While i agree that MS should be getting punished and its not (...)
Firstly, the law disagrees with you. Since the Department of Justice didn't ask for punitive damages, the court is not empowered to punish Microsoft, no matter how egregious you or the court feels their actions to be.
DoJ could have asked for punitive damages, but it is doubtful whether they would have been able to meet the burden of proof necessary to get them.
Secondly MS haven't been convicted of anything, or even charged with any crime, which is a necessary first step.
Once they have been convicted they are no longer "the accused".
Well, they haven't been convicted of or even charged with any crime. They have been sued for civil offences, and been found liable for some of them (so far) -- and also not liable for some others.
As far as punishment goes -- it's irrelevant, as DoJ didn't ask for punitive damages. All the judge is empowered to do is impose a remedy, if possible without being punitive.
Microsoft (...) have been convicted of crimes and bad business practices.
Well, first of all, Microsoft haven't been convicted of anything. They haven't been charged with any crime either, which is a necessary first step. It was a civil trial and they have been found liable for civil offences.
Secondly, the remedy is not supposed to be a punishment. Since punitive damages were not asked for, the judge is not permitted to impose a punitive remedy. She is required by law to impose a remedy that will fix the problem (by compensating victims and maybe preventing future abuse), if at all possible without punishing Microsoft.
Later you say:
If they have been convicted, punish them. Don't let the accused decide their fate. Would the justice department let a killer decide their sentence? I dont think so.
Well, as noted above, they haven't been convicted have they?
Arguing for a more lenient remedy is the right of every losing defendant. Even if Microsoft was a convicted criminal, and the remedy was a punishment, it would still be their right to argue for a more lenient one. Even killers are allowed to appeal their sentences.
the opinions expressed above are my own. As this is still a free country(I think) I am entitled to express my rights to free speech
The opinions you expressed are objectively wrong about the material facts enumerated above. You are still entitled to express them, but you are still wrong, no matter how protected your speech is.
Black hats know about vulnerabilities
1) Before they are fixed
2) Before the vendors inform owners of their software of the vulnerability
And how do they know? Occasionally they may discover them for themselves, but surely the gospel of Full Disclosure is good news for them.
Slapper is a good example, assume that slapper was out before the patch, if you know what it is and how it works you can just do a touch on the file it tries to compile to and set the rwx to 000.
Firstly, Slapper is an exploit, not a vulnerability. Information about how to defeat Slapper such as the example you just gave can be released without releasing any information about the vulnerability at all. That's a completely irrelevant example.
Secondly, it is often possible to release information about how to make systems less vulnerable without releasing any information about what the vulnerability is. What is inexcusable is giving script kiddies recipies to allow them to break into systems which can't be turned off because the vulnerable daemon is being used for a mission critical service. Such information should be kept strictly under wraps until a patch has been out for a couple of weeks at least.
kind of like (...) hoping nobody violates your system because you have not published a vulnerability.
No-one is going to compromise a vendor's product because they have not published a vulnerablility. They may do so because both of the following are true:
They have not patched the vulnerability and/or released information about how to close the hole on systems which can do so without harm
The information about how to exploit the vulnerability is in the public domain.
Because, the thing you seem to be missing is, that publishing vulnerability information doesn't automagically make the customer invulnerable. Perhaps you can explain why you think it does?
Security through obscurity is -- duh -- a useful additional tool when used in conjunction with a fanatical attitude to security and rapid patching of holes. There will always be a lead time of some period between the discovery of an exploit and the release of a tested patch, and the fewer people who know about it in the meantime the better.
Microsoft fall down because the speed at which they fix problems is too slow, not because they try to keep them from script kiddies in the intervening time.
As far as I can tell, this is a myth, fast becoming an urban (or online) legend, based around an exploit using WM_TIMER and WM_COPYDATA to exploit a badly written third party service.
Merely posting on/. saying "Someone against Microsoft is not necessarily correct" is not flamebait.
You just have to read the appeal ruling to see the incompentence and/or bias (hard to tell which it is). The fact that 1/3 of his rulings were overturned, and another third remanded back for retrial should be evidence enough.
Unless of course, failing to rule against Microsoft purely on the basis that, well, they're M$, the Beast of Redmond, dude, is conclusive proof that the appeals judges are biased. See the appeal ruling (or here if you can't bear to surf to microsoft.com).
