I have successfully used a Wiki to present the design documents for a web project I have worked on. It is great to be able to see the changes that have been made to a document over time, as it avoids some of the "we never said that" discussions. Combined with a simple bug tracker we were able to have all of our design documents hyperlinkable within the bugs and track all changes to the design over time.
When I heard that Word would support saving to HTML I was very happy. Then I saw the HTML that was output and was depressed again. Dreamweaver does have a neat feature - "clean up Word HTML" which makes them a little more acceptable, but it is a nightmare to edit in HTML anything that was generated in Word.
It's a shame, as XHTML and CSS allows for very clean separation of content from presentation... maybe someday they will hit critical mass and it will be the accepted form of "rich" content presentation. But for now I have to slog through RTF, Word, Powerpoint (ugh) and Excel documents that are not converted cleanly to the office suites on Linux.
The question really hinges upon how international treaties pan out. The DMCA was passed to implement an international treaty for enforcing intellectual property, the Hauge Convention. It is an attempt to make everyone subject to everyone else's laws. Of course that is impossible to implement as simply as that - the standards around the world are too varied to be applied directly to everyone as there would be nothing left legal.
So what will happen? Most likely it will continue as it has for years; corporations and well financed individuals will shop for a juridiction that fits their needs and will prey upon those without similar resources. But more excessive legal claims are obviously impossible; for example, a Chinese government monopistic company claiming that Fortune magazine is slandered them or Iran claiming that FOX must stop broadcasting "impure" TV. However, don't expect the individual website to get such consideration, and don't expect the US not to try to bully it around the other way from time to time...
I'm more interested in seeing a different model...
on
Preview the New Napster
·
· Score: 2, Informative
GarageBand has an interesting idea - they take unknowns and when the internet fan base takes an interest in an artist they sign them on and try to launch them into traditional outlets. Frankly, I don't see why this couldn't be extended further from the traditonal markets then they have... they have the distribution capabilities to market the music from their servers direct to the fans...
Sounds like they made a bad choice in having the technology to shut down the prior versions of the software... they could have been the first test of truely "uncontrolled" software vs a court order.
Personally, I hope Freenet or one if it's same minded ilk (redundent caching with encrypted content) builds the technology to scale out as large as these kinds of systems have.
...as the saying goes. I use Linux in several areas of my consulting, but I would not attempt to make my users work in it as a desktop operating system. In the future more advances may be made in the ease of use area, but the fact is most users are not willing to learn Unix-like quirks. That isn't an argument against the Unix model, just the fact that most desktop users are more focused on the presentation that is due in 2 hours than learning a new language for interaction with the computer. Yes there are productivity applications, but they are not as smooth as Office (for those not versed in Unixisms), especially to the novice user who can't get the informal support of coworkers on "how do I center mail merge this spreadsheet of names with this word processing document".
That said, there is a lot of productivity found for me to use it in server roles where the users could care less how the interactions are performed. I can save the user money and set up a low end box as a file server (compatible with Windows) and never have to worry about needing to reset again until upgrade time. Cost savings in hardware/software and my time.
The realization needs to be that technical people see the merits of Linux (cheap, malliable and crashproof) but those merits mean little to a non technical user, who can barely remember how to cut and paste.
The question is: what is the cost of a well analyzed, properly planned project? I think perhaps a lot of the people are working in different spaces than those who have the luxury to spend months "properly planning". As an independent consultant, I am frequently called in late in the game during a "properly planned" project that never got anywhere, because the client couldn't understand the "waste" of money that was going on. "Three months and not even a prototype - who are these people!!!" So I whip out a prototype in a week, and have a functioning version in a month deployed. Is it perfect: no. Does it meet business goals and budgets: yes. I wish I had the luxury to draw pretty pictures and produce binders for a living.
Thinking this through, the DMCA says that you may not publish information that leads to the circumvention of any content security device. Cox has decided that file permissions constitute a content security device (which they do, but normally in a difference sense than the DMCA is applied).
To be honest, going by the letter of the law, this makes some sense. By publishing the flaw's details, earlier kernals are open to exploitation via the flaws, thus unsecuring the content currently protected by the file permissions.
Stupid, yes - but a realistic reading of the letter of the law, if not the intent. But then when did intent matter in law?
Bad, but getting better.
on
Hotmail Hacked
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I will probably take a huge beating for saying this, but here it is. Although Microsoft has a long way to go in dealing with security issues, they are lightyears ahead of where they were only a few months ago. New tools to scan all the servers in the domain for patch levels of various vulnerabilities, fairly quick response time to notifications of vulnerabilities and no more "that's only a theoretical vulnerability" attitude.
I am subscribed to their security notifications and there is an honest effort on their part to fix the problems. More shocking is the recognition they are giving to groups that expose these vulnerabilities - a 180 turn around how they used to desparage those who uncovered such problems.
