Yep. And you'd have MS fanboys claiming XP ate kittens, too, back when it was introduced.
Re:Things like this are easy to fix.
on
Google's Evil NDA
·
· Score: 1
Actually, given the structure of the sentence, it would appear that the NDA effectively binds you not to write any articles in which you:
1) discuss the agreement or the fact that a meeting took place, OR
2) mention or imply the name of Google.
That doesn't have to be in the context of insider information. And yes, it's either overbroad, or poorly worded. Perhaps not enforceable, but it's pretty clear the clause discusses two no-no's, separated by the "or". The lack of a comma doesn't change the effect of the "or".
The same can be said for Linux. While MS fanboy-types love to taunt Linux fanboy-types about how Linux will never be widely accepted, etc., etc., the truth is they can thank Linux, *BSD and a number of other open-source alternatives to MS products for many of the steady improvements in MS products we've seen over the years. Had it not been for the constant pressure from open-source products (and Mac products, of course) that didn't have the marketing power or connections to beat MS, but provided sufficiently obvious alternatives to put MS products in a bad light, many of the improvements in stability and security newer versions of Windows have seen likely never would have taken place.
Yes, MS had reason to produce new versions with new features in order to keep the cash cow producing milk. But given MS's actions in the browser arena (disbanding the IE team once they had a lock on the market), there's good reason to believe the "improvements" would have been much more fluff and much less substance.
At this point in time, by the way, MS will have to do a tremendous amount of "innovation" to win me back over to IE. IE7 was a marked improvement. But they'll literally have to blow Firefox out of the water to win me back. And I don't think that's going to happen.
Do you honestly think that the Windows user who can't be bothered to download Linux is going to jump at the chance to buy a machine with it on?
Damn right. This is one of the most basic reasons why Windows is in such wide use -- it comes with computers as a package, rather than being some sort of add-on.
As you said, don't confuse the Slashdot population (which would be more than happy to download a few iso's and replace operating systems) with the general population.
Does it have to be SoundExchange? Couldn't someone set up a competitor to SoundExchange to offer statutory licenses? Or did Congress really give the RIAA the exclusive ability to do this?
Or am I completely misunderstanding the situation? Not unlikely, considering I'm not a lawyer.
...it's also a rational yardstick considering how overwhelming is user experience with Windows.
That entrenched network effect is precisely what keeps Microsoft in their position of dominance. Unfortunately, it also means that for something better to come along that's judged as such, it will first have to beat Windows at its own game.
Lynx might have run rings around IE6 in some ways (such as lack of security vulnerabilities), but that didn't mean it would supplant that out-of-standard monstrosity. It took Firefox to make serious inroads in IE's dominance, simply because it could do virtually everything IE6 could do and better, plus things it couldn't.
Ubuntu's a very good step-or 20-in the right direction. But yeah, if it can't do what Windows can do in certain areas, you'll always hear more bitching than if Windows can't do what Ubuntu can. At least, until Windows is no longer the dominant OS line.
I'm sorry, but this runs counter to the standard MS fanboy's talking point that there's nothing to see here. Transitions to Vista are completely normal. Therefore, you must be wrong.
Absolutely. Both are important, and both are critical for the functioning of modern society.
And for the record, the police are in a position to to a heck of a lot more damage, and that's just due to simple incompetence. The problem is exponentially worse if your blind assumption that the police don't act out of maliciousness doesn't hold up.
evil is a worse threat to you than stupidity
Really? You do realize you're far more likely to die of an accident than you are from a crime, right?
Except he admitted it right away, before any plea agreement could possibly have been put in place.
Perhaps. My recollection of it was that it was announced first, and several days later the media simply reported that he'd said something about doing research, which may, or may not, have been an admission of guilt (it could also have easily been a result of confusion over the charges).
And would you opt to be a registered sex offender for 5 years, if you were innocent?
If my choice were between that and a high-profile trial, and possibly being a convicted pedophile sent to prison? Is it really so tough to believe someone would choose the former?
Doubt whatever you want... That's not evidence of anything.
Never claimed it was. But thanks for stating the obvious, for the sake of the one person out there who drew that conclusion.
The bottom line is, neither of us knows what really happened--there's too little information. As this story makes clear, what we thought we knew already may have been rather wrong.
Frankly, I think people admit guilt all the time simply to avoid more serious consequences, whether or not they're actually guilty. To modern legal systems, that's simply seen as "all in a day's work".
Whether that was true in Townshend's case will have to wait for more information, if it's forthcoming.
