"it lets people change their minds when it becomes clear they can't fight the future."
Can't fight the future, or did Linux finally reach maturity? There's a big difference between fighting it kicking and screaming and simply not being able to use it because there's things it wasn't able to do.
Don't assume that everybody who avoids Linux is an idiot.
"No they aren't. You can be damn sure that Ford would be sued if there was a bug in the software that controls a car's breaks. The same applies to software on the space shuttle, elevators, and medical equipment."
Um, no, you're comparing apples to oranges here. There's a significant difference between software for PCs and software to do a very specific task, such as controlling brakes on a car.
"It is all a matter of how you approach programming."
There's more to it than that. No approach of programming is going to 100% secure you from defective software on a general PC'esque evironment. It's one thing to guarantee that brakes work, like in your example. It's another to say "this program will never ever crash, even though it's running alongside other programs."
"I guess then, that the USN's use of NT for mission critical programs on ships is violating the EULA?"
If you're trying to defeat his argument, it didn't work.
Problem 1: The Navy has never sued Microsoft because NT caused the loss of life.
Problem 2: If NT did cause loss of life, and the EULA says "don't use it for life and death stuff" then the USN was being stupid.
Problem 3: How do we know MS didn't make a special NT for the USN? That's an important point if you consider that it's easy to lock down and stabilize any piece of software for a specific situation/setting.
"As long as MS lets functionality and ease of use predominate security, they won't make secure systems. There is always a trade off in the real world. MS Outlook and Outlook express are the ultimate examples of that policy."
Give them some credit, though, they have come up with fixes for a lot of the stuff without compromising features too much. Once they get all that fixed, we'll have the best of both worlds. (Or find out for sure that it cannot be done.)
" why should software be treated differently than other products? And I have yet to see a lucid argument that it should."
It's very simple: Software is in a unique environment where just about anything can happen. Afterall, computers are very generalized in what they do. The nature of this generalized environment is that somebody can be malicious in so many different ways that it's ridiculous to believe that anybody can every make anything totally secure. Once somebody is *in*, then that's it. They can destroy the data on the computer, they can lock it up so nobody can use it, or they can infect another machine.
As for physical products, there's an entirely different environment happens. There are controlled ways to use this product. It's reasonable that your car is on the road driving a certain speed. It's reasonable that if the tire explodes for whatever reason, it does so in such a way that it doesn't get tangled up int he car and lock it up, causing rollover. So what happens when it turns out that the tires are defective, they get recalled. Software can be patched, but not recalled.
So let's talk about a computer on the net here. You've got a Windows computer using Outlook Express. It's on the net 24/7 thanks to broadband. (Spare me the usual uptime jokes about Windows, they were funny back in 99.) Somebody sends you an email, and it causes something to happen in Outlook Express. The exploit was use of a feature in Outlook. Let's say that the hacker didn't use a buffer overflow or anything like that, they just used the default features and found a way to cause mischief with them.
Okay, so somebody went with Microsoft's defaults and they ended up sending a virus to everybody in their contact list. Is Microsoft responsible?
Well, that's the funny thing about computers, the answer is not black and white. First, when the feature was originally developed, was Microsoft negligent for allowing that sort of exploit? that's a toughie. In some ways, yes, in some ways, no. Should Microsoft have anticipated somebody'd be an ass with it? Hindsight is 20/20. Did one programmer put in the activex feature and another programmer put in the 'email everybody on your contact list' feature? Was there a disconnect that prevented the foresight that somebody did that? If so, what about the user? Were they being responsible? Did they take the proper security precautions?
Even back in 1995, there was talk about internet security. Watch out for malicious files. Careful what you open! Should the user have at least looked at the security settings? Some would say, yes. Computers are not simple devices. Nor are they assembly line machines, almost all of them are unique in some form or another. It's sort of like depending on TV to have your values in mind when it blasts programming to your children.
What about patches? Microsoft can't 'recall' the product reasonably. (look at all the pirated copies of Windows out there) So what do they do? They release a patch. Should users stay on top of patching? Of course! MS puts all this effort into fixing stuff, at some point they just cannot be blamed for the damage caused by a virus or worm.
Anyway, I've babbled too much here. You asked why software is different. The short and very simple answer is that responsibility is shared between both the software maker and the user to a larger degree than most products. Worse, the exploits that are often used don't really apply in a negligence case in the real world. Buffer underruns come to mind. Somebody has to be fairly slick to figure that one out. It's sort of like figuring out the exact sonic frequency it'd take to make a car's tires explode, and then figuring out a way to broadcast it in such a way that it affects cars all over the place. Is Firestone responsible for negligence for not protecting thier tires against this type of attack? Afterall, materials resonate at certainn frequencies. Are they negligent for leaving that vulnerability o
There is some common sense ground here. I don't think it's as black and white as you're saying.
