Wasn't there another case some years ago where a hospital built a system in SQL Server that broke due to a bug in SQL Server itself - the hospital had to reimplement the system in Oracle at considerable expense. So, they sued MS for damages. MS successfully defended itself from the suit by arguing that the EULA protected them in cases where their product didn't work as advertised.
So, you buy a database to store data. The database does not work. You have no legal recourse.
I searched google but can't find a link. Is anyone familiar with this case?
But to say that everybody's going to die anyway, so why bother is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
Fortunately, you did not hear it in the comment you replied to. He didn't say "so why bother" and he didn't imply that medicine was worthless - just that in the larger scheme of things it's futile.
His comment was more about the relative importance of healing one individual human vs. contacting an alien race.
Not bad as trolls go. I give it a 5 out of 10. You should try to incorporate some kind of political or religious rant as well. That will get more people to bite.
we are a cancer on this planet and the sooner mother nature deals with us the better
Whether we destroy the Earth or the Sun does - it will be gone some day. The only chance that any of "mother nature's" creations have of getting off this rock is if homo sapiens carry them off. Otherwise, they're all doomed. We'll do the best we can but if we screw it up - so what? The Universe will not notice.
I long time ago I used to get collections of programs on 5 1/4 inch disks from A.P.P.L.E (Apple Puget Sound Program Library Exchange)
There was a program called "The Super Himem Bit Nibbler" because, I guess it didn't do anything but take up high memory. I always got a chuckle out of the fact that it was called "Super"
right. I always do a custom install. The thing is, I occasionally get an email that pops up a message asking me if I want to run a VB component. wtf? I just want the text - I don't even need bold or underlining. just the text. thanks. And no img link either.
you said you'd "remove the Vicious Basic support" so I thought maybe you knew something I didn't.
And how exactly is this a measure of how it would affect EMI/Sony etc who don't have a problem with running out of cds? For whom writing a CDR is considered more expensive than pressing 1000 too many?
I would like to purchase the Clash album _Return to Brixton_ and will gladly pay the copyright holder a reasonable fee for it. Unfortunately, it's out of print. The record company is unwilling to sell me this CD *at any price*
Yet if I download it they claim I've stolen something.
If they had half a brain, they'd burn it on a CD-R for me and sell it for around $9.
I'm not flaming you here Crow, but I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
1) They would weigh less. That is probably the most important advantage.
how much less would they weigh and how much additional load would it allow the shuttle to carry? I think you'll find that upgrading the computers would let each astronaut take 1 extra pair of socks into orbit. So what?
2) They could do more calculations.
More calculation on what? Once the software has looked at all the data and made a decision, what is there left for it to do with all that processing power?
I'm guessing that the software may have failed to consider that a part that is not performing upto specifications is likely to have reduced structural integrity.)
Let's assume you're correct. Would a more powerful computer magically become sentient and figure that out? No. Using the same software a more powerful computer would make the same wrong decision - it would just make it a lot faster.
Even if the software was upgraded to take into account the structural integrity of the ship, that doesn't necessarily mean a more powerful computer is required. In fact, I'm sure that one of the results of the Columbia investigation will be such changes to the software, and I'm sure that the new software will still run just fine on the current computers.
In short, the industry has bullshitted Joe Public that you have to upgrade every year or so.
That's it exactly. I can't count the number of times that someone at work has asked me why I'm still using Office 2K when the company bought.NET.
"What new features does it have?" I ask. "I don't know, but it's better." They say.
Well, I call bullshit. Don't ask me to upgrade if you can't even explain what added benefit there'll be. It's the same with the shuttle. If there was some feature or computation that wasn't possible on the older hardware then I'd say fine, get newer computers. But, I don't think there are any. The current computers and accompanying software work and meet all the requirements.
The people that write the code for the Shuttle do great work, and the organization supports them. The result is software that's remarkably error-free. Like you, I admire them.
I hate it when clueless journalists say "the computers are old" So what? It's the software that's important and the software is top notch. They seem to imply that a pentium IV would have magically saved Columbia. That just isn't true. It's like saying improved metal detectors would have prevented 9/11.
