"The architectural limitations of Windows NT 4.0 do not support the changes that would be required to remove this vulnerability."
If proper design practice was followed, this should not happen. The issue is, under proper design practice, all expected features must be designed in from the get-go. If a new feature is thought of later, it usually gets "tacked on" to the existing infrastructure. This is what happens when one constantly adds functionality to the same product, as MS does. You get the benefit of being able to put a feature in with little development time, but every time this happens, you lose some extensibility.
This is essentially the problem with the constantly-evolving upgrade business model Microsoft has used from the get-go. If it's different enough to be a new OS, PLEASE, make it a new OS!
"One thing that would put me at ease is a kind of media that is completely hermetically protected by a transparent plastic shell."
All this would do is move the potential for damage from the media to the shell. If you scratch the shell, you'd have to move the disc into a new (hermetically sealed) shell.
"Perhaps a stationary disk while the reader is the one to rotate. That way you wouldn't even need the hole for the rotating spindle."
Sure, if you want to replace your drive once a year or so. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer paying $5.00 for a few backup discs to paying $100 for the latest drive, only to have this new moving part break on me.
This is not DVD. It's an optical disk drive, which uses much of the same technology as DVD, but is definitely not the same specification. You would not be able to read a blue-laser disc in any 100% DVD-compliant drive.
Optical discs that can hold more than CD's are not necessarily them DVD's.
"in the hopes of creating a standardized software architecture for embedded devices that takes advantage of open source software and the benefits of Linux."
Um...I'm failing to see something here. What could possibly come out of this that's more standard than *nix? It seems that they are just trying to piggyback their core in on top of a current "standard..."
And, just to beat the horse even further to death, !
Because the students can't be trusted to administer the network. I mean, students had pirated copies of Warcraft 2 installed on half the programming lab as it was; I know a lot of people who would've sold their souls for admin privs.
and we still wrote dos progs. Judging from the people I've met since, I'm pretty sure this is the case for most of the nation, at least the parts that actually HAVE a programming course.
I know a guy who works for Sun Microsystems, and this is about half of what they're working on as far as smartcards are concerned; the other half being replacement of SecurID tokens with smartcards.
A user interface should contain only the level of configurability that can be fully tested, and made relatively bug-free. I don't want WinXP type stuff that actually crashes my system, but I'd like to be able to do things like reskin my interface, and put any start menu or equivalent (or CDE interface bar while we're at it) at any place I like on my screen.
Bonus points for integrating a command line with the desktop, either as the background or in some toolbarish thing.
If my high school chem classes + memory serve
on
Mixing the Unmixable
·
· Score: 1
If my high school chem classes + memory serve, the more general statement would be that polar substances cannot be mixed with non-polar substances.
The most interesting implication of this discovery (if it proves to be factual) involves doing the reverse--dissolving polar solids into oils. We could finally make liquid solutions of things which chemically react with water, without contaminants or expensive solvents.
"ooo if only we could do that we could do something really cool!"
And so the list begins:
1. Nethack for Xbox
2. Run multimedia apps on my TV/sound system
(never have to search through my DVD
collection again! Why spend $300 on one
of those 300 CD jukeboxes when an Xbox
can catch the streaming data from my PC?)
3. Use the Linux kernel, sans GNU stuff, to
build arbitrary programs from
4. Use the Xbox that I've bought anyway to do
things like run a half-life server when
friends are here, possibly join in on a
Starcraft match with WINE or somesuch
The kind that would know what the a binary tree is
I hope I never become one of those programmers who knows about basic data structures I learned about in high school!
1.Google's immortal cookie Isn't on my machine, nor any other which doesn't accept cookies.
2.Google records everything they can So does every other search engine; this is no secret.
3.Google retains all data indefinitely See #2
4.Google won't say why they need this data That's fine, 'cause everyone already knows it's for advertising purposes
5.Google hires spooks So? Honestly, who cares?
6.Google's toolbar is spyware They're not the only ones. Look at Gator. They're much worse.
7.Google's cache copy is illegal OK, legitimate complaint here. A retroactive "remove me from your cache" option would almost definitely solve this, though.
8.Google is not your friend May I say, "Duh." But they do have a GOOD indexing algorithm. Webmasters shouldn't be trying to "cheat" in the search engine game, anyway.
9.Google is a privacy time bomb Lotsa great privacy concerns are listed on this page. Excuse me while I run and hide from the irrelevant statistics.
3. Terrorists don't need biological warfare to do their job. Crackers do need their security holes.
Look at 9-11. Al Qaida(sp?) managed to live every terrorist's dream. For all practical purposes, they've scared an entire nation out of their wits, with no biological warfare. People seem to forget that this is what terrorism is all about.
OK, so it's not EXACTLY the same, but it's the same concept, and in the end should be evaluated in the same way. It's not like biologists are giving terrorists the keys to the kingdom here.
So, Intel is giving a little, RedHat is giving a little, and some parts of RedHat's distro may not be opensource at some point in the future.
Now, this is all fine and dandy. The fact remains, though, that all Intel is doing is keeping their bought-and-paid-for code private. All RedHat is doing is bundling some private code with some opensource code. Now, I haven't memorized the GPL, but restricting this kind of thing sounds pretty draconic.
Slashdot Mirror
"The architectural limitations of Windows NT 4.0 do not support the changes that would be required to remove this vulnerability."
If proper design practice was followed, this should not happen. The issue is, under proper design practice, all expected features must be designed in from the get-go. If a new feature is thought of later, it usually gets "tacked on" to the existing infrastructure. This is what happens when one constantly adds functionality to the same product, as MS does. You get the benefit of being able to put a feature in with little development time, but every time this happens, you lose some extensibility.
