Thats a good argument if I asked why I shouldn't use Windows. But they did engineer the.NET CLR for security. It's been out for well over a year, and in betas much longer, can you point to a single vulnerability?
As long as it would be understood what the trade offs were as there is no open source platform equivilant to the.NET platform. That's not an argument. Looking back, the comment was reffering to something out of the scope of what the WASP paper covers, so I won't comment further on this.
I have perused the WASP security guide and they do a good job of covering the most common exploitation methods. I have decided to use the WASP paper as a foundation document for the security practices of our team. The security of your web application, like many other things has dependancies like the OS and web server software. The saying that security is only as strong as your weakest link comes to mind, but the important thing to note here is that the WASP paper concentrates on the realm of web applications only. Concepts like failing closed when you encounter errors are important logical conventions to implement in order to make your application secure. EVERY web application developer needs to understand the material covered by the WASP.
1. In spoken conversation, the most important and practical objective is for both parties to understand what is being communicated, and on some level of agreement. Therefore, using slang, tone of voice, expressive sounds, etc. should be encouraged to allow effective communication. Online chatting is really a typographical way of speaking.
2. In written language, precisely because of a lack of meta language it is important that we agree on a syntax that allows for exact (or reasonably close) interpretation of what is being communicated. Substitution opens the door for non-standard communication, and this crowd understands the importance of standard protocol for communication. Students must learn and prove that they have learned this before they grow up to become a functional illiterate of society like the rest of us;)
Its the ratio of tax on business. And goverment in the US has well established practices for the release of technology so that it may be incubated in a commercial environment. Your thoughts of taxation being for the *right* to operate as an entity in a capitalist society are concerning.
So long as there is a desire to have the product without paying for it, there WILL be someone capable of producing software which makes the masses giggle as they unlock their new free software. It looks as if MS is doing better if this software takes hour(s) to generate a key. I must be run on each computer individually if my understanding is correct? Eventually their efforts will pay off in the same way the rediculous measures many companies are putting in place to stop CASUAL copying of software. Either that, or it will explode into a revolution where skilled crackers have had enough and produce cracks that render the measures transparent for entire masses of people. Downloading ISO's is getting much easier these days.. they will have to do something.
I wish just for once.. i could read about a problem with kids and hear about a solution instead of some rediculous feel good legislation.. For gods sake help these kids.. become mentors.. work on getting better parenting for them. Solve the F*cking problem! Making them leave an internet cafe is brilliant?! So they walk down to the local park, field, parking lot.. and kill each other there. The people in charge don't care enough to do anything that would make a positive difference so they do something.. just so they cant be accused of doing nothing. It disgusts me.
I have never understood the copy protection being built into the media.. I have a soundblaster live gamerFX and it has a digital out connection.. as well as the ability to record "what you hear" So why in the hell are they making fair use for the average consumer basically disappear? They will never be able to prevent someone from copying the audio.. audio devices are designed to record as well as play and that will not change.
We hold a lot of material things to be precious.. but there is no material loss comparable to the terrible pain and loss associated with warfare against humans. Perhaps one day we will engage with machinery.. but inevitably it will escalate to loss of human life on both sides.. That is my fear.. that it will be all too appealing to engage.. without comprehending the outcome. War escalates.. it always escalates until one side has been defeated. Once the machines lay scattered on the battleground the remaining forces will take the war to the enemies homes. The danger lies in how easy it is to destroy so many lives at the push of a button. Humans are distinguished by conscience.. if we allow ourselves to become detached from the pain that results in our actions.. we will loose the ability to measure what is just, and fall back a little from what moral humans try to be.
Michael mentions that he will be targeting savy users to purchase and download his software.. so Im just wondering.. how many/. crew that are savy enough to realise this is KDE/Wine.. are going to pay him to get what they can get for free minus the pretty little logo? Also you will still be required to purchase a license for each seat you plan to run the MS product on. Porting the entire windows API is a bad idea.. trying to sell it is a really bad idea.. trying to sell it while infringing on a trademark of a monster.. *shakes head*
Why suggest that standards development somehow have to integrate patents into the standard? I firmly believe that there are a multitude of ways to do things correctly. Not always is one way actually better or worse, just different. So why not shoot higher when developing standards. If you find that the functionality offered by a patented technology would complement a standard, then think of a better way to implement the functionality. Lift the standard above and beyond the bar put in place by commercial research. If that were your stated mission I think you would find a large community standing up to help.
I have been looking at.NET for a long time now and at first I too was somewhat confused about what the definition was..NET is not a product or a server or even a platform, rather it is all of these things. The.NET My Services in my opinion should not be considered a part of.NET the platform, instead think of it in the sense of an ASP (provider not page) Microsoft is using the web services platform built on.NET specifications to develop a suite of services. End users will see the use of these services for free by way of applications which have integrated the services. The developers who integrate the Microsoft services into their application will have to pay a fee, similar to licensing components for application development today. The price may seem a little steep but realize that not only are they providing a functional service for your application, they provide the infrastructure to ensure that the service is available to meet your application user's demands. I myself don't see the day that I would use the.NET My Services, however, the platform that is exposed by the collective effort from Microsoft across their development and server products is a very exciting one. So I respect.NET for what I feel is a good vision for distributed development, and where I don't agree with Microsoft, I am not forced to.
I understand this to mean that each pixel in the RGB triplet is in a switched state of either on (white) or off (black). So there is no adjustment for the brightness of each individual pixel. Doesn't this mean that the color space will be fairly limited? RGB has 256 levels of brightness for each of the primary colors to create the full spectrum. =\
JP
Slashdot Mirror
Thats a good argument if I asked why I shouldn't use Windows. But they did engineer the .NET CLR for security. It's been out for well over a year, and in betas much longer, can you point to a single vulnerability?
