts has made no difference. Not really sure what the purpose of region coding was, beyond forcing people to buy multiple DVD players or to use them illegally.
Despite their abilities to improve the encryption on their new DVD standard, it will only delay, but not competely thwart the efforts of those who have the desire and the ability to break it. The second ANY software is available to play it back, that software has to be distributed. It can always be disassembled and rebuilt from the assembly level. It will take a LONG time, but if someone wants it badly enough.....
With the GPL, the user of the software is not required to agree to the license. The advantage is, if they don't agree to it, they're covered under default copyright laws. Only if they agree to it are they permitted to redistribute the software, modify and distribute, etc, but at the same time you're required to adhere to the additional restrictions, mainly the requirement to distribute the source with the binaries.
None of this part of open source needs to be addressed in a clickwrap license. What MIGHT need to be addressed are the warranty issues and issues of financial responsibility, should the software be in some way responsible for damage. While with open source, this is probably less likely than proprietary counterparts, its still a potential legal problem waiting to happen.
But as far as the issues of copyright, and how the software is used, open source software doesn't adhere to restrict the user in these regards, and wouldn't need a clickwrap to specify it.
This demonstrates one of the biggest problems with firewalls in practice. It allows a network administrator, and all the users on the network, to have a false sense of security about how vulnerable their network is to the outside world. As the article stated, once you get through the rough outer coating (the firewall), you pretty much have the run of the place.
The firewall should be used for two primary reasons. First, because you don't trust the internet. This makes perfect sense to almost everyone. The second reason, is because you don't trust your users. After all, if you trusted all your users to keep the machines secure, the firewall probably wouldn't be necessary. Therefore, its in your best interest to not allow carte blanche access to the internet from the inside, just as you don't allow open access from the outside.
Of course, at the same time it needs to be secure, it also needs to be convienent. If someone has to jump through hoops to find a webpage or read an email, the entire purpose of having those services available is lost. At some point you need to trust your users, even if they can't be trusted. So minimise the damage a single user can do.
If a user gets a virus, how far can that virus reach? Can it infect the entire network, or will it be isolated to the local machine, or to a specific account. What happens if a password sniffer is installed somewhere on the network. Will it be able to obtain any useful information? Are the machines tripwired to detect any modification of key utilities? Are there live network connections that are unused? Do you use static or DHCP addresses? Some of these features might make life easier for the sysadmin, but they also make it easier for a trespasser.
Of course, many of these problems are addressed only with hindsight. If someone wants to get onto your network badly enough, they will probably find a way. The important thing is that if and when it happens, you can detect it immediately, minimize the damage they can possibly cause, and immediately fix the problem that allowed them in in the first place
Good point. I can't really see what the Government can do anyway. There's no law that says you have to write secure software. There's just laws regarding disclosure of bugs/holes. Some software companies will be genuinely concerned about the security of their software and will respond promptly. Others weigh it against other bottom line concerns and will wait until a convienent time to address the problem (next major software release).
The government can't do much more than tell the company what they already know. I suppose the government could stop using such software, but beyond the operating systems and generic office applictions, I doubt the government makes a widespread use of any other commodity software packages. All the government can really do is make an announcement about the problem, and the "hacker" can probably do the same thing, more efficiently, and in a way that more effectively reaches those that need to know about it.
If consumers want ditital TV, they'll get it. If they're not adopting it as quickly as the broadcasters and the government would like, the problem is that the price is too high to justify the increase of quality. Its all supply and demand. Once upon a time, not everyone and their 3 yr old kid were talking on cell phones. Now they are. People adapted to that market because the industry found a way to make it happen. If that meant selling the phones for a penny and making up for it on the service, so be it. It was far more effective than forcing a $300 expense up front, which practically nobody was willing to go for.
So if the industry wants Ditital TV in every home in the near future, they're going to have to sell that service so that purchasing analog sets or even keeping the current analog sets doesnt' make sense anymore. This means that new digital TV sets must be LESS expensive than the analog counterparts, not more. If this means the broadcasters will have to partially rebate the costs of the TV sets, so be it. They're the ones who want this so badly, not the manufacturers, not the retaillers, and not the consumers.