Of course on the other hand, the fact that 1/3 weren't either overturned or remanded indicates that Microsoft were in the wrong and/or incompetent. In my opinion, the indications are that the J++ ruling at least was MS incompetence, though others are clearly MS bad.
Alt+Left and Alt+Right do History navigation in IE by default. Actually, I'm not sure why I said by default, because you can't change them.
You are correct to suggest that you ought to use access keys which are not already used by the browser. This probably restricts you to Alt+Number or Alt+Letter, where letter excludes [FEVATHD] as those are used to invoke menus by IE, or [SGB] additionally used by Netscape, and Alt+Shift+Key combinations. Ctrl+Letter combinations are generally used as shortcuts (Ctrl+C for copy etc).
Another thing really underused is tab order/tabstop, and labels.
Browsers already allow you to navigate through links using the Tab key (and Shift+Tab for the reverse direction, with Ctrl+Tab and Ctrl+Shift+Tab to move between frames, in IE at least). However it is very popular to have links at the top and left of web pages (see here at/., or just about any other large website). Since tab order is document order by default, this means that you would have to tab through all of these links before getting to the form you want to fill in.
Use of the HTML 4.0 tabIndex attribute allows you to put the form elements at the beginning of the tab order, as well as putting the initial input focus on the first item. The HTML 4.0 label element allows you to operate checkboxes and radio buttons by clicking on the label, as happens in Windows, and additionally, if you bind an accesskey to the label, that accesskey will give the focus to the associated control.
Long lists of links can't be given their own access keys (you will run out) But groups can be given accesskeys, and then tab used to select within the group.
Just a little thought and a little knowledge will make almost any page easily navigable by keyboard, with no change to the appearance, and no degredation to the experience of mouse users.
You appear to be missing the point. Someone with imperfect vision who has laser surgery takes a risk in order to obtain a benefit. They must judge whether the potential benefit is worth the risk. The worse their vision to begin with, the greater the benefit of the improvementSure if you go blind, it's still going to suck. But if everything goes to plan you get an improvement in your eyesight..
Someone with perfect vision who has unnecessary surgery is taking a risk with no offsetting benefit. As you point out, the risks are substantially the same. It is the potential benefit which makes the difference.
To prevent deadlock at a four-way stop intersection, take the car out of gear and put the handbrake on (or put it in park if you drive toy cars) and lean back with an "I'm not going anywhere" expression on your face until the other guy goes. If he doesn't take the hint, gesture him on with a localized gesture (maybe by flashing your headlights, or a wave of the hand - whatever it is in your locale).
Other possibilities include edging out slowly, to see if the other guy intends to go, and speeding up if he doesn't. If he does, you can brake, and maybe smile or nod if appropriate, thus giving him permission to go first. Eye contact is useful here.
Not every problem has to be solved with a big book of rules or a documented procedure. Life is not software engineering.
Copyright for Collage Artists. Under the "Common Myths" section, this fellow says you can be forced to destroy a collage created without permission.
I can't find more references right now. Reading some of the other posts suggests that it may come down to whether a copy was made in the process of editing it, which if they are using video tape, is almost certainly true.
Actually you are wrong. Cutting a work up and making something else out of it, even if you own the copy you cut up, is, in law, creating a derivative work, and may violate copyright as much as making a copy does.
One of the canonical examples of derivative works is the collage. There is also a more recent case in which an artist was found liable for buying postcards and modifying them without permission (making an attractive ornament in this case -- I think he embedded it in resin or something). He then sold the ornaments. This was held to be creating a derivative work.
So nice try, but no picture of Queen Victoria.
what's the alternative? Windows XP?
on
KDE Adopting Mono
·
· Score: 1
What about those nice new laws that have been brought in by the UN...
What laws are those then?
...that effectively mean every single country on the planet may be held accountable to every other country's laws?
So I'm subject to Sharia law now?
Just because you don't live in the US doesn't mean that your IP is safe from their laws.
If it's your IP, then what is the danger from their laws? You can give it away if you want, or you can rely on the laws of every other country in the world (bar a couple) protecting it for you.
Or perhaps you are objecting to the fact that US law now protects the IP of citizens of other countries?
I don't go so far as to think that the only good Indians are dead Indians, but I believe nine out of ten are, and I shouldn't like to inquire too closely into the case of the tenth
Now, if he was talking to you personally, then you might have a case, as people want to settle on a specific
ontology when speaking directly to one another.