I'm not sure if I think they have a legal case or not. I certainly hope they don't, though. I'm worried about the ripples that could be caused by this case. Remember when sexual harassment was a big deal? Remember all those stupid lawsuits that stemmed from that? Could this turn into one of those things?
"That's assuming you're only buying one game, what if you decided you wanted 20 games? Now you've just saved thirty dollars for a short trip to the store."
Sure. And you could save $150 by buying 100 games. Congratulations, you proved that this isn't a black and white everything only works one way world.
"The problem is : if Microsoft is judged responsible, what would happen to others in the same situation ? Especially to free software ?"
I'm glad somebody else finally said this.
There are a few simple things to consider:
- Software is written by error-prone humans. - Software is maliciously used by people who concoct creative ideas. - Linux may be more secure by default, but it's still a human error away from having the same type of problem hit it.
I'll tell you all something, if I'd be scared shitless about releasing an app on the web if it turned out I could be responsible for somebody else being a bastard with it.
"What happened to talking to your "significant other" while waiting for dinner to be served, or waiting for hte movie to start."
Who says I don't? Why do you have to assume it's "Oh, he just plays that game, he doesn't talk to anybody or have any sort of social life"? Give me a little credit, will ya?
My girlfriend doesn't like all the same movies I do. Simple as that. She wouldn't go with me to see Star Trek or Terminator. Hence, I went alone. " I can not stay I have ever went to dinner or a movie alone."
I do, from time to time. I eat at restaraunts for lunch. My gf lives too far away for me to go have lunch with her. Simple.
"I do not mean to be rude, but the technology that is supposed to be bringing us closer together is not doing its job. Instead of talking to the person beside you in public places, we are talking on or playing games on a cell phone. Instead of spending quality time with people, we are on the Internet."
You look *way* too deep into what I said. You're assuming I'm playing games and not talking to anybody. You're assuming I play on the internet and don't talk to anybody. You probably think I don't go out or do anything exciting but watch Slashdot all day. Again, I say, give me some credit.
For the record, technology is keeping me in touch with a lot of people from all over the world. I've been to Brazil, Australia, and Canada, and are still in touch with many of the people I've met there. I've got a friend I routinely IM with over my cell phone, she lives two towns over. My GF and I email each other while I'm at work. My friends around the city use IRC to get a gathering going. And then there's Live Journal, which provides me with a deeper insight into what's going on with my friends.
Technology isn't bringing us closer together? While you're busy telling me I'm doing nothing but playing games on my cell phone, I'm actually quite entrenched with technology and how it relates to my social life.
Maybe you should come out of your world of absolutist logic and assumptions that are ill-concieved. It's turning you into a pessimist.
"The problem is that there's good money being thrown at this kind of stuff (for example, testing the viscosity of ketchup - there's a boon to mankind) when it could be spent in much better ways."
Fundamental stuff has to be understoood. I'm sorry you lost family members to cancer, however, there's no telling what all will need to be understood in order to cure it or anything else.
We live in a diverse, colorful world. Remember that.
" until voice recognition reaches a point were it can reliably interpret a vast vocabulary from multiple voices and accents, none of this can happen."
That technology is here today. The big problem isn't in understanding the signals, it's in understanding the context. There are systems today that can hear what you're saying, and recognize when it hears a command. I have one of those R2-D2 toys. It is very good at hearing you say "Hey R2!". UPS has a phone system where it asks you to say out loud your tracking number. It worked! Even Microsoft's got a speech recognition demo. While playing with it, it was giving me a decent transcript of what it was hearing on TV. (Note: this wasn't intentional, I didn't have the mic like right up to the tv or anything.) Though I did have an amusing moment. My cat tried to jump in my lap, missed, and clawed into my leg. My computer thought I had called it a 'stupid little bench'.
The technology is more or less there, now the problem is context. How does the computer know if the word 'may' means may or May? How does the computer understand phrases like "Kick your butt"?
I have a solution to this problem. Though it's by no means easy to incorporate. A neural network has been built a few times before. I saw an experiment once where a robot arm with an electronic eye was tied to a neural net. They brought a child up to it and played with blocks. Within minutes, the child had taught the robot a game. She'd take a block and then wait. The robot would take a block and then wait. Then she'd take another one. The the robot would. And so on. The robot was not programmed to do this. The kid just taught the robot a very simple game.