If the broadcasters REALLY want this to happen, they just need to announce that they're going to stop transmitted analog signals as of a certain date. The consumers will switch if they really want the service. And if they don't, well, them the breaks. Of course, there will always be straggler broadcasters that will pull the entire market of analog receivers, so this will be a tough trick to pull off without losing tons of market share.
But that's not the government's problem. The government does not need to get involved to mandate a change in industry standards in this way. You can't force the free marketplace. It tends to go where it wants to go. And when it wants digital broadcasting on a large scale, it will have it, and the analog will slowly die away until the point where pulling the plug on it won't make a signficant difference.
First off, if not ALL the isp's go along with this, nothing stops people from switching. And even if they do go for this stupid idea, what's stopping external proxies? Its one thing to simply deny certain domains or ip address ranges, its another thing entirely to scan all text that comes over the wire to detect and block traffic from specific websites, no matter how it made it to the end user.
And who's to say that Ebay and others won't just tell the Indian ISPs to go screw themselves. Ebay doesn't exactly have much in the way of viable competition. If this goes through, they could probably turn around and demand money from the Indian ISPs instead or they'll block access. And when the ISPs own polices cause great dissent among their users, they'll be forced to pay up to return things to the way they once were.
The astronomer probably didn't go running to the press. He did the right thing, upon discovery of the object, subjected it to peer review. After all, he'd need help obtaining the data necessary to confirm or deny the potential threat, if he even was aware of it to begin with.
What generally happens is information about the rock is posted in a circular for other astronomers to work on, and the press also obtains a copy of this. They get the information before the astronomers have had a few days to work out the actual orbit and run the story, because hey, planetwide armageddon makes for great news:) And follow up stories about how we're NOT going to die afterall ALSO make for great news.
I don't care much for any type of advertising, but I'm willing to tolerate and accept it if its nonintrusive. A solitary banner ad at the top of the page is more or less expected at this point. I barely notice, and every once in a while I might even glance at it. A popup ad however annoys me before it even displays its contents. I'm already closing the window. I don't care what it says. I don't care how awesome the product might be. All I know is that its in the way. You lost me before you ever had a chance to tell me who you were or what you were about. In fact, blocking popups is easy. Certainly easier than blocking banner ads of multiple sizes. All I see of it is a waste of time. The internet newbies might pay attention for a little while before they figure it out. And the population of internet newbies is dwindling.
Targeted ads ala google make much more sense, especially with their low-key approach to it. First off, it will probably be for something I'm interested in, so even if its not in line for what I'm searching for, at least it won't annoy me. And secondly, I might actually click on it. I've clicked through on google's ads on several occasions, typically when I'm looking for prices on things. The advertising actually serves a somewhat useful purpose. Imagine that. The popup advertisers need to figure this out. Before the existance of those ads is the reason people stop visiting certain sites.
Linux MAY be prone to SOME of these problems, but I'm willing to trust that the great majority of what causes windows systems to go nuts on a regular basis simply won't affect linux, not because its immune, but because its not used in the same way.
First of all, I'm willing to take at face value the fact that a 2K/XP system running only well supported, stable drivers on stable hardware running only a small set of vital application programs will be unlikely to encounter any serious problems. I have no personal evidence to support this, but a few people I know swear by it, so I'm willing to accept it under these conditions.
However, 2K/XP might have gotten it right, but it took MS 20 someodd years to get around to getting it right. And it requires a fairly new computer to be useful. Win 95 runs great on old (read: CHEAP) hardware as far as performance goes, but it has serious stability problems. If I want to run a 7 year old version of Linux, I'm willing to bet that the last release in the 1.0.x series is just as stable in a production environment as the latest 2.4.x release is. Sure, it might not be as feature packed, and might not have the extensive driver support, but if it serves the purposes I require, it will work flawlessly.
As for drivers, Windows virgin installs come with a set of drivers for a lot of legacy hardware. If your system is a couple years older than the version of Windows you're installing, it probably has the drivers for all your hardware. For any other hardware, you'll have to use vendor supplied drivers. If these drivers are unstable, Windows can misbehave, and it wouldn't necessarily be the fault of Windows. Certainly Linux must have the same problem, right?