I think you mean terminology, not ontology. To be unnecessarily picky.
To put it another way, it is because the NYPD have better things to spend their resources on that the RIAA invests their own cash in training officers. After all police forces have all sorts of things to do, many of which are more important than some of the other things they do.
Slashdot Mirror
Firstly, the law disagrees with you. Since the Department of Justice didn't ask for punitive damages, the court is not empowered to punish Microsoft, no matter how egregious you or the court feels their actions to be.
DoJ could have asked for punitive damages, but it is doubtful whether they would have been able to meet the burden of proof necessary to get them.
Secondly MS haven't been convicted of anything, or even charged with any crime, which is a necessary first step.
Well, they haven't been convicted of or even charged with any crime. They have been sued for civil offences, and been found liable for some of them (so far) -- and also not liable for some others.
As far as punishment goes -- it's irrelevant, as DoJ didn't ask for punitive damages. All the judge is empowered to do is impose a remedy, if possible without being punitive.
This is not insightful at all. You say:
Well, first of all, Microsoft haven't been convicted of anything. They haven't been charged with any crime either, which is a necessary first step. It was a civil trial and they have been found liable for civil offences.
Secondly, the remedy is not supposed to be a punishment. Since punitive damages were not asked for, the judge is not permitted to impose a punitive remedy. She is required by law to impose a remedy that will fix the problem (by compensating victims and maybe preventing future abuse), if at all possible without punishing Microsoft.
Later you say:
Well, as noted above, they haven't been convicted have they?
Arguing for a more lenient remedy is the right of every losing defendant. Even if Microsoft was a convicted criminal, and the remedy was a punishment, it would still be their right to argue for a more lenient one. Even killers are allowed to appeal their sentences.
The opinions you expressed are objectively wrong about the material facts enumerated above. You are still entitled to express them, but you are still wrong, no matter how protected your speech is.
And how do they know? Occasionally they may discover them for themselves, but surely the gospel of Full Disclosure is good news for them.
Firstly, Slapper is an exploit, not a vulnerability. Information about how to defeat Slapper such as the example you just gave can be released without releasing any information about the vulnerability at all. That's a completely irrelevant example.
Secondly, it is often possible to release information about how to make systems less vulnerable without releasing any information about what the vulnerability is. What is inexcusable is giving script kiddies recipies to allow them to break into systems which can't be turned off because the vulnerable daemon is being used for a mission critical service. Such information should be kept strictly under wraps until a patch has been out for a couple of weeks at least.
No-one is going to compromise a vendor's product because they have not published a vulnerablility. They may do so because both of the following are true:
Because, the thing you seem to be missing is, that publishing vulnerability information doesn't automagically make the customer invulnerable. Perhaps you can explain why you think it does?
Care to tell me your password then?
Security through obscurity is -- duh -- a useful additional tool when used in conjunction with a fanatical attitude to security and rapid patching of holes. There will always be a lead time of some period between the discovery of an exploit and the release of a tested patch, and the fewer people who know about it in the meantime the better.
Microsoft fall down because the speed at which they fix problems is too slow, not because they try to keep them from script kiddies in the intervening time.
What are these unpatchable holes?
As far as I can tell, this is a myth, fast becoming an urban (or online) legend, based around an exploit using WM_TIMER and WM_COPYDATA to exploit a badly written third party service.
Care to substantiate this? Am I wrong?
Perhaps you could elaborate on the alleged unapatchable holes in Windows Messages?
Or read this insightful summary: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=37504&cid=4025 529
Do people hate muslims? Who hates? Who do they hate?
I don't think that people in general hate muslims.
Merely posting on /. saying "Someone against Microsoft is not necessarily correct" is not flamebait.
You just have to read the appeal ruling to see the incompentence and/or bias (hard to tell which it is). The fact that 1/3 of his rulings were overturned, and another third remanded back for retrial should be evidence enough.
Unless of course, failing to rule against Microsoft purely on the basis that, well, they're M$, the Beast of Redmond, dude, is conclusive proof that the appeals judges are biased. See the appeal ruling (or here if you can't bear to surf to microsoft.com).
Of course on the other hand, the fact that 1/3 weren't either overturned or remanded indicates that Microsoft were in the wrong and/or incompetent. In my opinion, the indications are that the J++ ruling at least was MS incompetence, though others are clearly MS bad.
Get them on the list? If it hasn't worked for the UK with our oh-so-special relationship, it's unlikely to work for Spain.