Why did they let him off so easily, if they actually had evidence of wrongdoing?
On the other hand, if they gave him a choice of malicious prosecution or "admitting kinda dumb behavior and receiving only a warning", I'm not so sure the choice of the latter is that tough to understand. Especially for a relatively public figure with undoubtedly high-prices legal representation.
There never was a whole lot of information there. For all we know, Townsend admitted guilt to avoid malicious prosecution. If they'd actually had solid evidence, I kind of doubt they would have let him off with only a warning.
To which I'll add: they don't really care about succeeding as a business.
It's simplicity itself to make a website behave under Firefox, if they've got it working under IE7 (unless, of course, it's REALLY OLD CODE and they're doing everything in IE5/6 "Quirks mode").
The bottom line, though is they simply couldn't be bothered. And that attitude likely extends to the rest of their business practices.
Actually, I would think the tungsten interconnects themselves offer a thermal path currently unavailable with single-chip designs. Some of the interconnects could even be formed explicitly for that purpose.
Ubuntu has been out for how long? 5 years? A CEO of an S&P 500, S&P MidCap, S&P SmallCap, etc. corporation is not going to risk his publicly traded corporation's entire infrastructure (the "heart" of the communications between all co-workers) to a 5 year old company (is Ubuntu even a corporation?) that also has many, many competitors. There is only 1 vendor for Windows: Microsoft. There are a ton of vendors for Linux.
This is simply foolish.
Linux has been around for more than 15 years. The current versions (Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, etc.) are not wholesale rewrites of that basic operating system -- they build on the same code base that has a tried-and-true pedigree. Yes, things are replaced piecemeal when better comes along, but the basics are there.
Windows Vista, by contrast, is (according to MS) a complete rewrite. A new operating system from the ground up. It's been around less than two years in essentially the form it is now. It's been around less than five years, period.
This is about fear, and about accountability. And in that sense, I'll agree with you: as long as IT needs are driven not by customer needs or software capabilities but rather by CYA (and by incompetent IT people who barely know how to support MS systems as it is), then many IT personnel will indeed be unwilling to use anything that doesn't have "Microsoft" written on it. But let's not confuse that with code longevity, stability, reliability, usability or availability of support.
The ruling in question didn't address whether hacking the man's computer was right or wrong under the law.
However, unless the terms of service directly allows an admin to obtain unauthorized access in the name of protecting the network, I would bet the "terms of service" argument wouldn't hold up.
To me, the factors that would save the university sysadmin are the extremely limited nature of the break-in, as evidence for the purpose of that break-in, and the circumstances (the fact that he had reasonable concern that immediate damage could be done to the network). What the sysadmin did may very well be illegal, but whether he'd be charged or convicted under the circumstances is a different story.
As the ruling itself stated, there was nothing in the university rules that made hacking the man's computer OK. They found the evidence admissible as a matter of law, not the university terms of service.
the underlying act itself was specifically exempted under special needs.
Again, this was specifically for the purpose of determining the admissibility of the evidence. The 9th Circuit was addressing an appeal, so could only rule on matters of law pertaining to that appeal.
Whether or not the university sysadmin would be convicted under the circumstances is a fairly open question, if he were charged with unauthorized access of a computer system. Now that I've read the ruling and the facts considered, it certainly doesn't look like this was "cyber vigilantism" under the normal definition of the term, nor was it for any of the normal purposes one might think of that make such unauthorized access illegal in the first place. It was directly intended to stop impending harm to the network, once the sysadmin had a reasonable suspicion he had the right guy. So I rather suspect that in this circumstance the sysadmin wouldn't be convicted even if charges were brought against him.
As I read it, and given the fact that this story appears to be regarding an appealed ruling, the 9th Circuit was simply upholding the admissibility of the evidence obtained through the university's hacking. It wasn't ruling as to whether the University had the right to hack, or whether they ran afoul of the law in the process.
IANAL. That said, I would bet what the university sysadmin did ran afoul of at least one computer crime law. Whether or not he'd be convicted or suffer legal ramifications under the circumstances is an open question.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep. And you'd have MS fanboys claiming XP ate kittens, too, back when it was introduced.
Actually, given the structure of the sentence, it would appear that the NDA effectively binds you not to write any articles in which you:
1) discuss the agreement or the fact that a meeting took place, OR
2) mention or imply the name of Google.
That doesn't have to be in the context of insider information. And yes, it's either overbroad, or poorly worded. Perhaps not enforceable, but it's pretty clear the clause discusses two no-no's, separated by the "or". The lack of a comma doesn't change the effect of the "or".