The simple fact of the matter, those who support Linux tend to support the same software methodology. The drivers, like the kernel, are all open sourced. They're heavily peer reviewed, and those that are integrated into the kernel are solid. And if bugs are found, they're fixed. If the original programmer doesn't/can't/won't fix it himself, there are countless others who can. In many/most cases, the drivers aren't even written/produced by the manufactuerers of the hardware, but by kernel hackers, on their own time. These guys have no interest in being first to the market. They have no desire to play the "just get it working, we can fix it later" game. Their only interest is in releasing solid, efficient code, becuase if they don't, they know someone else will be tearing it apart.
Therefore, the drivers used on linux systems tend to be rock solid. So you have a rock solid kernel and drivers. Now for the applications. Applications for linux based operating systems tend not to overwrite system libraries with their own versions. General purpose applications are not generally run as root. The worst a normal user can do on a linux box by running buggy applications is to cause it to crash. Certainly, he can send the machine into thrashing or fill up the hard disk, but there are ways the administrator can restrict the type of activities that cause such outcomes. 2K/XP have methods to prevent these same problems, but many of the problems involved with installing misbehaving applications simply shouldn't be a problem in the first place.
As for adding cruft to the operating system, my linux box has the same number of directories off of / as it did the day I installed it, with three extras added for each mounted HD on the system. My/home directory has one directory for every user on the system. My personal home directory, as I suspect others might be as well, is an organizational nightmare. But all that "cruft" is isolated. I know where the mess is, and I know only where the mess is. I don't have/etc,/bin, and other important directories littered with files that have no business being there. And no rogue application is likely to change that fact. Sure, an application program might add a directory to/usr/local and leave a large bloated mess under there, but if I decide later that I want to remove it, I can do a recursive delete of one directory and its gone. There aren't any mystery registry values that are going to cause me fits the next time I boot the system. There might be some entires in/etc/rc or crontab, but they won't hurt anything and can be removed later as they're discovered.
I suppose its possible that a poorly managed linux box can cause massive problems, just as a perfectly managed windows box might work flawlessly. But all I can say is this. It's been 154 days since my last power failure, and my linux server has been up for 154 days. None of my windows boxes have that track record.
These roms have no real market value as far as the games themselves go. They're not sold new anymore, and for the most part, they're not sold used either, unless you can find ebay auctions or a garage sale. However, the roms for all of them are available online. They're small, easy to transfer, and players are available on multiple platforms. The cat is out of the bag, and Nintendo and ohers don't have much they can lose from this, but obviously, they'll want their piece of the pie.
Has anyone tried to work with them on this? About the only thing the games are worth to them is the IP rights to the artisitic content. Of course, from my point of view anyway, that content value would only increase if it had a greater market saturation. Nintendo can reasonably expect $0 from the sale of game cartridges at this point. Therefore, if ANY amount of money is offered in exchange for legitimizing the rom sceme, they might be willing to go for it. Its a steady revenue stream from somewhere that no previous revenue exists, and with no work on their part. They might just go along with it, grant permission, and forget about it. Just throw a couple ads on the site, provide nintendo with 100% of the profit (after bandwidth and other expenses) and they might go for it. At least this way there would be no concern about legal battles, assuming they go for it.
And if they don't go for it, you're no worse off than you are now.
"With its rich heritage, an incredible fantasy, and gripping story lines, Star Wars is the ultimate property on which to base a toy line," said Brian Goldner, President of Hasbro's U.S. toys group.
Its a good thing that someone's staying on top of these news breaking events! There's rumors that action figures might be popular too. Better look into it!:)
Slashdot Mirror
It's unfortunate that disabled people are constantly used as a reason for inventing new gadgets
Its also unfortunate that the cold war was indirectly responsible for putting men on the moon.
Its unfortunate that some of the initial research into nuclear power plants was for the development of the atomic bomb.
Its unfortunate that people die to establish and protect freedom.
