Like, why was Microsoft talking to anyone about funding for TSG? How can a monopoly justify interfering in any way attacks on possible competitors?
Like, what difference does it make if the executive was not BG or SB? Those are not the only executives at MSFT, and they are not the only executives capable of committing MSFT to some kind of deal with BayStar.
Like, according to a link posted somewhere above (this one) Microsoft was one of the ten top investors in BayStar, so any investment by BayStar MAY have a Microsoft thumbprint on it.
Such reactions could include: -Getting the infringing code removed and hope it hasn't spread everywhere; and/or
Yes.
-Suing the project, the employee, any user for damages; and/or
No. They could sue the employee, as the employee took something of value from the company and made it less valuable to the company - i.e., theft, conversion, etc.
They could sue the project to prevent them using the code, but if the project accepted the software in good faith, they would have no liability for damages - unless they refused to remove the code when its illegal origin is shown.
The users are not liable for anything to the company.
-Taking it and moving on
Yes.
How about ASKING the project to not use the code? Why should a law suit be first on the list? Show the project what code you are claiming, show where it is in the project, and show how it got there and that that process was not legal. I am sure the project would be HAPPY to work with the company to remove the offending code and replace it with non-offending code. Of course, If a company came and said the project was using code that was improperly included, but refused to say what code, where it was located in the project, or why they thought it was improperly included, the project should respond with "go pound sand".
I imagine that option 2 would attract a lot of ire from the slashdot crowd
I imagine option 2 would attract a lot of ire from ANYONE with even a hint of a clue, not just the slashdot crowd.
However, what possible justification can Microsoft have for calling ANY (one or hundreds of) companies on TSGs behalf?
Would not ANY interference, on ANY scale by Microsoft be improper based on their legal standing as a monopoly? If so, the litmus test you propose is of no worth. The question devolves into a true/false, black/white, 0/1, yes/no situation and a litmus test is not needed.
Well, if a Microsoft representative called Baystar from his private phone during a holiday, then it was technically not Microsoft who orchestated this.
Wrong. If an employee, in the preformance of assigned duties or at the direction of their employer - or even just with the knowledge of the employer, or if the employer SHOULD HAVE KNOWN - performs an illegal act, the company is responsible. In addition, the company does not lose their liability if the employee is told to wait until a non-working day and use a phone other than their office phone.
If the employee, on their own, with no knowledge or approval, or expectation of approval of their employer did whatever evil and nefarious act, then the employer is not responsible or liable.
In this case, if a person identified themselves as a Microsoft representative to BayStar and in some way gave BayStar the idea that Microsoft was interested in BayStar doing a deal with TSG, and BayStar, acting on the belief that it was in fact a Microsoft representative and a Microsoft request, entered in to the deal with TSG, then Microsoft IS technically "orchestrating this."
I wonder if Microsoft could be sued at all for unfair competition if Bill Gates chose to openly fund SCO shares from his private money?
Interesting thought. The answer is "No, to a point."
If B.G. buys stock on the open market, he is buying from some other individual that owned the stock. D.McB. might like that - especially if he is buying the stock from D.McB. - but TSG (the company) would derive no benefit from the transactions.
Up to a certain point he doesn't even have to declare his stock ownership (I believe it is around 5% of outstanding shares) - and it would take a much larger number of shares to actually be able to manipulate the actions of the company.
The BayStar transactions, on the other hand, directly funded the further operations of TSG - including the attacks on Linux (and Linus) which seen to be in line with (and possible intended to further?) Microsofts' interests.
Remember that there are things that a free marke company CAN do that a MONOPOLIST CAN'T do. This would seem, in my opinion, to be one of those things...
Solid state disks solve the problem of physical constraints by replacing hard disk drives with high speed circuitry. Instead of a rotating disk, a solid state disk uses memory chips (typically SDRAM)
So the data is volatile.
The immediate concern voiced about solid state disks regards data persistence and volatility. Unlike magnetic disk drives, SDRAM-based disks require power to maintain their data. The solution to this is surprisingly simple: solid state disks includes backup batteries and backup hard disk drives so that any data written to the SDRAM can be mirrored to or backed-up onto these drives.
Texas Memory Systems solid state disks have a 20 microsecond access time (250 times faster than hard disk drives).
and 400 times slower than 50 nanosecond DRAM (2000 times slower than 10 nanosecond static ram!..)