The same can be said for Linux. While MS fanboy-types love to taunt Linux fanboy-types about how Linux will never be widely accepted, etc., etc., the truth is they can thank Linux, *BSD and a number of other open-source alternatives to MS products for many of the steady improvements in MS products we've seen over the years. Had it not been for the constant pressure from open-source products (and Mac products, of course) that didn't have the marketing power or connections to beat MS, but provided sufficiently obvious alternatives to put MS products in a bad light, many of the improvements in stability and security newer versions of Windows have seen likely never would have taken place.
Yes, MS had reason to produce new versions with new features in order to keep the cash cow producing milk. But given MS's actions in the browser arena (disbanding the IE team once they had a lock on the market), there's good reason to believe the "improvements" would have been much more fluff and much less substance.
At this point in time, by the way, MS will have to do a tremendous amount of "innovation" to win me back over to IE. IE7 was a marked improvement. But they'll literally have to blow Firefox out of the water to win me back. And I don't think that's going to happen.
Do you honestly think that the Windows user who can't be bothered to download Linux is going to jump at the chance to buy a machine with it on?
Damn right. This is one of the most basic reasons why Windows is in such wide use -- it comes with computers as a package, rather than being some sort of add-on.
As you said, don't confuse the Slashdot population (which would be more than happy to download a few iso's and replace operating systems) with the general population.
Does it have to be SoundExchange? Couldn't someone set up a competitor to SoundExchange to offer statutory licenses? Or did Congress really give the RIAA the exclusive ability to do this?
Or am I completely misunderstanding the situation? Not unlikely, considering I'm not a lawyer.
The OS should not decide what hardware I buy and that is a fundamental problem.
I agree. That being the case, it would seem Ubuntu is the clear winner over Vista.
In my opinion, this is one of the most compelling reasons to switch to Ubuntu.
...it's also a rational yardstick considering how overwhelming is user experience with Windows.
That entrenched network effect is precisely what keeps Microsoft in their position of dominance. Unfortunately, it also means that for something better to come along that's judged as such, it will first have to beat Windows at its own game.
Lynx might have run rings around IE6 in some ways (such as lack of security vulnerabilities), but that didn't mean it would supplant that out-of-standard monstrosity. It took Firefox to make serious inroads in IE's dominance, simply because it could do virtually everything IE6 could do and better, plus things it couldn't.
Ubuntu's a very good step-or 20-in the right direction. But yeah, if it can't do what Windows can do in certain areas, you'll always hear more bitching than if Windows can't do what Ubuntu can. At least, until Windows is no longer the dominant OS line.
I'm sorry, but this runs counter to the standard MS fanboy's talking point that there's nothing to see here. Transitions to Vista are completely normal. Therefore, you must be wrong.
I know exactly what happened.
You do? Very impressive. Are you a family friend? Part of the prosecutor's office? How do you come by this knowledge?
Please elaborate for the sake of our readers.
Absolutely. Both are important, and both are critical for the functioning of modern society.
And for the record, the police are in a position to to a heck of a lot more damage, and that's just due to simple incompetence. The problem is exponentially worse if your blind assumption that the police don't act out of maliciousness doesn't hold up.
evil is a worse threat to you than stupidity
Really? You do realize you're far more likely to die of an accident than you are from a crime, right?
Except he admitted it right away, before any plea agreement could possibly have been put in place.
Perhaps. My recollection of it was that it was announced first, and several days later the media simply reported that he'd said something about doing research, which may, or may not, have been an admission of guilt (it could also have easily been a result of confusion over the charges).
And would you opt to be a registered sex offender for 5 years, if you were innocent?
If my choice were between that and a high-profile trial, and possibly being a convicted pedophile sent to prison? Is it really so tough to believe someone would choose the former?
Doubt whatever you want... That's not evidence of anything.
Never claimed it was. But thanks for stating the obvious, for the sake of the one person out there who drew that conclusion.
The bottom line is, neither of us knows what really happened--there's too little information. As this story makes clear, what we thought we knew already may have been rather wrong.
Frankly, I think people admit guilt all the time simply to avoid more serious consequences, whether or not they're actually guilty. To modern legal systems, that's simply seen as "all in a day's work".
Whether that was true in Townshend's case will have to wait for more information, if it's forthcoming.
Why did they let him off so easily, if they actually had evidence of wrongdoing?
On the other hand, if they gave him a choice of malicious prosecution or "admitting kinda dumb behavior and receiving only a warning", I'm not so sure the choice of the latter is that tough to understand. Especially for a relatively public figure with undoubtedly high-prices legal representation.
