A subpoena is an order demanding compliance with a legal proceeding, more usually in terms of attendance or provision of evidence. It doesn't require immediate action. You've got time to talk to your legal guy about it before acting on it, and to challenge it if you think it's wrong.
A warrant to search or seize, however, gives them permission to do just that, right there and then. You can call your lawyer or whatever, but that's not going to stop them doing exactly what it says on the papers. You can still challenge it, but it's going to be after the fact.
If they do their job checking the source, they'll never have to pay out.
This assumes that their code repository is complete. They won't have access to the vast amounts of closed source out there that is not shared with anyone but the people actively working on it. And the companies that own this code are just the sort who would most object to the use of their IP in OSS. As in all kinds of insurance, there's no such thing as a sure thing.
Therefore doesn't the game thus reinforce the notion that animal testing is wrong?
Indeed. The complaints versed in the article were from two points of view - That this game makes light of animal suffering, and is therefore wrong, as expressed by the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals); and that this game portrays animal experimentation in terms of it being inherently malicious, thus leading the gamer to the conclusion that animal experimentation is cruel and unneccesary and detracts support from such experiments, as put forward by Ian Gibson MP, also a doctor and a member of SIMR (Seriously Ill for Medial Research). Seems like everyone is a critic.
There's no proof, of course, but it must be one of the theories at the top of any investigator's list.
While I've got no time for SCO or their shenanigans, the article isn't stating as a fact that the author was someone from the Linux community. Like the author of the article, however, I do feel it's the most likely explanation, certainly much more likely than the bizarre conspiracy theories I've heard in the last week. I think more harm is done to the community by coming out with incredible theories than by merely stating that whoever wrote the virus is to be condemned - Irrespective of their OS preferences.
I bet they are working on some kind of jedi system (and some vehicles I hope) this game has no chance of surviving long without them.
According to the devs (caveat emptor)...vehicles/mounts are due "real soon", and are apparently on the testing server. Spaceships will appear in the first expansion pack, imaginitively titled "Space" and due next year. And the jedi stuff is allegedly already in, but requires you to complete a list of tasks that are specific for each character - Presumably at least a partially random selection from a master list.
I think they should only have the "force sensitive" character slot open for only a certain period of time. Once enough people reach jedi,..cut it off. Then being a jedi will be somthing more than just a sign that you've been playing the game a long time.
On the contrary...those players who started earliest are most likely to be the first to unlock their FS character slots. Once you cut off the availability of FS slots...any new players have zero chance of becoming jedi. How is this anything other than a sign that you've been playing the game a long time if you're a jedi?
I'm quite happy with what they have proposed to handle jedi characters. Anyone can have the slot open to create one, once they meet the (as yet unknown) conditions. However, they suffer perma-death (after a few deaths, to allow for network issues). And you don't start off as a full fledged jedi, you gotta work hard to get it. While the potential for 1000s of jedis will no doubt be there before too long...how many of these are going to progress to a level where there skills are actually any good?
I believe there were two versions of the game, or Carmageddon 2 at least. In the countries where concerns were raised about peds being splattered all over the show, the models were patched and the peds became evil zombies who deserved to be fender fodder.
Is there a country were people will work for free?
What percentage of the contributions made to the OSS community are effectively made "for free"? While I approve wholeheartedly of the concept of open access to the source code, and the idea that once I've bought something, I can do what I like with it, the fact that the industry moves more towards no cost software makes me wonder what the job prospects are going to be in the future. Is there a better model of providing the freedom of source code while not devaluing the effort required to produce the software? I know support contracts work for some people, but is there a better way of rewarding all contributors directly for their input?
I'm pleased to see that they are aiming to provide a better cross section of music rather than just focusing on the big labels. My taste in music wouldn't be satisfied with just the majors, and I suspect a fair chunk of the/. readership would be the same.
The only problem I can see is that this doesn't go far enough. Independent labels are a good thing, but it seems they are only targeting the larger ones. When they get to the stage where the smallest labels and individual artists can coexist in the service with the majors, I'd be tempted to give it a go. I can't see the RIAA being too happy about coexisting with what is effectively the competition, though.