I wonder why the access time for the RamSan is so high - 50-150 nanoseconds access for SDRAM and 20,000 nanoseconds for the RamSan 340?
1. Vulnerability discovered 2. Patch conceived of and created 3. Patch tested 4. Patch released, studied and "known" by virus writers. -- notice my change to your list 5. Exploit Created
"We have never had vulnerabilities exploited before the patch was known." == never before 4.
"he could think of at least one instance where 'a vulnerability was exploited before a patch was available'" == one before 4.
Once again, we are back to what I said above - both statements can not be true at the same time.
The only way you are correct is if they are saying there was never an exploit before the patch WAS KNOWN TO MS - i.e., #2 in your listing. That is not the contention of hte article.In the article they maintain that there are no exploits before the patches WERE RELEASED by Microsoft( == #4 in your listing), and that virus writers are studying the patches AFTER THEY ARE RELEASED to create their viral software.
Based on the article, I am reading the quotes as "We have never had vulnerabilities exploited before the patch was [released and] known [to the exploit writers]" and "I know of one exploit that was created before the patch was released [and known to the exploit writers]", or 0==1. That is false in the real world.
You are correct in that, from Microsofts' viewpoint your listing (actually my second listing with corrections to your listing) is the actual sequence of events. But the article is saying that, to the outside world, my original sequence is correct - unless you are wanting to claim that the exploit writers are insiders at Microsoft? That is the only way thay can have access to all the patches before they are released to the world.
1) Vulnerability discovered. 2) Patch created, distributed. 3) Exploit created (from study of patch).
This MS spokesperson is claiming that "We have never had vulnerabilities exploited before the patch was known." - i.e., EVERY exploit came after the patch was available (AFTER #2 above) but he also states that he could think of at least one instance where "a vulnerability was exploited before a patch was available" (BEFORE #2 above).
As the parent poster stated, it is either never or not never; it can't be both BEFORE and AFTER #2 above at the same time.
I thought SPAM was unwanted bulk email. So you are saying the programs are 10 times more accurate in knowing if the email is unwanted by me than I am?
Or are they saying it is 10 times more accurate in identifying bulk email - whether it is wanted or not?
Wanted bulk email != SPAM.
What I want is a filter that round-files anything that "calls home" or otherwise sends information when opened. I can slog though the rest and make my own determination as to whether it is wanted or not.
MACHINE: This email is like other email you did not want, so you don't want it either. ME: Wait a minute, I DO want to read that. MACHINE: No you don't. I am more accurate than you, so you don't want to read it. Me: Yes...master...I...don't...want...to...read...it... MACHINE: These are not the 'droids you want. ME: These...are...not..the...'droids...we...want... M ACHINE: Move along ME: Move...along...
Very good. Now look up 'attestation' on the same site:
definition \At`tes*ta"tion\, n. [L. attestatio: cf. F. attestation.] The act of attesting; testimony; witness; a solemn or official declaration, verbal or written, in support of a fact; evidence. The truth appears from the attestation of witnesses, or of the proper officer. The subscription of a name to a writing as a witness, is an attestation.
Solemn. Official. Evidence. Truth
If you are accused of robbing a 7-11 and I said - in court - "Yes, your honor, I saw him do it" even though I was not anywhere I could have seen anything of the sort, then I am bearing false witness. I am giving testmony in a solemn, official event and manor in support of a fact or evidence while the testimony is not true. I would be lying which involved my not witnessing something - which you claim is not possible. Maybe you did rob the 7-11?
If I ask you if the Bible is in fact the word of God and you said "yes, I know it is." then you have just borne false witness as there is no way to know, only to believe in the truth or falsity of whethter the Bible is in fact the word of God.
"Yes, I believe it is and I feel strongly that way." is bearing true witness - you have stated the truth about your belief, not about a fact that can not be verified.
So you are saying the parent poster should lie to the judge?
I agree they sound pleased that they did not have to serve on the jury, but if they are not lying, then not serving on the jury is a decision the JUDGE is making, not the potential juror.
Your statement about "you'd rather not do your civic duty" is totally off base - nothing was said by the parent poster about not wanting to be on the jury(ies), only about their belief in the juries being able to act in a legal manor that is inconvenient to the legal system.
