> The fact is the developers of this system HAVE > to cover themselves and limit the clients of the > application in order to isolate problems as > actually being server-side.
There is no excuse for the client-side software not to be trivially simple. If it has bugs that make it browser-dependent now is the time to find them.
> The goverment has nothing to gain by allowing > tons of different clients to use this system.
The government has an obligation not to require that citizens use any specific commercial product. What would you say if you were told that you must use a Papermate pen to fill out your absentee ballot because the government thought other brands might skip but couldn't be bothered to test them?
> I use Linux, but I also have Windows PCs - I > think most people on slashdot at least have ONE > Windows/IE install somewhere.
I don't, and I find the notion that I may eventually be forced to buy it if I wish to vote rather offensive.
> Oracle made it clear their intention was to > discontinue all PeopleSoft products, ultimately > forcing customers to convert to Oracle's > application and database.
The only unusual thing about this is that Oracle has admitted it in advance. The more common practice is to tell reassuring lies about continuing support for existing products.
>...how is this any different from more > traditional balloting techniques?
Fundamentally. Election judges and poll watchers need no technical knowledge to completely understand the paper ballot system. They can figure out for themselves how it works, how it could be jiggered, and what to watch for. Even newspaper reporters can understand paper ballot systems.
_All_ computerized systems, on the other hand, require that the voters put their faith in a small number of experts. It doesn't even help if you have a system which is provably secure and correct, because the voters cannot understand the proof.
> It raises some very challenging questions, > should some of this information be classified?"
Of course. And MapQuest should be shut down, and you should be required to have license to use Google. In fact, no one should be allowed to put up a Web site without a permit from the Ministry for State Security.
And, of course, libraries should be required to report attempts to check out or read books on the "sensitive" list, and bookstores should be forbidden to sell them to anyone with out a permit...
Why, there are so _many_ more things we could doing to assure our "safety"!
> With the 90th Tour de France starting today, it is > fun to marvel at the improvement of road bike > technology over the years.
Come on, now. We all know that the UCI blocked the last important improvement of bicycle technology in 1934. All that has happened since is minor incremental change and numerous broken necks.
> But it would only be used if you're downloading > copyrighted material...
In other words, anything not from Project Gutenberg.
Or have you forgotten that copyright is automatic and applies to every email and Slashdot posting? Are you one of those idiots who thinks that only publishers have copyrights?
> Have you noticed that more and more technology > is more ingenious than useful?
No.
> Our response to being bored and rich is not to > discard our possessions and live more simply, > but to buy more stuff to reduce the space in > which we might contemplate our shame.
If Mr. Jeffries finds this behavior shameful, why doesn't he stop engaging in it? If he isn't doing it, why does he say "we"?
I don't think it would pay off if they were shown to have engaged in a pump & dump scam.
Re:As For The Kernel Developer In The Second Artic
on
Settling SCOres
·
· Score: 1
> how much money does he have to finance a lawsuit > against SCO?
As much as he needs. You think he can't get donations from IBM? The FSF? EFF? Other kernel authors? Thousands of slashdot readers? Free legal help from the likes of Lawrence Lessig?
Re:Class Action - SCOX to 0.02, acquisition?
on
Settling SCOres
·
· Score: 1
> If all Linux kernel copyright holders (or most) do > what this German fellow did, but formed a class > action (or several, in each country), SCOX stock > price would drop like a stone.
It would actually be more effective to file hundreds of seperate actions. That would make it much more expensive for SCO to defend itself and would cause shareholders to worry that SCO would lose at least some of them.
> The current legal action being discussed here is > SCO vs. IBM. SCO wants to revoke IBM's UNIX > license because they claim IBM copied UNIX code > into Linux.
So far as I know SCO has not yet formally alleged copyright infringement in their complaint against IBM. I believe that the complaint just alleges that IBM breached its contract with SCO by revealing SCO's trade secrets.
Re:SCO code =Bad chop job?
on
Settling SCOres
·
· Score: 4, Informative
>...by what virtue can SCO claim that comments, > which are not part of the actual operating code, > form a more significant part of the source than > the actual code?
The judge in the USL-BSD case ruled that similar or identical comments don't count since they are not functional. That precedent will count against SCO.
Slashdot Mirror
> Securing the server is all well and good, but
> they'll need to think really hard about securing
> the client side as well.
They say on their Web site that securing the client is entirely the responsibility of the user.
> The fact is the developers of this system HAVE
> to cover themselves and limit the clients of the
> application in order to isolate problems as
> actually being server-side.
There is no excuse for the client-side software not to be trivially simple. If it has bugs that make it browser-dependent now is the time to find them.
> The goverment has nothing to gain by allowing
> tons of different clients to use this system.
The government has an obligation not to require that citizens use any specific commercial product.
What would you say if you were told that you must use a Papermate pen to fill out your absentee ballot because the government thought other brands might skip but couldn't be bothered to test them?
> I use Linux, but I also have Windows PCs - I
> think most people on slashdot at least have ONE
> Windows/IE install somewhere.
I don't, and I find the notion that I may eventually be forced to buy it if I wish to vote rather offensive.
> Over here, we call them "ballot boxes". HTH!