There never was a whole lot of information there. For all we know, Townsend admitted guilt to avoid malicious prosecution. If they'd actually had solid evidence, I kind of doubt they would have let him off with only a warning.
There really needs to be some follow-up on this.
while the cops are torn a new sphincter for every little mistake
IMHO it's not exactly a "little mistake" when nearly 40 people -- many evidently wholly innocent -- kill themselves as a result.
But hey, I'm just one of the ones with "crazy priorities".
To which I'll add: they don't really care about succeeding as a business.
It's simplicity itself to make a website behave under Firefox, if they've got it working under IE7 (unless, of course, it's REALLY OLD CODE and they're doing everything in IE5/6 "Quirks mode").
The bottom line, though is they simply couldn't be bothered. And that attitude likely extends to the rest of their business practices.
Actually, I would think the tungsten interconnects themselves offer a thermal path currently unavailable with single-chip designs. Some of the interconnects could even be formed explicitly for that purpose.
There have been piecemeal upgrades and replacements when warranted. But overall, the kernel builds on more than 15 years of continual development.
Vista's a whole new operating system.
Ubuntu has been out for how long? 5 years? A CEO of an S&P 500, S&P MidCap, S&P SmallCap, etc. corporation is not going to risk his publicly traded corporation's entire infrastructure (the "heart" of the communications between all co-workers) to a 5 year old company (is Ubuntu even a corporation?) that also has many, many competitors. There is only 1 vendor for Windows: Microsoft. There are a ton of vendors for Linux.
This is simply foolish.
Linux has been around for more than 15 years. The current versions (Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, etc.) are not wholesale rewrites of that basic operating system -- they build on the same code base that has a tried-and-true pedigree. Yes, things are replaced piecemeal when better comes along, but the basics are there.
Windows Vista, by contrast, is (according to MS) a complete rewrite. A new operating system from the ground up. It's been around less than two years in essentially the form it is now. It's been around less than five years, period.
This is about fear, and about accountability. And in that sense, I'll agree with you: as long as IT needs are driven not by customer needs or software capabilities but rather by CYA (and by incompetent IT people who barely know how to support MS systems as it is), then many IT personnel will indeed be unwilling to use anything that doesn't have "Microsoft" written on it. But let's not confuse that with code longevity, stability, reliability, usability or availability of support.
Guess I should modify the above, for consistency.
The ruling in question didn't address whether hacking the man's computer was right or wrong under the law.
However, unless the terms of service directly allows an admin to obtain unauthorized access in the name of protecting the network, I would bet the "terms of service" argument wouldn't hold up.
To me, the factors that would save the university sysadmin are the extremely limited nature of the break-in, as evidence for the purpose of that break-in, and the circumstances (the fact that he had reasonable concern that immediate damage could be done to the network). What the sysadmin did may very well be illegal, but whether he'd be charged or convicted under the circumstances is a different story.
And as always, IANAL.
...I have to modify my comments, above. It appears that the sysadmin wasn't involved in "vigilantism" under the normal definition of the term.
As the ruling itself stated, there was nothing in the university rules that made hacking the man's computer OK. They found the evidence admissible as a matter of law, not the university terms of service.
the underlying act itself was specifically exempted under special needs.
Again, this was specifically for the purpose of determining the admissibility of the evidence. The 9th Circuit was addressing an appeal, so could only rule on matters of law pertaining to that appeal.
Whether or not the university sysadmin would be convicted under the circumstances is a fairly open question, if he were charged with unauthorized access of a computer system. Now that I've read the ruling and the facts considered, it certainly doesn't look like this was "cyber vigilantism" under the normal definition of the term, nor was it for any of the normal purposes one might think of that make such unauthorized access illegal in the first place. It was directly intended to stop impending harm to the network, once the sysadmin had a reasonable suspicion he had the right guy. So I rather suspect that in this circumstance the sysadmin wouldn't be convicted even if charges were brought against him.
But again, I'm not a lawyer.
Darned good thing he didn't go further, though.
This is a very good comment.
As I read it, and given the fact that this story appears to be regarding an appealed ruling, the 9th Circuit was simply upholding the admissibility of the evidence obtained through the university's hacking. It wasn't ruling as to whether the University had the right to hack, or whether they ran afoul of the law in the process.
IANAL. That said, I would bet what the university sysadmin did ran afoul of at least one computer crime law. Whether or not he'd be convicted or suffer legal ramifications under the circumstances is an open question.