I highly agree with you that I hate working with the W3C stew of languages - one source file with a HTML framework containing includes for the ASP code I need. The ASP code in a mishmash of server side JavaScript or (gasp) VB Script creating Server side COM objects to do data access or perhaps creating their own lightweight sql queries. Mixed in is the client side JavaScript and the ASP code to catch the POST data from the form when the client is complete. What a mess... but my mess is mostly server side and Curl isn't doing anything there yet.
There are reasons why a client should have DB tools in some cases. Although I do not use disconnected ADO recordsets in IE (because I want our product to run anywhere [read: Netscape/Mozilla and Opera]) the availability of this functionality is tempting at times when you wish a user to have an extended ability to manipulate data on the client, and then send back the changes. XML data islands provide a similar client side "data access" that can be manipulated on the client, and then batch updated. And yes, IE allows JavaScript to create client side ADO and XML data objects.
Perhaps because the application I'm working on does heavy data transfer I have different needs.
From the website's linked news release.
"Curl Corp is aware of that [middleware] need and plans to eventually add features, such as database connectivity." (Emphasis mine).
Nuff said - this isn't anywhere near mature enough to be more than a toy.
Some states have laws against unauthorized access to a computer's resources. Surely a "pop under" advertisement has not been granted permission to your resources, and changing your settings is definitely a form of "access". Why not go after them with that angle.
Other than being a flippant remark, remember that data is transmitted to a server on the internet, and *that* point is vulnerable to an attack, or spoofing of data from the device, etc. The only life threating thing about that is that it defeats the intent of tranmitting the data in the first place.
The main reason our company has not used a OO database is that we have programs written in many languages - all of which can access the relational database via a common interface (SQL) into supported objects (recordsets) for every language we use. OODB's want to impose a class structure that may or may not be easy to support in a given language, and the overhead for such a class structure for say, a web page extracting data for display, would be excessive compared to running a SQL query and outputting the rows.
Blather news reporting: With a million nodes of information under their control, the team at/. has decided that the IP rights (and bases) belong to them.
Rob crowed before the press, "We now have control over Everything, so anything out there *must* be a copyright infrigment. We figure each person alive owes us $2.95 for their use of a small part of Everything. Those who have more will be charged on a sliding scale, of course."
Actually, this is very arguable. One reason poffered for the quality level of current TV shows is that the resources are spread so thin by trying to provide content for extremely narrow interest TV stations. Just one look at the line up for the Food Channel (which I became aware of only because of/. references to the Iron Chef) will show that people are trying *way* to hard to come up with something entertaining...
"The Naked Chef?" (yes, it's on the listing)
I'm out of here....
Even in the States we have companies with terms of service such as these. And it is easy to detect NAT running, because so many "odd" port numbers keep passing through. However, as long as the user keeps under the bandwidth cap (which is a legitimate business decision to have one) I don't see why the service would be concerned with why the packets are the way they are. Nor have I heard of someone being shut down for NAT'ting out 2-5 machines. I *have* heard of quake servers being shut down, but there is at least one real concern above bandwidth when a user creates a server - they create an obvious attack point for denial of service and other attacks.
After reviewing the comments on the letter, I have to agree that some numbered points seem to be off a bit from MS's supposed focal point. However, buried in there are two critical points that do have great relevance.
1. Slashdot does not directly remove *any* postings. This allows the "passive conduit" defense which has previously found ISPs and web providers are not responsible for email/site content that passes through them. If they remove the post, they may lose that status. (The moderation system does not *remove* or prevent access to any post - it just narrows a users view, like a search criteria does)
2. The poster may very well be a 12 year old who would not be allowed to enter into a legally binding agreement. That assumes "click wrap" is binding itself, which is questionable itself until the commerce code gets shoved down our throats.
Not mentioned is the fact that the click wrap may have been "accidentally" bypassed, as no encryption was performed on the "trade secret" document to prevent WinZip from opening the doc. I use WinZip on.exe files to avoid viruses, I sure hope that isn't illegal now.
The flip side: Can a WinZip wielding 12 year old post anonymously anything without regard to copyright? Does removing the document "repair" the problem?
As pointed out previously, the alleged infringment occured in the past, so removal may not nullify the infringment. This opens up a new avenue for shutting down online communities I don't like the tone of...
Step 1: Post as AC to a forum that opposes my viewpoints information that I own the rights to.
Step 2: Get lawyers to work over the company for infringment.
Step 3: Force them to remove the work.
Step 4: Declare the community "active conduit" due to the removal of my work.
Step 5: Post more of step 1 materials.
Step 6: Now I can target the community under editorial neglegence, since they are no longer "passive".
