This is true, but the problem is exacerbated (sp?) in hybrids. The test uses emissions to determine efficiency, and uses this data to calculate mileage. Since a hybrid produces far less pollutants it is calculated to get better mileage, which isn't always the case. The test needs to be redone to more accurately reflect road conditions and driver habits. Maybe something like a real-world test with 10 randomly selected drivers from a pool that the EPA hands out test cars to.
From a Truth In Advertising (ha!) standpoint, it certainly stinks.
Yes, it does, but don't make the mistake of blaming the companies or the advertisers for this. Federal regulations prohibit using any number other than the one calculated by the EPA test in advertising a car's mileage. This test was devised almost 20 years ago, and doesn't actually measure fuel consumption. It measures the emissions, and uses that data to calculate efficiency, and thus, mileage. Obviously a hybrid (with very low emissions) is going to skew the test.
Hello, earth to guy with no clue how the market for game systems works. Can you hear me?
Microsoft NEVER made any money on the Xbox. The console is sold at a loss, and the profits come from the games. I believe it took 3 titles purchased for Microsoft to break even when the XBox was launched. With the reduction in component prices and the increases in manufacturing efficiency, they probably aren't losing much, if any, more than they were when the console was launched.
Now they have a collaboration of some description with Micro$oft; it's hard to get an ally with more punch than them, regardless of what you might think
Partering with MS is one of the worst decisions a company can make. They siphon off all of your best and brightest, and you get very little in return. Reference the Cringely article from a few weeks back for a list of companies that thought "parterning" with MS was a good idea and what happened to them. Do you really think that after all the bad blood in the last decade between these two that they will just suddenly play nice?
They finally seem to be realising that you can't have both the hardware and the software market. Look at IBM and Apple for precedents there.
What do you mean, look at Apple and IBM? They both do their own hardware and software. Apple is pretty much the only company shipping PowerPC anything, and IBM has a HUGE business in Power/AIX. That IBM ships x86 is only a response to customer demand, not some recognition that they shouldn't be in the hardware market. They still sell a ton of iSeries (AS400) and AIX on Power architecture.
Monsanto was basically making it illegal for farmers in 3rd world countries to reuse their seed because the M company claimed that each succeeding generation contained some of their IP.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Monsanto is pure, undiluted, genetically modified evil. They make Microsoft look like a playful puppy. Here' s an example:
There is a dairy farm in Maine (or maybe Vermont, I don't remember), a decent place (as far as these things go). Now these farmers leaned a bit to the hippy side of the fence, and decided not to use the RBGH (Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone), which is owned by Monsanto. It is used to boost milk output, and the FDA says that it is safe. As a matter of fact, there is no test that can distinguish between the milk of treated and untreated cows. Of course, these farmers were proud of their little hippy dairy, and righfully so. They made a good local product, delivered fresh, for a fair price. They decided to promote the fact that they did it all without hormones. So on their bottles, it says: "We do not use RBGH on our cows". That's it. Nothing saying that RGBH is bad, or that it will turn you into a tentacled monster. What does Monsanto do? They launch a legal campaign to make it illegal to state that you do not use RBGH. They claim that by pointing out that it is not used, you are claiming that it is bad. Now call me crazy, but I believe that I have a right to know what goes into my food.
So yeah, fuck Monsanto. A multi-billion dollar corporation versus a handful of country farmers that just want to run their farm their way. Real fair fight, isn't it?
said Bob Gelfond, founder and CEO of MagiQ Technologies. "No matter what advances occur in digital computing, quantum encryption can never be deciphered, read or copied.
These kinds of statements always amuse me. It may be the toughest thing yet, but there's no saying that our understanding of some of the properties of quantum physics aren't flawed. Science may yet prove him wrong.
It's hard enough to make them take responsibility for things like overstating earnings and embezzlement. How exactly are they going to be forced to be accountable for this?
Cisco is bad because it doesn't sell open source solutions?
No, Cisco is bad because they stuck a backdoor into their product that potentially fucked over a bunch of their customers.
I bet half your jobs depend on cisco.