This is essentially the problem with the constantly-evolving upgrade business model Microsoft has used from the get-go. If it's different enough to be a new OS, PLEASE, make it a new OS!
"One thing that would put me at ease is a kind of media that is completely hermetically protected by a transparent plastic shell."
All this would do is move the potential for damage from the media to the shell. If you scratch the shell, you'd have to move the disc into a new (hermetically sealed) shell. "Perhaps a stationary disk while the reader is the one to rotate. That way you wouldn't even need the hole for the rotating spindle."
Sure, if you want to replace your drive once a year or so. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer paying $5.00 for a few backup discs to paying $100 for the latest drive, only to have this new moving part break on me.
"Plasmon Exhibits Working Blue Laser DVD Drive"
This is not DVD. It's an optical disk drive, which uses much of the same technology as DVD, but is definitely not the same specification. You would not be able to read a blue-laser disc in any 100% DVD-compliant drive.
Optical discs that can hold more than CD's are not necessarily them DVD's.
"in the hopes of creating a standardized software architecture for embedded devices that takes advantage of open source software and the benefits of Linux."
Um...I'm failing to see something here. What could possibly come out of this that's more standard than *nix? It seems that they are just trying to piggyback their core in on top of a current "standard..."
And, just to beat the horse even further to death, !
Well, this one's simple.
1. My current telephone provider calls me, trying to sell something.
2. I tell them that if they ever call me again without a GOOD reason, I switch to a DIFFERENT phone provider.
3. They haven't called me since.
Why not?
Because the students can't be trusted to administer the network. I mean, students had pirated copies of Warcraft 2 installed on half the programming lab as it was; I know a lot of people who would've sold their souls for admin privs.
and we still wrote dos progs. Judging from the people I've met since, I'm pretty sure this is the case for most of the nation, at least the parts that actually HAVE a programming course.
I know a guy who works for Sun Microsystems, and this is about half of what they're working on as far as smartcards are concerned; the other half being replacement of SecurID tokens with smartcards.
Well, technically, there is no way to know that, as we can't really measure the temperature (with radiotelescopes or otherwise) if there's no matter.
A user interface should contain only the level of configurability that can be fully tested, and made relatively bug-free. I don't want WinXP type stuff that actually crashes my system, but I'd like to be able to do things like reskin my interface, and put any start menu or equivalent (or CDE interface bar while we're at it) at any place I like on my screen.
Bonus points for integrating a command line with the desktop, either as the background or in some toolbarish thing.
If my high school chem classes + memory serve, the more general statement would be that polar substances cannot be mixed with non-polar substances.
The most interesting implication of this discovery (if it proves to be factual) involves doing the reverse--dissolving polar solids into oils. We could finally make liquid solutions of things which chemically react with water, without contaminants or expensive solvents.
"ooo if only we could do that we could do something really cool!"
And so the list begins:
1. Nethack for Xbox
2. Run multimedia apps on my TV/sound system
(never have to search through my DVD
collection again! Why spend $300 on one
of those 300 CD jukeboxes when an Xbox
can catch the streaming data from my PC?)
3. Use the Linux kernel, sans GNU stuff, to
build arbitrary programs from
4. Use the Xbox that I've bought anyway to do
things like run a half-life server when
friends are here, possibly join in on a
Starcraft match with WINE or somesuch
Anyone else got anything?
The kind that would know what the a binary tree is I hope I never become one of those programmers who knows about basic data structures I learned about in high school!
1.Google's immortal cookie
Isn't on my machine, nor any other which doesn't accept cookies.
2.Google records everything they can
So does every other search engine; this is no secret.
3.Google retains all data indefinitely
See #2
4.Google won't say why they need this data
That's fine, 'cause everyone already knows it's for advertising purposes
5.Google hires spooks
So? Honestly, who cares?
6.Google's toolbar is spyware
They're not the only ones. Look at Gator. They're much worse.
7.Google's cache copy is illegal
OK, legitimate complaint here. A retroactive "remove me from your cache" option would almost definitely solve this, though.
8.Google is not your friend
May I say, "Duh." But they do have a GOOD indexing algorithm. Webmasters shouldn't be trying to "cheat" in the search engine game, anyway.
9.Google is a privacy time bomb
Lotsa great privacy concerns are listed on this page. Excuse me while I run and hide from the irrelevant statistics.
3. Terrorists don't need biological warfare to do their job. Crackers do need their security holes.
Look at 9-11. Al Qaida(sp?) managed to live every terrorist's dream. For all practical purposes, they've scared an entire nation out of their wits, with no biological warfare. People seem to forget that this is what terrorism is all about.
OK, so it's not EXACTLY the same, but it's the same concept, and in the end should be evaluated in the same way. It's not like biologists are giving terrorists the keys to the kingdom here.
Yes there is.
Scientist makes anthrax.
Scientist studies anthrax.
Scientist finds way to make anthrax not kill you.
Cure is distributed.
Replace "scientist" with "programmer," and "kill you" with whatever suits your fancy, and you have a pretty solid comparison.
And it's not like terrorists wouldn't be able to do their job without anthrax, anyway.
They call them vaccines.
The problem is, terrorists ALREADY know ten million different ways to kill you. Adding a few more won't hurt.
So, Intel is giving a little, RedHat is giving a little, and some parts of RedHat's distro may not be opensource at some point in the future.
Now, this is all fine and dandy. The fact remains, though, that all Intel is doing is keeping their bought-and-paid-for code private. All RedHat is doing is bundling some private code with some opensource code. Now, I haven't memorized the GPL, but restricting this kind of thing sounds pretty draconic.