Heh, we're yet to see if it is possible. Knowing Carmack, he'll probably change his mind about the whole "no aerodynamic shell" thing soon. And although he's talked about scaling up to orbit, he's yet to flesh out the details and hasn't even started to approach the problem of reentry.
Err, there's been no attempts by the copyright cartels to sue ordinary people in Australia. Probably because the majority of magistrates here would just tell them to stop wasting his time and go away.
Second, the Canadians are actually trying to come up with a system that placates the music industry and still allows people the freedom to share music. Here in Australia we've only just managed to get some laws passed which makes it legal to tape stuff off tv.
Yawn. The problem with society today is that they classify "mild inconvenience" as "harm". No-one got killed. Anyone who lost money should have known better than to install random games from the Internet on their work machine.
It's a prank. Not a terribly amusing one, but they can't all be gold.
In Canada, downloading music for your own personal use is not illegal. It's also not illegal in the US, the UK or Australia... despite the vast "education" campaign carried out by the RIAA to make people think otherwise.
As much as I'd prefer to relegate musicians to their rightful place of playing in pubs and clubs for few hundred dollars a night, it seems that a tax system to support musicians when they're not on tour and raking in that cash would be a good substitute for the insane sound recordings copyright system we have now.
Note that I'm not saying anything about composers. Their work is a different kettle of fish and needs a different analysis.. and the royalty system we have now is a heck of a lot better than anything else in copyright law (where significant use of someone else's work is just unlawful).
Yep. Reproducibility is a requirement for an event to be considered evidence. Experimental evidence of God (or the non-existence of God) would be great but, the thing is, the whole God concept is set up to deny evidence. That's what makes it such a good meme, just like economic theories, and other stuff we can't prove but people are happy to believe. And that's the point I suppose, if it makes you happy and doesn't hurt yourself or others, enjoy it.
Yep, an agnostic approach is so much better.. for both God and life we haven't discovered yet. Reserve your beliefs until there is actually some evidence either way.
Sigh. He's been on the environmental right since before he became a politician. He's the same person he has always been. It's probably because he isn't fake that he isn't in power. And, frankly, I think that's a good thing.
The US electoral system is thoroughly gamed. It has been fucked for decades now and the people of the US do nothing about it. They don't believe in democracy anymore.
Gore's interest in environmental policy is completely self serving. First, I don't even know how that is possible. Second, no, he actually believes that stuff is for the benefit of human kind.
I'm no bush lover, but he was the best of a bad choice. And that's the problem with the US political system.
What did I JUST say? Are you incapable of holding them BOTH to a higher standard? Why can't you have a president that is NEITHER an idiot nor an eco-fascist?
The democratic process relies on people who have more interest in how the candidate is chosen than who the candidate is; in other words, little old ladies. These are not the people who are asking for this technology.
I wish people wouldn't base their opinion of Gore (or any politician) on his opponent. How much do you know about Gore himself? I'm one of the few people who have read his books and the literature he advocates. This is a guy who advocates a steady state society and forced limits on how many children people can have (like China), along with forced limits on energy use, etc.
And, as I've said in another post, if you find their bugs for them they feel they don't need to do it themselves. So if you can make them pay for what you know, at least they might try to undercut you, and then they'll be doing what they should have been doing in the first place.
If something is remote exploitable, you turn it off. If you do what he is suggesting you're only making it slightly harder for your box to get owned. Oh, and this won't stop a worm.. as the worm almost surely doesn't need root.
I'm not exactly quaking in my boots here... For every remote vulnerability you hear about there are dozens you don't. The vast majority of people looking for vulnerabilities are "bad guys", and they don't tell us what they find.
Hopefully that will change sometime soon. I like to think there is a push coming that is going to make vendors think differently about software security.
Yup, exactly. Which is why I'm saying that if you find their defects for them and don't make them pay, then they will never bother looking for defects themselves.
And that's the problem. You want to look at it in simple terms instead of considering the whole issue.
Apple and other software vendors have chosen a development model that maximizes their ability to hide defects in their software. If people are morally obliged to report any of the defects they independently find in the software then the vendor has no incentive to ensure the defects are found before the product hits the market. To put it another way, time to market is much more important to them than making a product free of defects. The only thing that motivates them to ensure their products are defect free is malware. As such, creation of malware actually *helps* to make the vendor take more responsibility for the defects in their product.