And what kind of half-assed argument is that? Just because people use their products doesn't mean that their jobs depend on Cisco. Cisco can be ripped out and replaced just like most vendors. Get some Foundry or Nortel equipment.
First off, these devices can be reset in several different ways without losing the configuration.
Second, once you have the device configured properly, you should back up your configuration with TFTP or over the console to make recovery easy. This way, even if the device itself is fried, you can just dump your config onto a replacement unit and get on with your day.
What might be a neat idea, although it would require the intervention (and cooperation) of the cell phone industry, would be to have a specific set of signals that could be broadcast that would disable the ringers, or force the phones into silent or vibrate mode. Call it a "quiet zone" or something like that. This way, doctors/sysadmins/etc could still get messages, while not disturbing their environment. Of course, it does nothing to stop the jackass that screams into his phone, but that guy is going to be a dick somehow anyway.
Actually, that won't work. They will approve your loan, but at a 30% interest rate for 10 years, or only if you put 50% down, or some bullshit like that. They make it so onerous that nobody will EVER say yes. Technically, however, you were approved, so you can't get your cash.
You are in many cases responsible for any harm that results from information you make publically available.
No, you aren't. Not at all. Researching these kinds of things is perfectly legal. Publishing your results is perfectly legal. As long as what you say is true, it is perfectly legal. If it isn't, it can be called libel, or slander (depending on the medium). There is no case here.
Exposing holes in their software that can lead to crimes makes you an accessory to those crimes if they are committed using information you provided.
NO IT CAN'T. YOU ARE WRONG! How many times do I have to say it to get it through your fucking head! You are not an accessory to anything. You merely created a tool. That's like saying since Stanley makes screwdrivers, they are liable for robbery. If you are right, then why does SecurityFocus continue to exist? They publish dozens of exploits every day. Nobody has EVER sued them.
Windows and Linux et al don't have exploits on purpose which is why they're aren't liable.
Wrong again dipshit. They aren't liable because of clauses in their licenses, not because of some intrinsic right of a company to produce shitty products.
He hasn't done anything illegal that wasn't illegal before the DMCA.
Ok, this is FRANCE we are talking about here. The DMCA holds no weight there. Pay attention and you might learn something. In addition, the illegality of what he has done is questionable at best.
Nope. Microsoft never offers anybody any notice that new patches are available
Um, those newsletters, and windows update ARE notifications. And since when is Microsoft's behavior the standard by which others should be judged?
What this guy did was scope out a bank and then published how to rob it publically
No, he didn't. He published a security flaw in a software product. These are two totally different things.
You are not legally obligated to know anything about what's going on with a company unless you work there
I think this sentence higlights a fundamental difference between your way of thinking and mine. You seem to be of the opinion that the law is the end-all-be-all of morality. You are wrong. Certainly, these companies may have no legal requirement to release this information. But that doesn't mean that keeping their customers in the dark is the right thing to do. Would it be OK with you if Ford didn't have to disclose brake problems on their cars? Would it be OK with you if drug manufacturers didn't have to list side effects? You are a tool.
Since you don't have a leg to stand on here, I'll commence with the ad-hominem argument:
I love the pre-teen logic you use to decide that this case is so black and white. Did you even read the article? These two companies have been spreading disinformation since day 1. What makes you think that they would be receptive to his discovery? The immediately branded him a "terrorist" and said that he was "hiding in an offshore country". How exactly is he "hiding" at Harvard (a place that is known for harboring "terrorists", you know)?
I'll bet you had this whole diatribe set out ahead of time for the next Slashdot story about a security researcher being threatened by overzealous companies with shitty products.
stop going through the wrong chain of command with these issues
What chain of command? If this company isn't paying his salary, he has NO obligation to tell them shit.
punishes them by not giving them time to deal with the issue.
And do you argue that companies that make claims like "catches 100% of known and unknown viruses" don't deserve to be punished for blatantly lying to the public?
all you're doing is sabatosing a lot of innocent companies
See the above point
The obvious problem is that you're a problem person. You find problems and that's it. That doesn't help anybody.