"[A]nd would rather get off without serving." is also without merit. The parent poster did not say they were responding to the judge in that manor to "get off without serving" - notice the part that says " "No, I am a strong proponent of jury nullification"...and it happens to be the truth!"
I find it disturbing that you seem to think 1) that stating the truth about your feelings or beliefs is wrong, 2) lying in court is acceptable, and 3) you have any business passing judgement on others in a public forum.
Just think of the hospital in Florida that outsourced medical transcription to someone, who outsourced it again, until eventually, some Pakistani woman was upset that that she was not getting paid, and threatened to release all of the info onto the web.
Even though I agree with what you said, getting the details wrong does little to advance the case with others.
It was the UCSF Medical Center (University of California at San Francisco) not a hospital in Florida - unless someone else did the exact same thing...
The amount of testing that has to go into a change like this is immense. For example, if they release a patch for WinXP, they have to make sure it works with WinXP RTM, WinXP SP1, WinXP SP2, etc. Include testing for permutations of major server applications.
I can't believe you said that.
You are arguing that, because they release crappy software that needs so much patching, they are then excused from making timely bug fixes if those bug fixes MIGHT break the already existing crappy software?!?
Microsoft has to be accountable for making sure any change will work on millions of server.
From their EULA:
Microsoft and its suppliers provide to you the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, and any (if any) support services relating to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (Support Services) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS; and Microsoft and its suppliers hereby disclaim with respect to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and Support Services all warranties and conditions, whether express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) warranties, duties or conditions of or related to: merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, lack of viruses, accuracy or completeness of responses, results, workmanlike effort and lack of negligence. also there is no warranty, duty or condition of title, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION or non-infringement. The entire risk arising out of use or performance of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT AND ANY SUPPORT SERVICES remains with YOU.
To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event shall Microsoft or its suppliers be liable for any special, incidental, indirect, punitive or consequential damages whatsoever (including, but not limited to, damages for: loss of profits, loss of confidential or other information, business interruption, personal injury, loss of privacy, failure to meet any duty (including of good faith or of reasonable care), negligence, and any other pecuniary or other loss whatsoever) arising out of or in any way related to the use of or inability to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or the Support Services, or the provision of or failure to provide Support Services, or otherwise under or in connection with any provision of this EULA, even if Microsoft or any supplier has been advised of the possibility of such damages. (all emphysis added)
Looks to me like they CAN'T be held accountable FOR ANYTHING they or you do with or to the software.
The same Intuit that agreed to be bought by Microsoft in 1995 for 1.5 Billion dollars until the deal was called off by the justice department as being "anticompetitive"?
Requesting a validation from every unknown emailer would also send a signal to the spammer that they have hit a valid email address - now they just need to penetrate the spam filter.
1) Send email to billions of addreses. 2) Collect the verification requests (all being valid addresses). 3) ???? 4) Profit!
And if they send a confirmation that you accept (social engineering?), they have a free route into your machine again because they are now on your list of 'safe' addresses.
You are describing a self-generating whitelist. A problem with that is there needs to be a mechanism in place to remove entries from the whitelist if/when they are hijacked or zombied by spammers. If that is not automatic as well, you have only placed a stumbling block in their path, not a barrier.
If every person required a validation before accepting email from any other person, then a race situation would result and no email would be allowed from anyone or to anyone.
You send me an email, I send you an email requesting confirmation, you send a reply to my confirmation request requesting a confirmation, I send...
Yes it would stop spam dead. It would also stop ALL email dead.
Was it Stalin who said that to solve any crime, look first to the people who benefit the most?
I like it! Isn't it interesting that the trojan horse (requires user action to activate, tries to scam the user to act) requires Microsoft Windows to propogate, but Microsoft is not offering the bounty as they did the last two times? Instead their puppet state SCOG is offering the bounty, while spinning it that it "MUST" be originating from a disgruntled linux user?
By the way, I read that the MyDoom.b targets Microsoft, not SCOG, and that both also can install a keylogger to grab keystrokes as well as a backdoor (for whatever purpose - SPAM relay?)
Yep, sounds like a linux user to me. NOT. Sounds like someone who knows *Windows* programming or a script kiddie to me.
I would have expected more from a low/. number, but I guess idiots on slashdot is not something new - although I do applaude your staying power...