Many of the luxuries we take for granted today were initially created to serve some desparate need. That humanity as a whole benefits from the results of efforts to relieve the suffering of a few, should not be taken to mean that those efforts or results are "unfortunate". Its called progress. Its motivation. Its all about the itch that needs to be scratched.
And I seriously doubt those who are disabled consider those efforts to be "unfortunate" in any way.
-Restil
This is a fun formula you got going there, but the cost to send email is unreasonable. Assuming 2K per email message, you're talking 20 gigs of data transfer. Even with a capped cable modem connection at 128kbps, you're talking 14 days. So for the cost of two cable modem connections or one dsl line with better upstream, you can push that out easily in a week for less than $100 a month. Or less than $25 a week.
Even if you are forced to buy a T1 line to do it, at $1500/mo, you're still talking only $350-$400 a week, and you'll be able to send out about 8 times as much spam. Of course, all the costs go up with the size of the email, but you get the idea.
At these low rates, its obvious why you see so much spam. As long as the operating costs are so obscenely low, they don't need a high response rate. 1 out of 10,000 is enough. And there will always be enough suckers to satisfy the spammers. One of my ex girlfriend's family would spend around $300/mo on get rich quick schemes that were mailed to them (in the pre-spam days). They never seemed to get the hint. I'm sure there are are plenty of others who are the same way. Heck, I've even known people who make 6 figures who have bought into this crap. Not the same TYPE of crap mind you, but scams and spams all the way.
There's always enough gullible people out there who will believe anything. And as long as they have money to spend, the spammers will be out there fishing.
-Restil
This affects the manufacturers, not the broadcasaters. So what if they simply refuse to incorporate digital receivers into their products? The TV sets don't broadcast, so they don't require a license. What they're receiving is public airwaves, so they can't be forced to receive only certain frequency ranges (think cell phones and scanners).
Of course, the broadcasters can pull the plug in 2007 and go all digital, but if the manufacturers simply refuse to comply, then suddenly 95% of the market simply doesn't exist anymore. Those who get cable, satellite, or only watch DVD's, VHS, etc don't even need it, unless the mandate covers all of those as well. That market can still buy the non-digital TV sets with the caveat that after 2007 they won't recieve traditional broadcast TV anymore.
-Restil
That's right. Linux is free software. Sure, Redhat and others sell a boxed set in retail stores, and cheapbytes and others sell $5 CD's, but its available for free online for anyone with an internet connection. Of COURSE Microsoft will make more money than Linux will. The same could probably be said about a great many large software companies. Other factors need to be considered.
How many new installations of Linux were installed vs. the number of Windows installations?
Sure, Microsoft will probably still win, but the ratio will be a lot tighter.
-Restil
Go ahead. quit offering your movies for broadcast. Hey, while you're at it, quit offering them up for rental, as they can be copied there too. Better not sell them either.
:)
And gosh darn it, people are making illegal copies of your movies while they're still in the theatre, better quit having movies shown in theatres. Can't risk having anyone steal your precious products.
Oh, btw, you now make NO money, but at least you're secure in the fact that nobody has made a perfect copy of your movie. Must be a great relief huh?
-Restil
I have a sneaking suspicion that there was a point to that lecture, but I'll be damned if I can figure out what it is.
... do... whatever.
From what I can determine from moments of coherency:
He hates Microsoft
He hates Macs
He hates Linux
He hates Open Source
He's not a programmer, nor will he ever be.
From all I can tell, he finds flaws with every philosophy, so we should probably just trash it all and start over from scratch. I'd read it again just to be sure, but I need to get back to my grueling free code development, lest he inspires me to give it all up.... to
-Restil
I'm getting a 404.. Must be night. solar cells aren't working... webserver gets no power.
:)
I'll have to read it in the morning I guess.
-Restil
A four year study has concluded that annoying your customers is not good for business.
The study also concluded that when customer satisfaction is down, one way to improve said satisfaction is not to increase the degree of annoying factors.
AOL's on the ball here people! Better pay attention!!