As long as it would be understood what the trade offs were as there is no open source platform equivilant to the .NET platform. That's not an argument. Looking back, the comment was reffering to something out of the scope of what the WASP paper covers, so I won't comment further on this.
Why not use .NET? What security problems can you cite with the .NET architecture alone? What would you propose take its place?
I have perused the WASP security guide and they do a good job of covering the most common exploitation methods. I have decided to use the WASP paper as a foundation document for the security practices of our team. The security of your web application, like many other things has dependancies like the OS and web server software. The saying that security is only as strong as your weakest link comes to mind, but the important thing to note here is that the WASP paper concentrates on the realm of web applications only. Concepts like failing closed when you encounter errors are important logical conventions to implement in order to make your application secure. EVERY web application developer needs to understand the material covered by the WASP.
There are two arguments here.
;)
1. In spoken conversation, the most important and practical objective is for both parties to understand what is being communicated, and on some level of agreement. Therefore, using slang, tone of voice, expressive sounds, etc. should be encouraged to allow effective communication. Online chatting is really a typographical way of speaking.
2. In written language, precisely because of a lack of meta language it is important that we agree on a syntax that allows for exact (or reasonably close) interpretation of what is being communicated. Substitution opens the door for non-standard communication, and this crowd understands the importance of standard protocol for communication. Students must learn and prove that they have learned this before they grow up to become a functional illiterate of society like the rest of us
Its the ratio of tax on business. And goverment in the US has well established practices for the release of technology so that it may be incubated in a commercial environment. Your thoughts of taxation being for the *right* to operate as an entity in a capitalist society are concerning.
How is this game at all like urbanterror? An RTS compared to a FPS? Im not sure I understand. Could just be me :)
So long as there is a desire to have the product without paying for it, there WILL be someone capable of producing software which makes the masses giggle as they unlock their new free software. It looks as if MS is doing better if this software takes hour(s) to generate a key. I must be run on each computer individually if my understanding is correct? Eventually their efforts will pay off in the same way the rediculous measures many companies are putting in place to stop CASUAL copying of software. Either that, or it will explode into a revolution where skilled crackers have had enough and produce cracks that render the measures transparent for entire masses of people. Downloading ISO's is getting much easier these days.. they will have to do something.
I wish just for once.. i could read about a problem with kids and hear about a solution instead of some rediculous feel good legislation.. For gods sake help these kids.. become mentors.. work on getting better parenting for them. Solve the F*cking problem! Making them leave an internet cafe is brilliant?! So they walk down to the local park, field, parking lot.. and kill each other there. The people in charge don't care enough to do anything that would make a positive difference so they do something.. just so they cant be accused of doing nothing. It disgusts me.
I have never understood the copy protection being built into the media.. I have a soundblaster live gamerFX and it has a digital out connection.. as well as the ability to record "what you hear" So why in the hell are they making fair use for the average consumer basically disappear? They will never be able to prevent someone from copying the audio.. audio devices are designed to record as well as play and that will not change.
We hold a lot of material things to be precious.. but there is no material loss comparable to the terrible pain and loss associated with warfare against humans. Perhaps one day we will engage with machinery.. but inevitably it will escalate to loss of human life on both sides.. That is my fear.. that it will be all too appealing to engage.. without comprehending the outcome. War escalates.. it always escalates until one side has been defeated. Once the machines lay scattered on the battleground the remaining forces will take the war to the enemies homes. The danger lies in how easy it is to destroy so many lives at the push of a button. Humans are distinguished by conscience.. if we allow ourselves to become detached from the pain that results in our actions.. we will loose the ability to measure what is just, and fall back a little from what moral humans try to be.
Michael mentions that he will be targeting savy users to purchase and download his software.. so Im just wondering.. how many /. crew that are savy enough to realise this is KDE/Wine.. are going to pay him to get what they can get for free minus the pretty little logo? Also you will still be required to purchase a license for each seat you plan to run the MS product on. Porting the entire windows API is a bad idea.. trying to sell it is a really bad idea.. trying to sell it while infringing on a trademark of a monster.. *shakes head*
Why suggest that standards development somehow have to integrate patents into the standard? I firmly believe that there are a multitude of ways to do things correctly. Not always is one way actually better or worse, just different. So why not shoot higher when developing standards. If you find that the functionality offered by a patented technology would complement a standard, then think of a better way to implement the functionality. Lift the standard above and beyond the bar put in place by commercial research. If that were your stated mission I think you would find a large community standing up to help.
I have been looking at .NET for a long time now and at first I too was somewhat confused about what the definition was. .NET is not a product or a server or even a platform, rather it is all of these things. The .NET My Services in my opinion should not be considered a part of .NET the platform, instead think of it in the sense of an ASP (provider not page) Microsoft is using the web services platform built on .NET specifications to develop a suite of services. End users will see the use of these services for free by way of applications which have integrated the services. The developers who integrate the Microsoft services into their application will have to pay a fee, similar to licensing components for application development today. The price may seem a little steep but realize that not only are they providing a functional service for your application, they provide the infrastructure to ensure that the service is available to meet your application user's demands. I myself don't see the day that I would use the .NET My Services, however, the platform that is exposed by the collective effort from Microsoft across their development and server products is a very exciting one. So I respect .NET for what I feel is a good vision for distributed development, and where I don't agree with Microsoft, I am not forced to.
I understand this to mean that each pixel in the RGB triplet is in a switched state of either on (white) or off (black). So there is no adjustment for the brightness of each individual pixel. Doesn't this mean that the color space will be fairly limited? RGB has 256 levels of brightness for each of the primary colors to create the full spectrum. =\ JP