Unless there is some added function that they could only implement only on newer hardware, I don't see why the shuttles need new computers. Naturally, these jouranlists will never ask "what additional functionality does the shuttle need that the current computers don't provide?" they aren't trying to get at the truth of an issue. they're trying to get people to watch - and the best way to do that is by stirring controversy. All it takes to do that is to say "Look! the comptuers are so old!"
Here's a quick and language independent example of how easy it is to miss a security hole in a web application: Say you've created a message board with the ability to edit posts. When a user clicks the edit button they get a form with a textarea to type in and the messageID as a hidden field. When they submit the form you do something like this in SQL:
UPDATE forum SET comment = form.comment WHERE messageID = form.messageID
Do you see the error there? I can edit the form to send a different messageID and change any comment I want. The solution?
WHERE messageID = form.messageID AND userID = cookie.userID
Because HTML is stateless, you have to authenticate the user on every hit and use that authenticated identity as part of every database action. How you do that is a subject unto itself!
At any rate, I just wanted to show how easy it is to introduce a serious security flaw into a web application. The only countermeasure is competent, careful coding.
Rather than keep the entire entry at the 3rd party, you'd encrypt it with your public key and allow the 3rd party to datestamp it and cryptographically sign it.
Then you keep the signature and datestamp yourself and the 3rd party never actually knows what the plain text was that it's just datestamped.
Their criteria sound pretty reasonable to me. They've tried to reach a balance between the rights of sysadmins to know their systems are vulnerable and their responsibility when the tell script kiddies about exploits before they've been fixed.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't there another case some years ago where a hospital built a system in SQL Server that broke due to a bug in SQL Server itself - the hospital had to reimplement the system in Oracle at considerable expense. So, they sued MS for damages. MS successfully defended itself from the suit by arguing that the EULA protected them in cases where their product didn't work as advertised.
So, you buy a database to store data. The database does not work. You have no legal recourse.
I searched google but can't find a link. Is anyone familiar with this case?
who buys porn??
ding! 2 points for the reference.
But to say that everybody's going to die anyway, so why bother is the most absurd thing I've ever heard.
Fortunately, you did not hear it in the comment you replied to. He didn't say "so why bother" and he didn't imply that medicine was worthless - just that in the larger scheme of things it's futile.
His comment was more about the relative importance of healing one individual human vs. contacting an alien race.
Not bad as trolls go. I give it a 5 out of 10. You should try to incorporate some kind of political or religious rant as well. That will get more people to bite.
we are a cancer on this planet and the sooner mother nature deals with us the better
Whether we destroy the Earth or the Sun does - it will be gone some day. The only chance that any of "mother nature's" creations have of getting off this rock is if homo sapiens carry them off. Otherwise, they're all doomed. We'll do the best we can but if we screw it up - so what? The Universe will not notice.
I doubt that this will be resolved by telstra if threatened with action; action will have to be taken.
I think we should give the inpectors more time!
I long time ago I used to get collections of programs on 5 1/4 inch disks from A.P.P.L.E (Apple Puget Sound Program Library Exchange)
There was a program called "The Super Himem Bit Nibbler" because, I guess it didn't do anything but take up high memory. I always got a chuckle out of the fact that it was called "Super"
(how much could they possibly beat it?)
That's a whole other Ask Slashdot question!
from the article: "...I couldn't help but kick a hole through the ceiling, climb up on the rooftop and shout its praises at every passing soul"
Yep, he's from San Francisco.
I'm having trouble decoding this:
slashdot2@@@webhackande...se
don't select the Default Settings stuff
right. I always do a custom install. The thing is, I occasionally get an email that pops up a message asking me if I want to run a VB component. wtf? I just want the text - I don't even need bold or underlining. just the text. thanks. And no img link either.
you said you'd "remove the Vicious Basic support" so I thought maybe you knew something I didn't.
First thing I do when forced to install it for a client is to remove the Vicious Basic support
I didn't even know you could do that.
so that print of a picasso I have lowers the value of the original?
And how exactly is this a measure of how it would affect EMI/Sony etc who don't have a problem with running out of cds? For whom writing a CDR is considered more expensive than pressing 1000 too many?
I would like to purchase the Clash album _Return to Brixton_ and will gladly pay the copyright holder a reasonable fee for it. Unfortunately, it's out of print. The record company is unwilling to sell me this CD *at any price*
Yet if I download it they claim I've stolen something.