Of course, INAL, nor am I that evil (or is that the same thing?)
Slashdot Mirror
It's a good practice to not agree for anything you don't understand... When you don't know if you should say yes - just say no.
"Save changes to document Really Important Stuff? (yes/no)"
No
Aaaarrggh... look what you made me do!!!
I have successfully used a Wiki to present the design documents for a web project I have worked on. It is great to be able to see the changes that have been made to a document over time, as it avoids some of the "we never said that" discussions. Combined with a simple bug tracker we were able to have all of our design documents hyperlinkable within the bugs and track all changes to the design over time.
When I heard that Word would support saving to HTML I was very happy. Then I saw the HTML that was output and was depressed again. Dreamweaver does have a neat feature - "clean up Word HTML" which makes them a little more acceptable, but it is a nightmare to edit in HTML anything that was generated in Word.
It's a shame, as XHTML and CSS allows for very clean separation of content from presentation... maybe someday they will hit critical mass and it will be the accepted form of "rich" content presentation. But for now I have to slog through RTF, Word, Powerpoint (ugh) and Excel documents that are not converted cleanly to the office suites on Linux.
So what will happen? Most likely it will continue as it has for years; corporations and well financed individuals will shop for a juridiction that fits their needs and will prey upon those without similar resources. But more excessive legal claims are obviously impossible; for example, a Chinese government monopistic company claiming that Fortune magazine is slandered them or Iran claiming that FOX must stop broadcasting "impure" TV. However, don't expect the individual website to get such consideration, and don't expect the US not to try to bully it around the other way from time to time...
GarageBand has an interesting idea - they take unknowns and when the internet fan base takes an interest in an artist they sign them on and try to launch them into traditional outlets. Frankly, I don't see why this couldn't be extended further from the traditonal markets then they have... they have the distribution capabilities to market the music from their servers direct to the fans...
Sounds like they made a bad choice in having the technology to shut down the prior versions of the software... they could have been the first test of truely "uncontrolled" software vs a court order.
Personally, I hope Freenet or one if it's same minded ilk (redundent caching with encrypted content) builds the technology to scale out as large as these kinds of systems have.
...as the saying goes. I use Linux in several areas of my consulting, but I would not attempt to make my users work in it as a desktop operating system. In the future more advances may be made in the ease of use area, but the fact is most users are not willing to learn Unix-like quirks. That isn't an argument against the Unix model, just the fact that most desktop users are more focused on the presentation that is due in 2 hours than learning a new language for interaction with the computer. Yes there are productivity applications, but they are not as smooth as Office (for those not versed in Unixisms), especially to the novice user who can't get the informal support of coworkers on "how do I center mail merge this spreadsheet of names with this word processing document".
That said, there is a lot of productivity found for me to use it in server roles where the users could care less how the interactions are performed. I can save the user money and set up a low end box as a file server (compatible with Windows) and never have to worry about needing to reset again until upgrade time. Cost savings in hardware/software and my time.
The realization needs to be that technical people see the merits of Linux (cheap, malliable and crashproof) but those merits mean little to a non technical user, who can barely remember how to cut and paste.
The question is: what is the cost of a well analyzed, properly planned project? I think perhaps a lot of the people are working in different spaces than those who have the luxury to spend months "properly planning". As an independent consultant, I am frequently called in late in the game during a "properly planned" project that never got anywhere, because the client couldn't understand the "waste" of money that was going on. "Three months and not even a prototype - who are these people!!!" So I whip out a prototype in a week, and have a functioning version in a month deployed. Is it perfect: no. Does it meet business goals and budgets: yes. I wish I had the luxury to draw pretty pictures and produce binders for a living.
Thinking this through, the DMCA says that you may not publish information that leads to the circumvention of any content security device. Cox has decided that file permissions constitute a content security device (which they do, but normally in a difference sense than the DMCA is applied).
To be honest, going by the letter of the law, this makes some sense. By publishing the flaw's details, earlier kernals are open to exploitation via the flaws, thus unsecuring the content currently protected by the file permissions.
Stupid, yes - but a realistic reading of the letter of the law, if not the intent. But then when did intent matter in law?
I will probably take a huge beating for saying this, but here it is. Although Microsoft has a long way to go in dealing with security issues, they are lightyears ahead of where they were only a few months ago. New tools to scan all the servers in the domain for patch levels of various vulnerabilities, fairly quick response time to notifications of vulnerabilities and no more "that's only a theoretical vulnerability" attitude.
I am subscribed to their security notifications and there is an honest effort on their part to fix the problems. More shocking is the recognition they are giving to groups that expose these vulnerabilities - a 180 turn around how they used to desparage those who uncovered such problems.