I guess in your 'non-bizzare' world it is GOOD of the tobacco companies to give away free cigarettes to GIs- as they did in several wars - to get them addicted, then SELL them cigarettes when they came home - no more free, show us the money!
I am sure someone will point out the drug dealer "first one is free" situation as well.
Linux and its distros are given away freely everyday.
"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime"--Author unknown
Microsoft is "giving a fish", Linux is both "giving a fish" and "teaching to fish".
Note to moderators - if no information is being given in a post, it probably ISN'T informative.
As for the parent post, RTFA. They are giving software and money, over five years totaling $1B - there is no indication of how much money is involved. In addition, they say they are giving 'latest versions' of the software - probbably being accounted at the 'latest prices' as well. If I remember correctly, their profit margin has historically been 80-90%.
After reading the article, there is no mention of whether this software is full boxed versions, enterprise versions, some blank CDs they had laying around and decided to copy the software to, or what.
Microsoft would donate cash and the latest versions of its software, but the centers were free to expand with other software, including open source software such as Linux... , Gates said.
"They'll be adding software from other providers. There's no exclusivity," he said. "Our role is to bring software that is quite popular, and happens to be ours."
Slashdot Mirror
Sign in so slashdot readers can know who they are laughing at, or remain Anonymous and be ignored.
Yep, you are missing something.
Like, why was Microsoft talking to anyone about funding for TSG? How can a monopoly justify interfering in any way attacks on possible competitors?
Like, what difference does it make if the executive was not BG or SB? Those are not the only executives at MSFT, and they are not the only executives capable of committing MSFT to some kind of deal with BayStar.
Like, according to a link posted somewhere above (this one) Microsoft was one of the ten top investors in BayStar, so any investment by BayStar MAY have a Microsoft thumbprint on it.
Like "A Microsoft spokesman says that the company has no "direct or indirect" financial relations with BayStar" despite the pdf file linked to above found on BayStar's web site.
Nice shot at trolling, but better luck next time...
Personally, I think this should be considered grounds for hold-out States...
Yeah, all one of them...
Everyone else settled.
Such reactions could include:
-Getting the infringing code removed and hope it hasn't spread everywhere; and/or
Yes.
-Suing the project, the employee, any user for damages; and/or
No. They could sue the employee, as the employee took something of value from the company and made it less valuable to the company - i.e., theft, conversion, etc.
They could sue the project to prevent them using the code, but if the project accepted the software in good faith, they would have no liability for damages - unless they refused to remove the code when its illegal origin is shown.
The users are not liable for anything to the company.
-Taking it and moving on
Yes.
How about ASKING the project to not use the code? Why should a law suit be first on the list? Show the project what code you are claiming, show where it is in the project, and show how it got there and that that process was not legal. I am sure the project would be HAPPY to work with the company to remove the offending code and replace it with non-offending code. Of course, If a company came and said the project was using code that was improperly included, but refused to say what code, where it was located in the project, or why they thought it was improperly included, the project should respond with "go pound sand".
I imagine that option 2 would attract a lot of ire from the slashdot crowd
I imagine option 2 would attract a lot of ire from ANYONE with even a hint of a clue, not just the slashdot crowd.
Good day,
And a good day to you, troll.
STOP FEEDING THE TROLLS!!
Interesting thought.
However, what possible justification can Microsoft have for calling ANY (one or hundreds of) companies on TSGs behalf?
Would not ANY interference, on ANY scale by Microsoft be improper based on their legal standing as a monopoly? If so, the litmus test you propose is of no worth. The question devolves into a true/false, black/white, 0/1, yes/no situation and a litmus test is not needed.
Well, if a Microsoft representative called Baystar from his private phone during a holiday, then it was technically not Microsoft who orchestated this.
Wrong. If an employee, in the preformance of assigned duties or at the direction of their employer - or even just with the knowledge of the employer, or if the employer SHOULD HAVE KNOWN - performs an illegal act, the company is responsible. In addition, the company does not lose their liability if the employee is told to wait until a non-working day and use a phone other than their office phone.
If the employee, on their own, with no knowledge or approval, or expectation of approval of their employer did whatever evil and nefarious act, then the employer is not responsible or liable.