You don't think that finding problems in software that people rely on is helping? Would you prefer that people continue on with the illusion of security where none acutally exists?
If you ever, in the process of these discussions, even hint at going public it's called blackmail
Now there's the uninformed legal opinion I have come to expect from Slashdot. It's not blackmail unless you ask for money. Going public is pretty much standard practice in the security biz.
And you also assume that the company owes you some kind of update on the status of the issue. Which are all three very wrong assumptions unless you actually work for the company
So their customers have no right to status updates on problems with a product that they have purchased?
I'm very interested in your experiments on zero-g rectal methane ignition technologies. I would be willing to fund such a venture assuming that all resultant Intellectual Property would be transferred to my new startup, AssTech, LLC.
Oh, wait, the 90's are over and I don't just give a pile of cash to anyone shooting ideas out of his ass anymore;-)
It is also noteworth because he will be the first to carry his own significant research up with him. He's not going to just "stay the hell out of the way". This guy isn't some boy-band wannabe. He's a real scientist with real experiments he want to carry out.
If cost is an issue, then build your own is probably the way to go
No, it isn't. A entry-level Tivo is 99 bucks. And it works. Well. A cobbled together PC solution will cost more than that just for the capture card, and won't have anywhere near the polish of Tivo. It will also chug so much money in electricity during a year of operation, that you could pay for a Tivo with the power savings alone (depending on local costs, of course).
Don't get me wrong, I have one that I built, as part of a larger HTPC project. It was a fun project, and I learned alot. But don't mislead yourself into thinking it is cheaper.
Slashdot Mirror
This is true, but the problem is exacerbated (sp?) in hybrids. The test uses emissions to determine efficiency, and uses this data to calculate mileage. Since a hybrid produces far less pollutants it is calculated to get better mileage, which isn't always the case. The test needs to be redone to more accurately reflect road conditions and driver habits. Maybe something like a real-world test with 10 randomly selected drivers from a pool that the EPA hands out test cars to.
From a Truth In Advertising (ha!) standpoint, it certainly stinks.
Yes, it does, but don't make the mistake of blaming the companies or the advertisers for this. Federal regulations prohibit using any number other than the one calculated by the EPA test in advertising a car's mileage. This test was devised almost 20 years ago, and doesn't actually measure fuel consumption. It measures the emissions, and uses that data to calculate efficiency, and thus, mileage. Obviously a hybrid (with very low emissions) is going to skew the test.
Hello, earth to guy with no clue how the market for game systems works. Can you hear me?
Microsoft NEVER made any money on the Xbox. The console is sold at a loss, and the profits come from the games. I believe it took 3 titles purchased for Microsoft to break even when the XBox was launched. With the reduction in component prices and the increases in manufacturing efficiency, they probably aren't losing much, if any, more than they were when the console was launched.
Uh, I've been a sysadmin since 1994, and I still don't believe that most systems need firewalls.
Wow, I'm glad you're not my admin.
Now they have a collaboration of some description with Micro$oft; it's hard to get an ally with more punch than them, regardless of what you might think
Partering with MS is one of the worst decisions a company can make. They siphon off all of your best and brightest, and you get very little in return. Reference the Cringely article from a few weeks back for a list of companies that thought "parterning" with MS was a good idea and what happened to them. Do you really think that after all the bad blood in the last decade between these two that they will just suddenly play nice?
They finally seem to be realising that you can't have both the hardware and the software market. Look at IBM and Apple for precedents there.
What do you mean, look at Apple and IBM? They both do their own hardware and software. Apple is pretty much the only company shipping PowerPC anything, and IBM has a HUGE business in Power/AIX. That IBM ships x86 is only a response to customer demand, not some recognition that they shouldn't be in the hardware market. They still sell a ton of iSeries (AS400) and AIX on Power architecture.