-Restil
It is illegal to attack a machine that is attacking you. It's illegal to release a worm/virus into the wild. However, its NOT illegal to participate in its distribution simply because you're too inept to keep your machines patched. Those who are indirectly causing all the damage will suffer no liabilities as a result. And perhaps punishing them isn't the answer.
However, look at it from the worm's perspective. It seeks only to invade and to reproduce. It doesn't care about legalities or consequences. It will do what its designed to do, and will do so indefinitely until its means of propagation has been eliminated. The vulnerable machines are out there. They will always be out there. And as long as they're out there, there will be breeding grounds for worms.
We need to meet halfway on this one. If we can't attack the machines that are already attacking us, we should at the very least be able to stop the problem. In fact, it makes sense to stop the problem before it even starts. If someone is running an unpatched system, they're going to be the participants in a worm redistribution program eventually. If it has to happen, let it be a benign worm that hits it. Invade the machine, fix all known holes, then propagate to a set range of addresses, then die. No more worms for that host, and in a matter of hours, that exploit will have been completely removed from the world, or at least as well as the worms could find it.
Perhaps at least with XP's automatic updates, these patches might be implemented on a regular basis. However, what about all the people that don't allow themselves to use the automatic update features? There are plenty of pirates and security wary but otherwise legitimate users who won't use the automatic update features. Those machines are just as vulnerable. IF the user isn't willing to patch them, then let someone legitimately be allowed to do so. Or at least look the other way when it happens.
-Restil
At first I took the notion with apprehension. But then I recalled, there was a time when we told people "You can't get a virus in a document file", "You can't get a virus from your email message" But even back in the day, you could cause extensive damage to your dos machine just by typing a text file with malicious ansi codes. Microsoft and others who have opted for the "feature rich" approach to dynamic documents have created more security problems than convienences.
Postscript is a pretty powerful programming language, and most printers today have it embedded. While I don't think it has TCP/IP capability yet, it wouldn't surprise me if someone doesn't find a stupid reason to implement at feature into the printer language, or even something that allows more low level control of the printer hardware could be used to gain access to the network. Remember people, it doesn't have to be easy. Virus/Trojan writers pride themselves on invading the bold new frontier. Don't get complacent.
As more appliances get network connectivity and more flexible embedded processors and operating systems, they'll all be subject to the same concerns. I'm already addressing some of these issues with my simple home automation projects. The computer I use to control things is isolated from the rest of the network other than the single open port for commands. Despite the security I might have implemented on my network, I can't assume that the network is always safe. And while right now I only have lamps and sprinklers on this system, when more complex (and potentially dangerous) appliances get added, a comprised system becomes a serious liability.
-Restil
The next time they have to write off inventory because of a needed security change. Sure, hackers might not be the best friends to that contractual agreemnt NVidia has going, but at some point, they're going to get tired of writing off inventory and flushing money down the toilet just because Microsoft doesn't want people using the Xbox for ANYTHING but an XBox.
-Restil
That's better than my account is doing right now. Of course, I don't get much email as I don't really use it for correspondance. This goes to show just how useless email is slowly becoming for anything worthwhile. It may very well be that in the near future we will need to design a new spamproof (or at least spam resistant) mail protocol to prevent this problem.
-Restil
It has already been shown that the amount of money an author will typically make off of old books is so small as to be considered insignificant. Even if people obtain copies of the books legitimately, they might loan them from a library, buy them from half-price books or a book faire, or just plop down in B&N and read them there (Starbucks is making a killing).
To include all the books on CDROM adds no cost to the book (CDs are dirt cheap to mass produce), but it gives the reader an enormous additional benefit. In many cases, someone who actually wants to read the books cover to cover will probably buy them anyway, as books are still rather more convienent for most people than text files are. However, this gives them the opportunity to preview them, and if they DO want to read them via PDA, they have that option.
-Restil
That the primary purpose of reviewing this is to "fix" the "joke" copyprotection that's on the classic DVD. The first time around they either poorly underestimated the abilities of a few dedicated hackers or they just didn't understand simple technology when it came to encryption. of course, as much as the copy protection was considered an important factor on DVDs, the storage capacity, image quality, and lack of degregation were more important when it was designed. The copy protection was an industry requirement, one that despite their efforts has made no difference. Not really sure what the purpose of region coding was, beyond forcing people to buy multiple DVD players or to use them illegally.