In this case, if a person identified themselves as a Microsoft representative to BayStar and in some way gave BayStar the idea that Microsoft was interested in BayStar doing a deal with TSG, and BayStar, acting on the belief that it was in fact a Microsoft representative and a Microsoft request, entered in to the deal with TSG, then Microsoft IS technically "orchestrating this."
I wonder if Microsoft could be sued at all for unfair competition if Bill Gates chose to openly fund SCO shares from his private money?
Interesting thought. The answer is "No, to a point."
If B.G. buys stock on the open market, he is buying from some other individual that owned the stock. D.McB. might like that - especially if he is buying the stock from D.McB. - but TSG (the company) would derive no benefit from the transactions.
Up to a certain point he doesn't even have to declare his stock ownership (I believe it is around 5% of outstanding shares) - and it would take a much larger number of shares to actually be able to manipulate the actions of the company.
The BayStar transactions, on the other hand, directly funded the further operations of TSG - including the attacks on Linux (and Linus) which seen to be in line with (and possible intended to further?) Microsofts' interests.
Remember that there are things that a free marke company CAN do that a MONOPOLIST CAN'T do. This would seem, in my opinion, to be one of those things...
Nothing like being wrong for the sake of consistancy! :)
And you will fit right in here on slashdot!
Read the fine article, follow some of the links, google is your friend...
Link
Solid state disks solve the problem of physical constraints by replacing hard disk drives with high speed circuitry. Instead of a rotating disk, a solid state disk uses memory chips (typically SDRAM)
So the data is volatile.
The immediate concern voiced about solid state disks regards data persistence and volatility. Unlike magnetic disk drives, SDRAM-based disks require power to maintain their data. The solution to this is surprisingly simple: solid state disks includes backup batteries and backup hard disk drives so that any data written to the SDRAM can be mirrored to or backed-up onto these drives.
Texas Memory Systems solid state disks have a 20 microsecond access time (250 times faster than hard disk drives).
and 400 times slower than 50 nanosecond DRAM (2000 times slower than 10 nanosecond static ram!..)
I wonder why the access time for the RamSan is so high - 50-150 nanoseconds access for SDRAM and 20,000 nanoseconds for the RamSan 340?
Actually you're wrong. The sequence of events is:
1. Vulnerability discovered
2. Patch conceived of and created
3. Patch tested
4. Patch released, studied and "known" by virus writers. -- notice my change to your list
5. Exploit Created
"We have never had vulnerabilities exploited before the patch was known." == never before 4.
"he could think of at least one instance where 'a vulnerability was exploited before a patch was available'" == one before 4.
Once again, we are back to what I said above - both statements can not be true at the same time.
The only way you are correct is if they are saying there was never an exploit before the patch WAS KNOWN TO MS - i.e., #2 in your listing. That is not the contention of hte article.In the article they maintain that there are no exploits before the patches WERE RELEASED by Microsoft( == #4 in your listing), and that virus writers are studying the patches AFTER THEY ARE RELEASED to create their viral software.
Based on the article, I am reading the quotes as "We have never had vulnerabilities exploited before the patch was [released and] known [to the exploit writers]" and "I know of one exploit that was created before the patch was released [and known to the exploit writers]", or 0==1. That is false in the real world.
You are correct in that, from Microsofts' viewpoint your listing (actually my second listing with corrections to your listing) is the actual sequence of events. But the article is saying that, to the outside world, my original sequence is correct - unless you are wanting to claim that the exploit writers are insiders at Microsoft? That is the only way thay can have access to all the patches before they are released to the world.
Known != available
Right - but irrelevant.
"there is no contradiction."
Wrong.
MS is claiming sequence of events as:
1) Vulnerability discovered.
2) Patch created, distributed.
3) Exploit created (from study of patch).
This MS spokesperson is claiming that "We have never had vulnerabilities exploited before the patch was known." - i.e., EVERY exploit came after the patch was available (AFTER #2 above) but he also states that he could think of at least one instance where "a vulnerability was exploited before a patch was available" (BEFORE #2 above).
As the parent poster stated, it is either never or not never; it can't be both BEFORE and AFTER #2 above at the same time.
I thought SPAM was unwanted bulk email. So you are saying the programs are 10 times more accurate in knowing if the email is unwanted by me than I am?
. .
M ACHINE: Move along
Or are they saying it is 10 times more accurate in identifying bulk email - whether it is wanted or not?
Wanted bulk email != SPAM.