Slashdot Mirror
Heh, we're yet to see if it is possible. Knowing Carmack, he'll probably change his mind about the whole "no aerodynamic shell" thing soon. And although he's talked about scaling up to orbit, he's yet to flesh out the details and hasn't even started to approach the problem of reentry.
You goin' to the X-Prize Cup this year?
LLC should be quite a show.
Err, there's been no attempts by the copyright cartels to sue ordinary people in Australia. Probably because the majority of magistrates here would just tell them to stop wasting his time and go away.
Second, the Canadians are actually trying to come up with a system that placates the music industry and still allows people the freedom to share music. Here in Australia we've only just managed to get some laws passed which makes it legal to tape stuff off tv.
Yawn. The problem with society today is that they classify "mild inconvenience" as "harm". No-one got killed. Anyone who lost money should have known better than to install random games from the Internet on their work machine.
It's a prank. Not a terribly amusing one, but they can't all be gold.
I guess it is working.
As much as I'd prefer to relegate musicians to their rightful place of playing in pubs and clubs for few hundred dollars a night, it seems that a tax system to support musicians when they're not on tour and raking in that cash would be a good substitute for the insane sound recordings copyright system we have now.
Note that I'm not saying anything about composers. Their work is a different kettle of fish and needs a different analysis.. and the royalty system we have now is a heck of a lot better than anything else in copyright law (where significant use of someone else's work is just unlawful).
Or like putting sugar in someone's gas tank? Or like putting a banana in their tail pipe? You mean like harmless fun?
Kids have been doing this forever.. we don't put them in jail.
Yep. Reproducibility is a requirement for an event to be considered evidence. Experimental evidence of God (or the non-existence of God) would be great but, the thing is, the whole God concept is set up to deny evidence. That's what makes it such a good meme, just like economic theories, and other stuff we can't prove but people are happy to believe. And that's the point I suppose, if it makes you happy and doesn't hurt yourself or others, enjoy it.
Yep, an agnostic approach is so much better.. for both God and life we haven't discovered yet. Reserve your beliefs until there is actually some evidence either way.
They buy what Jobs tells them to buy.
Look, posting this article made this other article from June 12 with exactly the same content get posted!
The theory works!
Sigh. He's been on the environmental right since before he became a politician. He's the same person he has always been. It's probably because he isn't fake that he isn't in power. And, frankly, I think that's a good thing.
The US electoral system is thoroughly gamed. It has been fucked for decades now and the people of the US do nothing about it. They don't believe in democracy anymore.
What did I JUST say? Are you incapable of holding them BOTH to a higher standard? Why can't you have a president that is NEITHER an idiot nor an eco-fascist?
Say it with me: count twice, count by hand.
The democratic process relies on people who have more interest in how the candidate is chosen than who the candidate is; in other words, little old ladies. These are not the people who are asking for this technology.
I wish people wouldn't base their opinion of Gore (or any politician) on his opponent. How much do you know about Gore himself? I'm one of the few people who have read his books and the literature he advocates. This is a guy who advocates a steady state society and forced limits on how many children people can have (like China), along with forced limits on energy use, etc.
As hard as it is to imagine how a president could be worse than Bush Jr, I kinda have to wonder how the world would be now if Gore had won.
And, as I've said in another post, if you find their bugs for them they feel they don't need to do it themselves. So if you can make them pay for what you know, at least they might try to undercut you, and then they'll be doing what they should have been doing in the first place.
If something is remote exploitable, you turn it off. If you do what he is suggesting you're only making it slightly harder for your box to get owned. Oh, and this won't stop a worm.. as the worm almost surely doesn't need root.
Hopefully that will change sometime soon. I like to think there is a push coming that is going to make vendors think differently about software security.
But maybe that's just over-optimistic.
Oh boy.
I can't believe this bad advice got modded up.
Yup, exactly. Which is why I'm saying that if you find their defects for them and don't make them pay, then they will never bother looking for defects themselves.
And that's the problem. You want to look at it in simple terms instead of considering the whole issue.
Apple and other software vendors have chosen a development model that maximizes their ability to hide defects in their software. If people are morally obliged to report any of the defects they independently find in the software then the vendor has no incentive to ensure the defects are found before the product hits the market. To put it another way, time to market is much more important to them than making a product free of defects. The only thing that motivates them to ensure their products are defect free is malware. As such, creation of malware actually *helps* to make the vendor take more responsibility for the defects in their product.