And they are quite effective and secure. Parent should be modded "insightful", not "funny".
> Oracle made it clear their intention was to
> discontinue all PeopleSoft products, ultimately
> forcing customers to convert to Oracle's
> application and database.
The only unusual thing about this is that Oracle has admitted it in advance. The more common practice is to tell reassuring lies about continuing support for existing products.
> We're a big market.
No you aren't. You are a bunch of small and medium sizied markets, each with its own set of customs, tax, legal, shipping, and fraud headaches.
> It must be worth their while to sell to us.
It would be if your market was truly unified.
> If they don't we'll look elsewhere.
Of course you will. So what?
> ...how is this any different from more
> traditional balloting techniques?
Fundamentally. Election judges and poll watchers need no technical knowledge to completely understand the paper ballot system. They can figure out for themselves how it works, how it could be jiggered, and what to watch for. Even newspaper reporters can understand paper ballot systems.
_All_ computerized systems, on the other hand, require that the voters put their faith in a small number of experts. It doesn't even help if you have a system which is provably secure and correct, because the voters cannot understand the proof.
> And the government system of going with the lowest
> bidder...
So you want them to give the contract to the most _highest_ bidder? The brother-in-law of the contract officer?
They give the contract to the lowest _qualified_ bidder. Doing otherwise would be stupid.
> It's like they say, you get what you pay for.
Bullshit.
> It raises some very challenging questions,
> should some of this information be classified?"
Of course. And MapQuest should be shut down, and you should be required to have license to use Google. In fact, no one should be allowed to put up a Web site without a permit from the Ministry for State Security.
And, of course, libraries should be required to report attempts to check out or read books on the "sensitive" list, and bookstores should be forbidden to sell them to anyone with out a permit...
Why, there are so _many_ more things we could doing to assure our "safety"!
> Also, I bet there's an information-access disorder
> analogous to anorexia -- people who avoid as much > information as they can.
Isn't this what mundanes call "being normal"?
> With the 90th Tour de France starting today, it is
> fun to marvel at the improvement of road bike
> technology over the years.
Come on, now. We all know that the UCI blocked the last important improvement of bicycle technology in 1934. All that has happened since is minor incremental change and numerous broken necks.
> Better hope RMS isn't reading this article, or
> he'll be PISSED.
RMS does not deny that the Linux kernel is entirely the work of Linus and his collaborators.
> It already has with assholes like McBride suing
> everyone who mentions the word Linux.
Please name some of those he has sued.
In fact, SCO has sued only IBM, and that for breach of contract, not copyright infringement.
> And don't get me started on that bossy Lucy...
Isn't she running Hewlett-Packard these days?
> So, if you're looking for an alternative to
> Exchange, would you be willing to contribute some
> time to one of the projects listed above?
Or some _money_?
> The Slashdot crowd is all about boycotts, except
> when it makes life inconvenient for them.
Speak for yourself. No MPAA or RIAA member has gotten any of my money in twenty years, nor have I made unauthorized copies of anything of theirs.
What the hell are "chrunchies"?
> But it would only be used if you're downloading
> copyrighted material...
In other words, anything not from Project Gutenberg.
Or have you forgotten that copyright is automatic and applies to every email and Slashdot posting? Are you one of those idiots who thinks that only publishers have copyrights?
> Well, because Connections would trace the
> connections between various inventions that it
> would seem had no relation to each other.
That's because they didn't. "Connections" was 99% bullshit.
> Have you noticed that more and more technology
> is more ingenious than useful?
No.
> Our response to being bored and rich is not to
> discard our possessions and live more simply,
> but to buy more stuff to reduce the space in
> which we might contemplate our shame.
If Mr. Jeffries finds this behavior shameful, why doesn't he stop engaging in it? If he isn't doing it, why does he say "we"?
> Of course, they certainly have D&O coverage...
I don't think it would pay off if they were shown to have engaged in a pump & dump scam.
> how much money does he have to finance a lawsuit
> against SCO?
As much as he needs. You think he can't get donations from IBM? The FSF? EFF? Other kernel authors? Thousands of slashdot readers? Free legal help from the likes of Lawrence Lessig?
> If all Linux kernel copyright holders (or most) do
> what this German fellow did, but formed a class
> action (or several, in each country), SCOX stock
> price would drop like a stone.
It would actually be more effective to file hundreds of seperate actions. That would make it much more expensive for SCO to defend itself and would cause shareholders to worry that SCO would lose at least some of them.
> The current legal action being discussed here is
> SCO vs. IBM. SCO wants to revoke IBM's UNIX
> license because they claim IBM copied UNIX code
> into Linux.
So far as I know SCO has not yet formally alleged copyright infringement in their complaint against IBM. I believe that the complaint just alleges that IBM breached its contract with SCO by revealing SCO's trade secrets.
> ...by what virtue can SCO claim that comments,
> which are not part of the actual operating code,
> form a more significant part of the source than
> the actual code?
The judge in the USL-BSD case ruled that similar or identical comments don't count since they are not functional. That precedent will count against SCO.
> Microsoft promises... ...
>
> But remember, there are no documents...
If there are no documents there are no promises.