Monsanto was basically making it illegal for farmers in 3rd world countries to reuse their seed because the M company claimed that each succeeding generation contained some of their IP.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Monsanto is pure, undiluted, genetically modified evil. They make Microsoft look like a playful puppy. Here' s an example:
There is a dairy farm in Maine (or maybe Vermont, I don't remember), a decent place (as far as these things go). Now these farmers leaned a bit to the hippy side of the fence, and decided not to use the RBGH (Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone), which is owned by Monsanto. It is used to boost milk output, and the FDA says that it is safe. As a matter of fact, there is no test that can distinguish between the milk of treated and untreated cows. Of course, these farmers were proud of their little hippy dairy, and righfully so. They made a good local product, delivered fresh, for a fair price. They decided to promote the fact that they did it all without hormones. So on their bottles, it says: "We do not use RBGH on our cows". That's it. Nothing saying that RGBH is bad, or that it will turn you into a tentacled monster. What does Monsanto do? They launch a legal campaign to make it illegal to state that you do not use RBGH. They claim that by pointing out that it is not used, you are claiming that it is bad. Now call me crazy, but I believe that I have a right to know what goes into my food.
So yeah, fuck Monsanto. A multi-billion dollar corporation versus a handful of country farmers that just want to run their farm their way. Real fair fight, isn't it?
I'm not so sure. Didn't Gator win a case where they were serving up pop-up ads for competitors of certain web sites when they were visited?
Why would anyone put a computer running DOS on the internet in the first place?
Valid point. Thank you.
said Bob Gelfond, founder and CEO of MagiQ Technologies. "No
matter what advances occur in digital computing, quantum encryption can never
be deciphered, read or copied.
These kinds of statements always amuse me. It may be the toughest thing yet, but there's no saying that our understanding of some of the properties of quantum physics aren't flawed. Science may yet prove him wrong.
It's hard enough to make them take responsibility for things like overstating earnings and embezzlement. How exactly are they going to be forced to be accountable for this?
Cisco is bad because it doesn't sell open source solutions?
No, Cisco is bad because they stuck a backdoor into their product that potentially fucked over a bunch of their customers.
I bet half your jobs depend on cisco.
And what kind of half-assed argument is that? Just because people use their products doesn't mean that their jobs depend on Cisco. Cisco can be ripped out and replaced just like most vendors. Get some Foundry or Nortel equipment.
Oh yeah, and fuck you too.
First off, these devices can be reset in several different ways without losing the configuration.
Second, once you have the device configured properly, you should back up your configuration with TFTP or over the console to make recovery easy. This way, even if the device itself is fried, you can just dump your config onto a replacement unit and get on with your day.
What might be a neat idea, although it would require the intervention (and cooperation) of the cell phone industry, would be to have a specific set of signals that could be broadcast that would disable the ringers, or force the phones into silent or vibrate mode. Call it a "quiet zone" or something like that. This way, doctors/sysadmins/etc could still get messages, while not disturbing their environment. Of course, it does nothing to stop the jackass that screams into his phone, but that guy is going to be a dick somehow anyway.
Actually, that won't work. They will approve your loan, but at a 30% interest rate for 10 years, or only if you put 50% down, or some bullshit like that. They make it so onerous that nobody will EVER say yes. Technically, however, you were approved, so you can't get your cash.
the government looses money
I wish they would "loose" some money on me.
What next? Sexual Enjoyment Tax??
They'll rethink that one when they get a dripping manilla envelope filled with used condoms and one bloody clown suit.
Now's one of those time you wish they had a mod for -1 Fucking Nasty, isn't it?
you now loose that freedom
/me puts gun to head......
AAAAARRRGH! Goddamnit! It's LOSE, not LOOSE, LOSE, not LOOSE!
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
Lose
lose
BANG!
You are in many cases responsible for any harm that results from information you make publically available.
No, you aren't. Not at all. Researching these kinds of things is perfectly legal. Publishing your results is perfectly legal. As long as what you say is true, it is perfectly legal. If it isn't, it can be called libel, or slander (depending on the medium). There is no case here.
Exposing holes in their software that can lead to crimes makes you an accessory to those crimes if they are committed using information you provided.