No! I won! Hahahahahaahha!
Acutally you may well have the first prost... I've never seen one.
Alt+Left and Alt+Right do History navigation in IE by default. Actually, I'm not sure why I said by default, because you can't change them.
You are correct to suggest that you ought to use access keys which are not already used by the browser. This probably restricts you to Alt+Number or Alt+Letter, where letter excludes [FEVATHD] as those are used to invoke menus by IE, or [SGB] additionally used by Netscape, and Alt+Shift+Key combinations. Ctrl+Letter combinations are generally used as shortcuts (Ctrl+C for copy etc).
Another thing really underused is tab order/tabstop, and labels.
Browsers already allow you to navigate through links using the Tab key (and Shift+Tab for the reverse direction, with Ctrl+Tab and Ctrl+Shift+Tab to move between frames, in IE at least). However it is very popular to have links at the top and left of web pages (see here at /., or just about any other large website). Since tab order is document order by default, this means that you would have to tab through all of these links before getting to the form you want to fill in.
Use of the HTML 4.0 tabIndex attribute allows you to put the form elements at the beginning of the tab order, as well as putting the initial input focus on the first item. The HTML 4.0 label element allows you to operate checkboxes and radio buttons by clicking on the label, as happens in Windows, and additionally, if you bind an accesskey to the label, that accesskey will give the focus to the associated control.
Long lists of links can't be given their own access keys (you will run out) But groups can be given accesskeys, and then tab used to select within the group.
Just a little thought and a little knowledge will make almost any page easily navigable by keyboard, with no change to the appearance, and no degredation to the experience of mouse users.
You appear to be missing the point. Someone with imperfect vision who has laser surgery takes a risk in order to obtain a benefit. They must judge whether the potential benefit is worth the risk. The worse their vision to begin with, the greater the benefit of the improvementSure if you go blind, it's still going to suck. But if everything goes to plan you get an improvement in your eyesight. .
Someone with perfect vision who has unnecessary surgery is taking a risk with no offsetting benefit. As you point out, the risks are substantially the same. It is the potential benefit which makes the difference.
Remember, it's not a competition!
To prevent deadlock at a four-way stop intersection, take the car out of gear and put the handbrake on (or put it in park if you drive toy cars) and lean back with an "I'm not going anywhere" expression on your face until the other guy goes. If he doesn't take the hint, gesture him on with a localized gesture (maybe by flashing your headlights, or a wave of the hand - whatever it is in your locale).
Other possibilities include edging out slowly, to see if the other guy intends to go, and speeding up if he doesn't. If he does, you can brake, and maybe smile or nod if appropriate, thus giving him permission to go first. Eye contact is useful here.
Not every problem has to be solved with a big book of rules or a documented procedure. Life is not software engineering.
Well, I was going from memory, but Google search on "copyright collage derivative" threw up:
I can't find more references right now. Reading some of the other posts suggests that it may come down to whether a copy was made in the process of editing it, which if they are using video tape, is almost certainly true.
Actually you are wrong. Cutting a work up and making something else out of it, even if you own the copy you cut up, is, in law, creating a derivative work, and may violate copyright as much as making a copy does.
One of the canonical examples of derivative works is the collage. There is also a more recent case in which an artist was found liable for buying postcards and modifying them without permission (making an attractive ornament in this case -- I think he embedded it in resin or something). He then sold the ornaments. This was held to be creating a derivative work.
So nice try, but no picture of Queen Victoria.
Well, Yeah.
What laws are those then?
So I'm subject to Sharia law now?
If it's your IP, then what is the danger from their laws? You can give it away if you want, or you can rely on the laws of every other country in the world (bar a couple) protecting it for you.
Or perhaps you are objecting to the fact that US law now protects the IP of citizens of other countries?
Would that be the Teddy Roosevelt who said
I think you mean terminology, not ontology. To be unnecessarily picky.
Or it may be Quake.
_w_
asd
I suspect a lot of those keystrokes were WWWWWWWWWWWWWWW wwwwwwwwwwwwww WWWWWWWD ddddddddd WWWDWDWDWDWDWDWD SSSSSSSSSSS
Classic Cop line (from The Untouchables):
To put it another way, it is because the NYPD have better things to spend their resources on that the RIAA invests their own cash in training officers. After all police forces have all sorts of things to do, many of which are more important than some of the other things they do.
Which court was this?