If they had half a brain, they'd burn it on a CD-R for me and sell it for around $9.
New computers would have several advantages:
I'm not flaming you here Crow, but I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about.
1) They would weigh less. That is probably the most important advantage.
how much less would they weigh and how much additional load would it allow the shuttle to carry? I think you'll find that upgrading the computers would let each astronaut take 1 extra pair of socks into orbit. So what?
2) They could do more calculations.
More calculation on what? Once the software has looked at all the data and made a decision, what is there left for it to do with all that processing power?
I'm guessing that the software may have failed to consider that a part that is not performing upto specifications is likely to have reduced structural integrity.)
Let's assume you're correct. Would a more powerful computer magically become sentient and figure that out? No. Using the same software a more powerful computer would make the same wrong decision - it would just make it a lot faster.
Even if the software was upgraded to take into account the structural integrity of the ship, that doesn't necessarily mean a more powerful computer is required. In fact, I'm sure that one of the results of the Columbia investigation will be such changes to the software, and I'm sure that the new software will still run just fine on the current computers.
In short, you haven't made your case.
In short, the industry has bullshitted Joe Public that you have to upgrade every year or so.
.NET.
That's it exactly. I can't count the number of times that someone at work has asked me why I'm still using Office 2K when the company bought
"What new features does it have?" I ask.
"I don't know, but it's better." They say.
Well, I call bullshit. Don't ask me to upgrade if you can't even explain what added benefit there'll be. It's the same with the shuttle. If there was some feature or computation that wasn't possible on the older hardware then I'd say fine, get newer computers. But, I don't think there are any. The current computers and accompanying software work and meet all the requirements.
The people that write the code for the Shuttle do great work, and the organization supports them. The result is software that's remarkably error-free. Like you, I admire them.
I hate it when clueless journalists say "the computers are old" So what? It's the software that's important and the software is top notch. They seem to imply that a pentium IV would have magically saved Columbia. That just isn't true. It's like saying improved metal detectors would have prevented 9/11.
Unless there is some added function that they could only implement only on newer hardware, I don't see why the shuttles need new computers. Naturally, these jouranlists will never ask "what additional functionality does the shuttle need that the current computers don't provide?" they aren't trying to get at the truth of an issue. they're trying to get people to watch - and the best way to do that is by stirring controversy. All it takes to do that is to say "Look! the comptuers are so old!"
Here's a quick and language independent example of how easy it is to miss a security hole in a web application: Say you've created a message board with the ability to edit posts. When a user clicks the edit button they get a form with a textarea to type in and the messageID as a hidden field. When they submit the form you do something like this in SQL:
UPDATE forum
SET comment = form.comment
WHERE messageID = form.messageID
Do you see the error there? I can edit the form to send a different messageID and change any comment I want. The solution?
WHERE messageID = form.messageID AND userID = cookie.userID
Because HTML is stateless, you have to authenticate the user on every hit and use that authenticated identity as part of every database action. How you do that is a subject unto itself!
At any rate, I just wanted to show how easy it is to introduce a serious security flaw into a web application. The only countermeasure is competent, careful coding.
Here's a tip for Jeff Hecht, the article's author: If you write a piece about a photograph, you *must* link to a copy of the photograph. Mkay?
. stm
For everyone else, here it is:
http://iota.jhuapl.edu/stuart.jpg
And here's a much better story about it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2592075
we wait for master to sleep. Yes!
Then we takes it! We takes the precious.
Rather than keep the entire entry at the 3rd party, you'd encrypt it with your public key and allow the 3rd party to datestamp it and cryptographically sign it.
Then you keep the signature and datestamp yourself and the 3rd party never actually knows what the plain text was that it's just datestamped.
Your naivety is amusing. There is no one who can find, let alone recover that satellite - assuming any of it survived.
Who do you propose they pay?
Their criteria sound pretty reasonable to me. They've tried to reach a balance between the rights of sysadmins to know their systems are vulnerable and their responsibility when the tell script kiddies about exploits before they've been fixed.
Now tell me how many inches in 10 miles and we'll talk.
Sorry. What good is that information?