NO IT CAN'T. YOU ARE WRONG! How many times do I have to say it to get it through your fucking head! You are not an accessory to anything. You merely created a tool. That's like saying since Stanley makes screwdrivers, they are liable for robbery. If you are right, then why does SecurityFocus continue to exist? They publish dozens of exploits every day. Nobody has EVER sued them.
Windows and Linux et al don't have exploits on purpose which is why they're aren't liable.
Wrong again dipshit. They aren't liable because of clauses in their licenses, not because of some intrinsic right of a company to produce shitty products.
He hasn't done anything illegal that wasn't illegal before the DMCA.
Ok, this is FRANCE we are talking about here. The DMCA holds no weight there. Pay attention and you might learn something. In addition, the illegality of what he has done is questionable at best.
Nope. Microsoft never offers anybody any notice that new patches are available
Um, those newsletters, and windows update ARE notifications. And since when is Microsoft's behavior the standard by which others should be judged?
What this guy did was scope out a bank and then published how to rob it publically
No, he didn't. He published a security flaw in a software product. These are two totally different things.
You are not legally obligated to know anything about what's going on with a company unless you work there
I think this sentence higlights a fundamental difference between your way of thinking and mine. You seem to be of the opinion that the law is the end-all-be-all of morality. You are wrong. Certainly, these companies may have no legal requirement to release this information. But that doesn't mean that keeping their customers in the dark is the right thing to do. Would it be OK with you if Ford didn't have to disclose brake problems on their cars? Would it be OK with you if drug manufacturers didn't have to list side effects? You are a tool.
Since you don't have a leg to stand on here, I'll commence with the ad-hominem argument:
I love the pre-teen logic you use to decide that this case is so black and white. Did you even read the article? These two companies have been spreading disinformation since day 1. What makes you think that they would be receptive to his discovery? The immediately branded him a "terrorist" and said that he was "hiding in an offshore country". How exactly is he "hiding" at Harvard (a place that is known for harboring "terrorists", you know)?
I'll bet you had this whole diatribe set out ahead of time for the next Slashdot story about a security researcher being threatened by overzealous companies with shitty products.
Asshat.
stop going through the wrong chain of command with these issues
What chain of command? If this company isn't paying his salary, he has NO obligation to tell them shit.
punishes them by not giving them time to deal with the issue.
And do you argue that companies that make claims like "catches 100% of known and unknown viruses" don't deserve to be punished for blatantly lying to the public?
all you're doing is sabatosing a lot of innocent companies
See the above point
The obvious problem is that you're a problem person. You find problems and that's it. That doesn't help anybody.
You don't think that finding problems in software that people rely on is helping? Would you prefer that people continue on with the illusion of security where none acutally exists?
If you ever, in the process of these discussions, even hint at going public it's called blackmail
Now there's the uninformed legal opinion I have come to expect from Slashdot. It's not blackmail unless you ask for money. Going public is pretty much standard practice in the security biz.
And you also assume that the company owes you some kind of update on the status of the issue. Which are all three very wrong assumptions unless you actually work for the company
So their customers have no right to status updates on problems with a product that they have purchased?
Go home and read a book
I'm very interested in your experiments on zero-g rectal methane ignition technologies. I would be willing to fund such a venture assuming that all resultant Intellectual Property would be transferred to my new startup, AssTech, LLC.
;-)
Oh, wait, the 90's are over and I don't just give a pile of cash to anyone shooting ideas out of his ass anymore
It is also noteworth because he will be the first to carry his own significant research up with him. He's not going to just "stay the hell out of the way". This guy isn't some boy-band wannabe. He's a real scientist with real experiments he want to carry out.
If cost is an issue, then build your own is probably the way to go
No, it isn't. A entry-level Tivo is 99 bucks. And it works. Well. A cobbled together PC solution will cost more than that just for the capture card, and won't have anywhere near the polish of Tivo. It will also chug so much money in electricity during a year of operation, that you could pay for a Tivo with the power savings alone (depending on local costs, of course).
Don't get me wrong, I have one that I built, as part of a larger HTPC project. It was a fun project, and I learned alot. But don't mislead yourself into thinking it is cheaper.