I'm sure the cost of fitting seat belts was passed straight back on to the consumer. Given the total cost of a car, it's pretty minimal.
I can't see the MPAA passing the cost of what they consider to be lost sales onto the people who are buying DVDs - The price is already relatively high, and they don't want to dissuade further people from paying for them.
Security is one of the main areas that MS gets blasted for. While the security in their server products has some merits, it's undermined by the bugs that continuously appear and the total lack of lockdown in out-of-the-box config. Their push on security would have to address all these issues - Removing issues from the code prior to shipping, improving their response to the bugs that still appear, locking down products and educating users to unlock them as appropriate, and most importantly of all, concentrating on designing their systems to incorporate security from the start, rather than trying to tack it on later. There's been some movement in some of these areas...but nowhere near enough yet.
So will they do it? You're right in that there is little evidence so far. Given the constant slating they receive in this area, there is certainly a motive to improve it. But given the apparent lifetime of legacy code in Windows, it's not going to show significant results any time soon in that arena. I would suspect it would be more evident in "new" products such as.NET, etc.
Trustworthy computing was launched in Jan 2002, there's some info on what they claim to have achieved on their site.
Bunner said he originally posted the code so that people could use it to play their DVDs on the Linux operating system, a practice that was all but impossible at the time.
Unfortunately, with no large corporate backing at the time, legitimate uses such as this would of course be ignored. When large corporates think they are losing money, the government will come down on their side time after time.
Let's hope that uses such as this can be viewed as more legitimate now that the OSS movement has some large backers - IBM and the like.
Sure, the concept of peer review is an old one. This is a slightly different slant, however - The security review is not to check that the code performs it's task correctly, rather that it does not compromise the security of the application.
In the OSS community, code (potentially) gets reviewed by people with expertise in a number of fields, something that is not guaranteed in a closed-shop development team. Hence, my observation that this is a watered down version of that process, with it's focus solely on security.
Obviously, MS bashing abounds, but I view this as a good thing.
Working in an environment that is purely MS based on the desktop, with significant MS server infrastructure, I can only applaud any efforts they are making to clear up the mess that is obviously present. No, it's not going to happen overnight - Just as the company I work for is not going to replace all it's investment in MS tech overnight.
Unfortunately, being a developer does not make you a security expert. Some are, others will continue to allow simple flaws, such as buffer overruns, into their code. Having a group of people who focus on security review that code is without a doubt a good thing. While this may not be the potentially rigorous code review that OSS gets, it's better what presently happens at MS.
As for the issue of scapegoats...from an external point of view, getting MS to recognise bugs can be a difficult job at the best of times. Internally, if a group of security "experts" fail to recognise security flaws in a piece of code...then surely they are failing at their job?
Finally, there's been a lot of flaming about the fact that this is yet-another-initiative from MS in the security field. I welcome all of them, in parallel, as moving towards sorting out some of the many issues they have. The less time I have to spend working on patching buggy MS software, the happier I will be.
I doubt it required any code changes. Administrators in games such as this have the ability to summon mobiles, move players around en masse, etc. Seems more likely that they worked out a way to escalate their rights from standard user to God, then let their wrath be felt around the world...
Ubisoft will have to be very careful about how they handle the aftermath of this. The game is only a few months old, and many players who stream into games like this when they open will leave just as quickly if they perceive the game to be sub-par, in a number of areas. Crashes and loss of items/progress in particular seem to be real bugbears for most players. It already happened with Anarchy Online, where players quickly left in droves due to the incredibly buggy release code. How many players are going to stick around if incidents such as this can apparently happen so easily?
I'm not disputing that - It's another interesting possibility. However, I'm not convinced either platform is yet at the stage to truely capitalise on the potential benefits of multi-language development, spurious as they may be. I do think MS is slightly ahead in that field, having concentrated so much on the CTS/etc. but the fact they have to effectively break some languages (Eiffel, etc.) to fit them into the platform model will work against them as well.