Despite their abilities to improve the encryption on their new DVD standard, it will only delay, but not competely thwart the efforts of those who have the desire and the ability to break it. The second ANY software is available to play it back, that software has to be distributed. It can always be disassembled and rebuilt from the assembly level. It will take a LONG time, but if someone wants it badly enough.....
-Restil
With the GPL, the user of the software is not required to agree to the license. The advantage is, if they don't agree to it, they're covered under default copyright laws. Only if they agree to it are they permitted to redistribute the software, modify and distribute, etc, but at the same time you're required to adhere to the additional restrictions, mainly the requirement to distribute the source with the binaries.
None of this part of open source needs to be addressed in a clickwrap license. What MIGHT need to be addressed are the warranty issues and issues of financial responsibility, should the software be in some way responsible for damage. While with open source, this is probably less likely than proprietary counterparts, its still a potential legal problem waiting to happen.
But as far as the issues of copyright, and how the software is used, open source software doesn't adhere to restrict the user in these regards, and wouldn't need a clickwrap to specify it.
-Restil
I see something like this.. I get inspired..
That doesn't mean I accomplish anything useful...
That just means I'm destined to spend the next year attempting to one up that thing.. just because I know I can....
Until the next project comes along....
-Restil
This demonstrates one of the biggest problems with firewalls in practice. It allows a network administrator, and all the users on the network, to have a false sense of security about how vulnerable their network is to the outside world. As the article stated, once you get through the rough outer coating (the firewall), you pretty much have the run of the place.
The firewall should be used for two primary reasons. First, because you don't trust the internet. This makes perfect sense to almost everyone. The second reason, is because you don't trust your users. After all, if you trusted all your users to keep the machines secure, the firewall probably wouldn't be necessary. Therefore, its in your best interest to not allow carte blanche access to the internet from the inside, just as you don't allow open access from the outside.
Of course, at the same time it needs to be secure, it also needs to be convienent. If someone has to jump through hoops to find a webpage or read an email, the entire purpose of having those services available is lost. At some point you need to trust your users, even if they can't be trusted. So minimise the damage a single user can do.
If a user gets a virus, how far can that virus reach? Can it infect the entire network, or will it be isolated to the local machine, or to a specific account. What happens if a password sniffer is installed somewhere on the network. Will it be able to obtain any useful information? Are the machines tripwired to detect any modification of key utilities? Are there live network connections that are unused? Do you use static or DHCP addresses? Some of these features might make life easier for the sysadmin, but they also make it easier for a trespasser.
Of course, many of these problems are addressed only with hindsight. If someone wants to get onto your network badly enough, they will probably find a way. The important thing is that if and when it happens, you can detect it immediately, minimize the damage they can possibly cause, and immediately fix the problem that allowed them in in the first place
-Restil
Good point. I can't really see what the Government can do anyway. There's no law that says you have to write secure software. There's just laws regarding disclosure of bugs/holes. Some software companies will be genuinely concerned about the security of their software and will respond promptly. Others weigh it against other bottom line concerns and will wait until a convienent time to address the problem (next major software release).
The government can't do much more than tell the company what they already know. I suppose the government could stop using such software, but beyond the operating systems and generic office applictions, I doubt the government makes a widespread use of any other commodity software packages. All the government can really do is make an announcement about the problem, and the "hacker" can probably do the same thing, more efficiently, and in a way that more effectively reaches those that need to know about it.
-Restil
If consumers want ditital TV, they'll get it. If they're not adopting it as quickly as the broadcasters and the government would like, the problem is that the price is too high to justify the increase of quality. Its all supply and demand. Once upon a time, not everyone and their 3 yr old kid were talking on cell phones. Now they are. People adapted to that market because the industry found a way to make it happen. If that meant selling the phones for a penny and making up for it on the service, so be it. It was far more effective than forcing a $300 expense up front, which practically nobody was willing to go for.