I highly agree with you that I hate working with the W3C stew of languages - one source file with a HTML framework containing includes for the ASP code I need. The ASP code in a mishmash of server side JavaScript or (gasp) VB Script creating Server side COM objects to do data access or perhaps creating their own lightweight sql queries. Mixed in is the client side JavaScript and the ASP code to catch the POST data from the form when the client is complete. What a mess... but my mess is mostly server side and Curl isn't doing anything there yet.
There are reasons why a client should have DB tools in some cases. Although I do not use disconnected ADO recordsets in IE (because I want our product to run anywhere [read: Netscape/Mozilla and Opera]) the availability of this functionality is tempting at times when you wish a user to have an extended ability to manipulate data on the client, and then send back the changes. XML data islands provide a similar client side "data access" that can be manipulated on the client, and then batch updated. And yes, IE allows JavaScript to create client side ADO and XML data objects.
Perhaps because the application I'm working on does heavy data transfer I have different needs.
From the website's linked news release. ." (Emphasis mine).
"Curl Corp is aware of that [middleware] need and plans to eventually add features, such as database connectivity
Nuff said - this isn't anywhere near mature enough to be more than a toy.
http://www.eaijournal.com/PDF/Curl.pdf (August 2001)
Some states have laws against unauthorized access to a computer's resources. Surely a "pop under" advertisement has not been granted permission to your resources, and changing your settings is definitely a form of "access". Why not go after them with that angle.
Other than being a flippant remark, remember that data is transmitted to a server on the internet, and *that* point is vulnerable to an attack, or spoofing of data from the device, etc. The only life threating thing about that is that it defeats the intent of tranmitting the data in the first place.
The main reason our company has not used a OO database is that we have programs written in many languages - all of which can access the relational database via a common interface (SQL) into supported objects (recordsets) for every language we use. OODB's want to impose a class structure that may or may not be easy to support in a given language, and the overhead for such a class structure for say, a web page extracting data for display, would be excessive compared to running a SQL query and outputting the rows.
Blather news reporting: With a million nodes of information under their control, the team at /. has decided that the IP rights (and bases) belong to them.
Rob crowed before the press, "We now have control over Everything, so anything out there *must* be a copyright infrigment. We figure each person alive owes us $2.95 for their use of a small part of Everything. Those who have more will be charged on a sliding scale, of course."
Blather news, out.
Actually, this is very arguable. One reason poffered for the quality level of current TV shows is that the resources are spread so thin by trying to provide content for extremely narrow interest TV stations. Just one look at the line up for the Food Channel (which I became aware of only because of /. references to the Iron Chef) will show that people are trying *way* to hard to come up with something entertaining...
"The Naked Chef?" (yes, it's on the listing)
I'm out of here....
Even in the States we have companies with terms of service such as these. And it is easy to detect NAT running, because so many "odd" port numbers keep passing through. However, as long as the user keeps under the bandwidth cap (which is a legitimate business decision to have one) I don't see why the service would be concerned with why the packets are the way they are. Nor have I heard of someone being shut down for NAT'ting out 2-5 machines. I *have* heard of quake servers being shut down, but there is at least one real concern above bandwidth when a user creates a server - they create an obvious attack point for denial of service and other attacks.
After reviewing the comments on the letter, I have to agree that some numbered points seem to be off a bit from MS's supposed focal point. However, buried in there are two critical points that do have great relevance.
.exe files to avoid viruses, I sure hope that isn't illegal now.
1. Slashdot does not directly remove *any* postings. This allows the "passive conduit" defense which has previously found ISPs and web providers are not responsible for email/site content that passes through them. If they remove the post, they may lose that status. (The moderation system does not *remove* or prevent access to any post - it just narrows a users view, like a search criteria does)
2. The poster may very well be a 12 year old who would not be allowed to enter into a legally binding agreement. That assumes "click wrap" is binding itself, which is questionable itself until the commerce code gets shoved down our throats.
Not mentioned is the fact that the click wrap may have been "accidentally" bypassed, as no encryption was performed on the "trade secret" document to prevent WinZip from opening the doc. I use WinZip on
The flip side: Can a WinZip wielding 12 year old post anonymously anything without regard to copyright? Does removing the document "repair" the problem?
As pointed out previously, the alleged infringment occured in the past, so removal may not nullify the infringment. This opens up a new avenue for shutting down online communities I don't like the tone of...
Step 1: Post as AC to a forum that opposes my viewpoints information that I own the rights to.
Step 2: Get lawyers to work over the company for infringment.
Step 3: Force them to remove the work.
Step 4: Declare the community "active conduit" due to the removal of my work.
Step 5: Post more of step 1 materials.
Step 6: Now I can target the community under editorial neglegence, since they are no longer "passive".
Of course, INAL, nor am I that evil (or is that the same thing?)