Our company has recently started to introduce.NET development alongside our core J2EE platform. One of the issues that has come up has been how useful the multi-language/single-platform support would be. Rather than taking a "best of breed" language for all development, the use of the right tool for the right job could potentially lead to interesting results - A mix of C#/ML/PROLOG/etc. as appropriate for the immesdiate task at hand. I don't think MS is far enough down the road yet to capitalise on the idea, but it's certainly an intriguing possibility - Even if it would lead to a maintenance nightmare:)
Is this behaviour by design, or merely a side effect of the implementation? If it's a side effect, then don't rely on the support for this "feature" to continue in future releases of the.NET framework. MS has a nasty habit of changing undocumented features...
Given that the Windows codebase has evolved over so many versions, it's hardly surprising that there are plenty of security holes. If the foundation is shakey, don't expect the building to stay up. Especially in a closed-source environment where the number of people scrutinising the code is minimal.
It seems to me that one potential benefit for MS from it's.Net products is the opportunity for them to start over with their security. The models in place for.Net apps are superior to what was previously on offer for Windows development. They even throw in stuff like run-time buffer overflow detection...if you turn it on.
Given that the number of.Net security problems so far appears to be minimal, MS could improve their image as being poor in security, provided they get sufficient take up...and don't screw it up this time around...
I use Kazaa to download music for free. Mostly, it's to get a digital copy of tracks I already own on vinyl or tape. Sometimes, it's tracks I don't own. With these, either I don't like them and delete them - Or it leads to me buying one or more CDs if I find new music I like.
The model they propose to replace this is that I will pay a subscription to find out what I like, so that I can then pay more to actually buy a copy - No thanks. I don't feel the need to positively change their approach to this, I think there's more than enough evidence around to show they just don't listen.
Any subscription service like this is going to remain a niche market until they can offer a very broad selection of music. Deals are done to provide content with the labels - However, people's tastes are rarely defined by the output of a particular label. How many subscription services will I have to subscribe to to get access to all the music I want?
But you're right...of course, it'll All Be Down To Piracy.
Slashdot Mirror
IANAL, but a warrant != subpoena.
A subpoena is an order demanding compliance with a legal proceeding, more usually in terms of attendance or provision of evidence. It doesn't require immediate action. You've got time to talk to your legal guy about it before acting on it, and to challenge it if you think it's wrong.
A warrant to search or seize, however, gives them permission to do just that, right there and then. You can call your lawyer or whatever, but that's not going to stop them doing exactly what it says on the papers. You can still challenge it, but it's going to be after the fact.
This assumes that their code repository is complete. They won't have access to the vast amounts of closed source out there that is not shared with anyone but the people actively working on it. And the companies that own this code are just the sort who would most object to the use of their IP in OSS. As in all kinds of insurance, there's no such thing as a sure thing.
Indeed. The complaints versed in the article were from two points of view - That this game makes light of animal suffering, and is therefore wrong, as expressed by the RSPCA (Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals); and that this game portrays animal experimentation in terms of it being inherently malicious, thus leading the gamer to the conclusion that animal experimentation is cruel and unneccesary and detracts support from such experiments, as put forward by Ian Gibson MP, also a doctor and a member of SIMR (Seriously Ill for Medial Research). Seems like everyone is a critic.
While I've got no time for SCO or their shenanigans, the article isn't stating as a fact that the author was someone from the Linux community. Like the author of the article, however, I do feel it's the most likely explanation, certainly much more likely than the bizarre conspiracy theories I've heard in the last week. I think more harm is done to the community by coming out with incredible theories than by merely stating that whoever wrote the virus is to be condemned - Irrespective of their OS preferences.
According to the devs (caveat emptor)...vehicles/mounts are due "real soon", and are apparently on the testing server. Spaceships will appear in the first expansion pack, imaginitively titled "Space" and due next year. And the jedi stuff is allegedly already in, but requires you to complete a list of tasks that are specific for each character - Presumably at least a partially random selection from a master list.