What I want is a filter that round-files anything that "calls home" or otherwise sends information when opened. I can slog though the rest and make my own determination as to whether it is wanted or not.
MACHINE: This email is like other email you did not want, so you don't want it either.
ME: Wait a minute, I DO want to read that.
MACHINE: No you don't. I am more accurate than you, so you don't want to read it.
Me: Yes...master...I...don't...want...to...read...it.
MACHINE: These are not the 'droids you want.
ME: These...are...not..the...'droids...we...want...
ME: Move...along...
Very good. Now look up 'attestation' on the same site:
definition \At`tes*ta"tion\, n. [L. attestatio: cf. F. attestation.] The act of attesting; testimony; witness; a solemn or official declaration, verbal or written, in support of a fact; evidence. The truth appears from the attestation of witnesses, or of the proper officer. The subscription of a name to a writing as a witness, is an attestation.
Solemn. Official. Evidence. Truth
If you are accused of robbing a 7-11 and I said - in court - "Yes, your honor, I saw him do it" even though I was not anywhere I could have seen anything of the sort, then I am bearing false witness. I am giving testmony in a solemn, official event and manor in support of a fact or evidence while the testimony is not true. I would be lying which involved my not witnessing something - which you claim is not possible. Maybe you did rob the 7-11?
If I ask you if the Bible is in fact the word of God and you said "yes, I know it is." then you have just borne false witness as there is no way to know, only to believe in the truth or falsity of whethter the Bible is in fact the word of God.
"Yes, I believe it is and I feel strongly that way." is bearing true witness - you have stated the truth about your belief, not about a fact that can not be verified.
So you are saying the parent poster should lie to the judge?
I agree they sound pleased that they did not have to serve on the jury, but if they are not lying, then not serving on the jury is a decision the JUDGE is making, not the potential juror.
Your statement about "you'd rather not do your civic duty" is totally off base - nothing was said by the parent poster about not wanting to be on the jury(ies), only about their belief in the juries being able to act in a legal manor that is inconvenient to the legal system.
"[A]nd would rather get off without serving." is also without merit. The parent poster did not say they were responding to the judge in that manor to "get off without serving" - notice the part that says " "No, I am a strong proponent of jury nullification"...and it happens to be the truth!"
I find it disturbing that you seem to think 1) that stating the truth about your feelings or beliefs is wrong, 2) lying in court is acceptable, and 3) you have any business passing judgement on others in a public forum.
"To bear false witness" is a fancy way of saying "to lie."
Even in the bible, "bearing witness" in not the same as "telling the truth", so "bearing false witness" is NOT the same as NOT telling the truth.
To my thinking, "bearing false witness" is a very specific form of lying - and conversely, not all lying is "bearing false witness."
Interesting that the Bible specifies one type of lying in the commandments - but not lying in general!
Just think of the hospital in Florida that outsourced medical transcription to someone, who outsourced it again, until eventually, some Pakistani woman was upset that that she was not getting paid, and threatened to release all of the info onto the web.
Even though I agree with what you said, getting the details wrong does little to advance the case with others.
It was the UCSF Medical Center (University of California at San Francisco) not a hospital in Florida - unless someone else did the exact same thing...
Original article at San Francisco Cronicle
The amount of testing that has to go into a change like this is immense. For example, if they release a patch for WinXP, they have to make sure it works with WinXP RTM, WinXP SP1, WinXP SP2, etc. Include testing for permutations of major server applications.
I can't believe you said that.
You are arguing that, because they release crappy software that needs so much patching, they are then excused from making timely bug fixes if those bug fixes MIGHT break the already existing crappy software?!?
Microsoft has to be accountable for making sure any change will work on millions of server.
From their EULA:
Microsoft and its suppliers provide to you the SOFTWARE PRODUCT, and any (if any) support services relating to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT (Support Services) AS IS AND WITH ALL FAULTS; and Microsoft and its suppliers hereby disclaim with respect to the SOFTWARE PRODUCT and Support Services all warranties and conditions, whether express, implied or statutory, including, but not limited to, any (if any) warranties, duties or conditions of or related to: merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, lack of viruses, accuracy or completeness of responses, results, workmanlike effort and lack of negligence. also there is no warranty, duty or condition of title, QUIET ENJOYMENT, QUIET POSSESSION, CORRESPONDENCE TO DESCRIPTION or non-infringement. The entire risk arising out of use or performance of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT AND ANY SUPPORT SERVICES remains with YOU.