So if the industry wants Ditital TV in every home in the near future, they're going to have to sell that service so that purchasing analog sets or even keeping the current analog sets doesnt' make sense anymore. This means that new digital TV sets must be LESS expensive than the analog counterparts, not more. If this means the broadcasters will have to partially rebate the costs of the TV sets, so be it. They're the ones who want this so badly, not the manufacturers, not the retaillers, and not the consumers.
If the broadcasters REALLY want this to happen, they just need to announce that they're going to stop transmitted analog signals as of a certain date. The consumers will switch if they really want the service. And if they don't, well, them the breaks. Of course, there will always be straggler broadcasters that will pull the entire market of analog receivers, so this will be a tough trick to pull off without losing tons of market share.
But that's not the government's problem. The government does not need to get involved to mandate a change in industry standards in this way. You can't force the free marketplace. It tends to go where it wants to go. And when it wants digital broadcasting on a large scale, it will have it, and the analog will slowly die away until the point where pulling the plug on it won't make a signficant difference.
-Restil
First off, if not ALL the isp's go along with this, nothing stops people from switching. And even if they do go for this stupid idea, what's stopping external proxies? Its one thing to simply deny certain domains or ip address ranges, its another thing entirely to scan all text that comes over the wire to detect and block traffic from specific websites, no matter how it made it to the end user.
And who's to say that Ebay and others won't just tell the Indian ISPs to go screw themselves. Ebay doesn't exactly have much in the way of viable competition. If this goes through, they could probably turn around and demand money from the Indian ISPs instead or they'll block access. And when the ISPs own polices cause great dissent among their users, they'll be forced to pay up to return things to the way they once were.
-Restil
The astronomer probably didn't go running to the press. He did the right thing, upon discovery of the object, subjected it to peer review. After all, he'd need help obtaining the data necessary to confirm or deny the potential threat, if he even was aware of it to begin with.
:)
What generally happens is information about the rock is posted in a circular for other astronomers to work on, and the press also obtains a copy of this. They get the information before the astronomers have had a few days to work out the actual orbit and run the story, because hey, planetwide armageddon makes for great news
And follow up stories about how we're NOT going to die afterall ALSO make for great news.
-Restil
I don't care much for any type of advertising, but I'm willing to tolerate and accept it if its nonintrusive. A solitary banner ad at the top of the page is more or less expected at this point. I barely notice, and every once in a while I might even glance at it. A popup ad however annoys me before it even displays its contents. I'm already closing the window. I don't care what it says. I don't care how awesome the product might be. All I know is that its in the way. You lost me before you ever had a chance to tell me who you were or what you were about. In fact, blocking popups is easy. Certainly easier than blocking banner ads of multiple sizes. All I see of it is a waste of time. The internet newbies might pay attention for a little while before they figure it out. And the population of internet newbies is dwindling.
Targeted ads ala google make much more sense, especially with their low-key approach to it. First off, it will probably be for something I'm interested in, so even if its not in line for what I'm searching for, at least it won't annoy me. And secondly, I might actually click on it. I've clicked through on google's ads on several occasions, typically when I'm looking for prices on things. The advertising actually serves a somewhat useful purpose. Imagine that. The popup advertisers need to figure this out. Before the existance of those ads is the reason people stop visiting certain sites.
-Restil
Linux MAY be prone to SOME of these problems, but I'm willing to trust that the great majority of what causes windows systems to go nuts on a regular basis simply won't affect linux, not because its immune, but because its not used in the same way.
/home directory has one directory for every user on the system. My personal home directory, as I suspect others might be as well, is an organizational nightmare. But all that "cruft" is isolated. I know where the mess is, and I know only where the mess is. I don't have /etc, /bin, and other important directories littered with files that have no business being there. And no rogue application is likely to change that fact. Sure, an application program might add a directory to /usr/local and leave a large bloated mess under there, but if I decide later that I want to remove it, I can do a recursive delete of one directory and its gone. There aren't any mystery registry values that are going to cause me fits the next time I boot the system. There might be some entires in /etc/rc or crontab, but they won't hurt anything and can be removed later as they're discovered.