On the contrary...those players who started earliest are most likely to be the first to unlock their FS character slots. Once you cut off the availability of FS slots...any new players have zero chance of becoming jedi. How is this anything other than a sign that you've been playing the game a long time if you're a jedi?
I'm quite happy with what they have proposed to handle jedi characters. Anyone can have the slot open to create one, once they meet the (as yet unknown) conditions. However, they suffer perma-death (after a few deaths, to allow for network issues). And you don't start off as a full fledged jedi, you gotta work hard to get it. While the potential for 1000s of jedis will no doubt be there before too long...how many of these are going to progress to a level where there skills are actually any good?
I believe there were two versions of the game, or Carmageddon 2 at least. In the countries where concerns were raised about peds being splattered all over the show, the models were patched and the peds became evil zombies who deserved to be fender fodder.
What percentage of the contributions made to the OSS community are effectively made "for free"? While I approve wholeheartedly of the concept of open access to the source code, and the idea that once I've bought something, I can do what I like with it, the fact that the industry moves more towards no cost software makes me wonder what the job prospects are going to be in the future. Is there a better model of providing the freedom of source code while not devaluing the effort required to produce the software? I know support contracts work for some people, but is there a better way of rewarding all contributors directly for their input?
I'm pleased to see that they are aiming to provide a better cross section of music rather than just focusing on the big labels. My taste in music wouldn't be satisfied with just the majors, and I suspect a fair chunk of the /. readership would be the same.
The only problem I can see is that this doesn't go far enough. Independent labels are a good thing, but it seems they are only targeting the larger ones. When they get to the stage where the smallest labels and individual artists can coexist in the service with the majors, I'd be tempted to give it a go. I can't see the RIAA being too happy about coexisting with what is effectively the competition, though.
They've obviously heard about IBM buying out SCO any time now...that's sure to make them the biggest...
I'm sure the cost of fitting seat belts was passed straight back on to the consumer. Given the total cost of a car, it's pretty minimal.
I can't see the MPAA passing the cost of what they consider to be lost sales onto the people who are buying DVDs - The price is already relatively high, and they don't want to dissuade further people from paying for them.
Security is one of the main areas that MS gets blasted for. While the security in their server products has some merits, it's undermined by the bugs that continuously appear and the total lack of lockdown in out-of-the-box config. Their push on security would have to address all these issues - Removing issues from the code prior to shipping, improving their response to the bugs that still appear, locking down products and educating users to unlock them as appropriate, and most importantly of all, concentrating on designing their systems to incorporate security from the start, rather than trying to tack it on later. There's been some movement in some of these areas...but nowhere near enough yet.
So will they do it? You're right in that there is little evidence so far. Given the constant slating they receive in this area, there is certainly a motive to improve it. But given the apparent lifetime of legacy code in Windows, it's not going to show significant results any time soon in that arena. I would suspect it would be more evident in "new" products such as
Trustworthy computing was launched in Jan 2002, there's some info on what they claim to have achieved on their site.
I do agree with you about Clippy tho
Unfortunately, with no large corporate backing at the time, legitimate uses such as this would of course be ignored. When large corporates think they are losing money, the government will come down on their side time after time.
Let's hope that uses such as this can be viewed as more legitimate now that the OSS movement has some large backers - IBM and the like.
Sure, the concept of peer review is an old one. This is a slightly different slant, however - The security review is not to check that the code performs it's task correctly, rather that it does not compromise the security of the application.
In the OSS community, code (potentially) gets reviewed by people with expertise in a number of fields, something that is not guaranteed in a closed-shop development team. Hence, my observation that this is a watered down version of that process, with it's focus solely on security.
Obviously, MS bashing abounds, but I view this as a good thing.
Working in an environment that is purely MS based on the desktop, with significant MS server infrastructure, I can only applaud any efforts they are making to clear up the mess that is obviously present. No, it's not going to happen overnight - Just as the company I work for is not going to replace all it's investment in MS tech overnight.