To the maximum extent permitted by applicable law, in no event shall Microsoft or its suppliers be liable for any special, incidental, indirect, punitive or consequential damages whatsoever (including, but not limited to, damages for: loss of profits, loss of confidential or other information, business interruption, personal injury, loss of privacy, failure to meet any duty (including of good faith or of reasonable care), negligence, and any other pecuniary or other loss whatsoever) arising out of or in any way related to the use of or inability to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT or the Support Services, or the provision of or failure to provide Support Services, or otherwise under or in connection with any provision of this EULA, even if Microsoft or any supplier has been advised of the possibility of such damages. (all emphysis added)
Looks to me like they CAN'T be held accountable FOR ANYTHING they or you do with or to the software.
Intuit?
The same Intuit that agreed to be bought by Microsoft in 1995 for 1.5 Billion dollars until the deal was called off by the justice department as being "anticompetitive"?
THAT Intuit?
Shouldn't have hit submit so soon.
Requesting a validation from every unknown emailer would also send a signal to the spammer that they have hit a valid email address - now they just need to penetrate the spam filter.
1) Send email to billions of addreses.
2) Collect the verification requests (all being valid addresses).
3) ????
4) Profit!
And if they send a confirmation that you accept (social engineering?), they have a free route into your machine again because they are now on your list of 'safe' addresses.
You are describing a self-generating whitelist. A problem with that is there needs to be a mechanism in place to remove entries from the whitelist if/when they are hijacked or zombied by spammers. If that is not automatic as well, you have only placed a stumbling block in their path, not a barrier.
Also, what about spoofed addresses?
If every person required a validation before accepting email from any other person, then a race situation would result and no email would be allowed from anyone or to anyone.
You send me an email, I send you an email requesting confirmation, you send a reply to my confirmation request requesting a confirmation, I send...
Yes it would stop spam dead. It would also stop ALL email dead.
And my favorite - I want one of their shirts! - Frinds University of Central Kansas.
:]
Would that make it F.U.C.K. U?
Was it Stalin who said that to solve any crime, look first to the people who benefit the most?
I like it! Isn't it interesting that the trojan horse (requires user action to activate, tries to scam the user to act) requires Microsoft Windows to propogate, but Microsoft is not offering the bounty as they did the last two times? Instead their puppet state SCOG is offering the bounty, while spinning it that it "MUST" be originating from a disgruntled linux user?
By the way, I read that the MyDoom.b targets Microsoft, not SCOG, and that both also can install a keylogger to grab keystrokes as well as a backdoor (for whatever purpose - SPAM relay?)
Yep, sounds like a linux user to me. NOT. Sounds like someone who knows *Windows* programming or a script kiddie to me.
I would have expected more from a low /. number, but I guess idiots on slashdot is not something new - although I do applaude your staying power ...
I guess in your 'non-bizzare' world it is GOOD of the tobacco companies to give away free cigarettes to GIs- as they did in several wars - to get them addicted, then SELL them cigarettes when they came home - no more free, show us the money!
I am sure someone will point out the drug dealer "first one is free" situation as well.
Linux and its distros are given away freely everyday.
"Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime"--Author unknown
Microsoft is "giving a fish", Linux is both "giving a fish" and "teaching to fish".
"+5 Informative"?
... , Gates said.
Note to moderators - if no information is being given in a post, it probably ISN'T informative.
As for the parent post, RTFA. They are giving software and money, over five years totaling $1B - there is no indication of how much money is involved. In addition, they say they are giving 'latest versions' of the software - probbably being accounted at the 'latest prices' as well. If I remember correctly, their profit margin has historically been 80-90%.
After reading the article, there is no mention of whether this software is full boxed versions, enterprise versions, some blank CDs they had laying around and decided to copy the software to, or what.
Microsoft would donate cash and the latest versions of its software, but the centers were free to expand with other software, including open source software such as Linux
"They'll be adding software from other providers. There's no exclusivity," he said. "Our role is to bring software that is quite popular, and happens to be ours."
"The govt who robs Peter to pay Paul, will always have the support of Paul"
And a sore Peter!
And of course you can't do business with a sore Peter...