First of all, I'm willing to take at face value the fact that a 2K/XP system running only well supported, stable drivers on stable hardware running only a small set of vital application programs will be unlikely to encounter any serious problems. I have no personal evidence to support this, but a few people I know swear by it, so I'm willing to accept it under these conditions.
However, 2K/XP might have gotten it right, but it took MS 20 someodd years to get around to getting it right. And it requires a fairly new computer to be useful. Win 95 runs great on old (read: CHEAP) hardware as far as performance goes, but it has serious stability problems. If I want to run a 7 year old version of Linux, I'm willing to bet
that the last release in the 1.0.x series is just
as stable in a production environment as the latest 2.4.x release is. Sure, it might not be
as feature packed, and might not have the extensive driver support, but if it serves the purposes I require, it will work flawlessly.
As for drivers, Windows virgin installs come with a set of drivers for a lot of legacy hardware. If your system is a couple years older than the version of Windows you're installing, it probably has the drivers for all your hardware. For any other hardware, you'll have to use vendor supplied drivers. If these drivers are unstable, Windows can misbehave, and it wouldn't necessarily be the fault of Windows. Certainly Linux must have the same problem, right?
The simple fact of the matter, those who support Linux tend to support the same software methodology. The drivers, like the kernel, are all open sourced. They're heavily peer reviewed, and those that are integrated into the kernel are solid. And if bugs are found, they're fixed. If the original programmer doesn't/can't/won't fix it himself, there are countless others who can. In many/most cases, the drivers aren't even written/produced by the manufactuerers of the hardware, but by kernel hackers, on their own time. These guys have no interest in being first to the market. They have no desire to play the "just get it working, we can fix it later" game. Their only interest is in releasing solid, efficient code, becuase if they don't, they know someone else will be tearing it apart.
Therefore, the drivers used on linux systems tend to be rock solid. So you have a rock solid kernel and drivers. Now for the applications.
Applications for linux based operating systems tend not to overwrite system libraries with their own versions. General purpose applications are not generally run as root. The worst a normal user can do on a linux box by running buggy applications is to cause it to crash. Certainly, he can send the machine into thrashing or fill up the hard disk, but there are ways the administrator can restrict the type of activities that cause such outcomes. 2K/XP have methods to prevent these same problems, but many of the problems involved with installing misbehaving applications simply shouldn't be a problem in the first place.
As for adding cruft to the operating system, my linux box has the same number of directories off of / as it did the day I installed it, with three extras added for each mounted HD on the system. My
I suppose its possible that a poorly managed linux box can cause massive problems, just as a perfectly managed windows box might work flawlessly. But all I can say is this. It's been 154 days since my last power failure, and my linux server has been up for 154 days. None of my windows boxes have that track record.
-Restil
These roms have no real market value as far as the games themselves go. They're not sold new anymore, and for the most part, they're not sold used either, unless you can find ebay auctions or a garage sale. However, the roms for all of them are available online. They're small, easy to transfer, and players are available on multiple platforms. The cat is out of the bag, and Nintendo and ohers don't have much they can lose from this, but obviously, they'll want their piece of the pie.
Has anyone tried to work with them on this? About the only thing the games are worth to them is the IP rights to the artisitic content. Of course, from my point of view anyway, that content value would only increase if it had a greater market saturation. Nintendo can reasonably expect $0 from the sale of game cartridges at this point. Therefore, if ANY amount of money is offered in exchange for legitimizing the rom sceme, they might be willing to go for it. Its a steady revenue stream from somewhere that no previous revenue exists, and with no work on their part.
They might just go along with it, grant permission, and forget about it. Just throw a couple ads on the site, provide nintendo with 100% of the profit (after bandwidth and other expenses) and they might go for it. At least this way there would be no concern about legal battles, assuming they go for it.
And if they don't go for it, you're no worse off than you are now.
-Restil
"With its rich heritage, an incredible fantasy, and gripping story lines, Star Wars is the ultimate property on which to base a toy line," said Brian Goldner, President of Hasbro's U.S. toys group.
:)
Its a good thing that someone's staying on top of these news breaking events! There's rumors that action figures might be popular too. Better look into it!
-Restil