Unfortunately, being a developer does not make you a security expert. Some are, others will continue to allow simple flaws, such as buffer overruns, into their code. Having a group of people who focus on security review that code is without a doubt a good thing. While this may not be the potentially rigorous code review that OSS gets, it's better what presently happens at MS.
As for the issue of scapegoats...from an external point of view, getting MS to recognise bugs can be a difficult job at the best of times. Internally, if a group of security "experts" fail to recognise security flaws in a piece of code...then surely they are failing at their job?
Finally, there's been a lot of flaming about the fact that this is yet-another-initiative from MS in the security field. I welcome all of them, in parallel, as moving towards sorting out some of the many issues they have. The less time I have to spend working on patching buggy MS software, the happier I will be.
I doubt it required any code changes. Administrators in games such as this have the ability to summon mobiles, move players around en masse, etc. Seems more likely that they worked out a way to escalate their rights from standard user to God, then let their wrath be felt around the world...
Ubisoft will have to be very careful about how they handle the aftermath of this. The game is only a few months old, and many players who stream into games like this when they open will leave just as quickly if they perceive the game to be sub-par, in a number of areas. Crashes and loss of items/progress in particular seem to be real bugbears for most players. It already happened with Anarchy Online, where players quickly left in droves due to the incredibly buggy release code. How many players are going to stick around if incidents such as this can apparently happen so easily?
I'm not disputing that - It's another interesting possibility. However, I'm not convinced either platform is yet at the stage to truely capitalise on the potential benefits of multi-language development, spurious as they may be. I do think MS is slightly ahead in that field, having concentrated so much on the CTS/etc. but the fact they have to effectively break some languages (Eiffel, etc.) to fit them into the platform model will work against them as well.
Our company has recently started to introduce .NET development alongside our core J2EE platform. One of the issues that has come up has been how useful the multi-language/single-platform support would be. Rather than taking a "best of breed" language for all development, the use of the right tool for the right job could potentially lead to interesting results - A mix of C#/ML/PROLOG/etc. as appropriate for the immesdiate task at hand. I don't think MS is far enough down the road yet to capitalise on the idea, but it's certainly an intriguing possibility - Even if it would lead to a maintenance nightmare :)
Is this behaviour by design, or merely a side effect of the implementation? If it's a side effect, then don't rely on the support for this "feature" to continue in future releases of the .NET framework. MS has a nasty habit of changing undocumented features...
Obviously, this doesn't apply here, as now you have purchased a little permanent safety! God bless the Republicans!
Given that the Windows codebase has evolved over so many versions, it's hardly surprising that there are plenty of security holes. If the foundation is shakey, don't expect the building to stay up. Especially in a closed-source environment where the number of people scrutinising the code is minimal.
.Net products is the opportunity for them to start over with their security. The models in place for .Net apps are superior to what was previously on offer for Windows development. They even throw in stuff like run-time buffer overflow detection...if you turn it on.
.Net security problems so far appears to be minimal, MS could improve their image as being poor in security, provided they get sufficient take up...and don't screw it up this time around...
It seems to me that one potential benefit for MS from it's
Given that the number of
2. Make your pants look like a rocket launcher to freak out the secret police.
;)
That's not a rocket launcher, I'm just pleased to see them
I use Kazaa to download music for free. Mostly, it's to get a digital copy of tracks I already own on vinyl or tape. Sometimes, it's tracks I don't own. With these, either I don't like them and delete them - Or it leads to me buying one or more CDs if I find new music I like.
The model they propose to replace this is that I will pay a subscription to find out what I like, so that I can then pay more to actually buy a copy - No thanks. I don't feel the need to positively change their approach to this, I think there's more than enough evidence around to show they just don't listen.
Any subscription service like this is going to remain a niche market until they can offer a very broad selection of music. Deals are done to provide content with the labels - However, people's tastes are rarely defined by the output of a particular label. How many subscription services will I have to subscribe to to get access to all the music I want?
But you're right...of course, it'll All Be Down To Piracy.