Meanwhile, there are humanoid robots in development. They can walk. Cool, eh? Well imagine tying this guy into a neural net. It'd be strange at first, but over time, it would learn. It would learn english. It would even pick up slang.
Personally, I think this is the path to getting good voice recognition out of a computer. We need for one to live with us like we do. I don't think poking in a bunch of commands and if/then statements are going to do it.
I hate stupid comments like this. Research of cancer doesn't go faster if you add more people to it, especially if those people have no qualifications or background to do it.
" but McBride whining about the simple fact that the code was there now has some merit to it?"
You guys have to be careful about fanatics like McBride. It's easy to dismiss their claims and say "bah", but you really have to watch out for legitimacy of their claims. Remember, few people are actually lunatics. Everybody's motivated by something.
Of course not, the technology's being developed, then the apps that make it interesting will come. Personally, I think auto mechanics would love to have a wearable computer. Imagine having instant access to the internal workings of the particular car you're working on. Instant reference.
" Nor do I have any desire to play games on my cellphone."
What's wrong with that? Well I guess I can't entice you, but personally I've enjoyed having simple games to play. At the last movie I saw, I played snake while waiting for the stupid previews to be over. When I'm alone for a bit, like waiting for my meal to be served, I get on the net with my cell phone and get updated on the news. Can I live without? Sure. But I can make a little use of my time.
" (In fact I don't even own a cellphone because of the hideously overpriced services)."
Hideous? I pay about 10-15 bucks a month more than a landline, all my long distance is free, and my phone's with me all the time. I get better service and it only costs a little more than a landline that only works at.. uh.. home.
"So to punish your son for downloading music, which really doesn't have any value anyway, you destroyed a computer worth over 1000 dollars of your son's money?"
Sounds like some of that infamous RIAA math to me.
Interesting note: I tried to create a batch file that endlessly spun on the CPU, trying to make it self DoS. Unfortunately, I'm running Windows 2000. When I made a batch file that looped itself, after it spun a few times I got a message to the effect of "too many iterations, closing app". Now with all the talk about how stupid MS security is, it was an interesting suprise to find that it wouldn't let me put it in an endless loop.
"Can't you legally buy the cartridge and then (legally) download a rom of that game?"
Yep. But you still have to make that trip to go get it. You could save yourself some money, but at the cost of time. What what point is it worth saving $1.50?
"Because they never got the same ad budget as the summer blockbusters, smaller films relied on the buzz generated by screeners, or so the blurb would suggest."
Ah, thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to piece together.:)
Slashdot Mirror
"it lets people change their minds when it becomes clear they can't fight the future."
Can't fight the future, or did Linux finally reach maturity? There's a big difference between fighting it kicking and screaming and simply not being able to use it because there's things it wasn't able to do.
Don't assume that everybody who avoids Linux is an idiot.
..if they'd just make a spanking game like that. They could call it Spanky Kong.
"No they aren't. You can be damn sure that Ford would be sued if there was a bug in the software that controls a car's breaks. The same applies to software on the space shuttle, elevators, and medical equipment."
Um, no, you're comparing apples to oranges here. There's a significant difference between software for PCs and software to do a very specific task, such as controlling brakes on a car.
"It is all a matter of how you approach programming."
There's more to it than that. No approach of programming is going to 100% secure you from defective software on a general PC'esque evironment. It's one thing to guarantee that brakes work, like in your example. It's another to say "this program will never ever crash, even though it's running alongside other programs."
"I guess then, that the USN's use of NT for mission critical programs on ships is violating the EULA?"
If you're trying to defeat his argument, it didn't work.
Problem 1: The Navy has never sued Microsoft because NT caused the loss of life.
Problem 2: If NT did cause loss of life, and the EULA says "don't use it for life and death stuff" then the USN was being stupid.
Problem 3: How do we know MS didn't make a special NT for the USN? That's an important point if you consider that it's easy to lock down and stabilize any piece of software for a specific situation/setting.
"As long as MS lets functionality and ease of use predominate security, they won't make secure systems. There is always a trade off in the real world. MS Outlook and Outlook express are the ultimate examples of that policy."
Give them some credit, though, they have come up with fixes for a lot of the stuff without compromising features too much. Once they get all that fixed, we'll have the best of both worlds. (Or find out for sure that it cannot be done.)
" why should software be treated differently than other products? And I have yet to see a lucid argument that it should."
It's very simple: Software is in a unique environment where just about anything can happen. Afterall, computers are very generalized in what they do. The nature of this generalized environment is that somebody can be malicious in so many different ways that it's ridiculous to believe that anybody can every make anything totally secure. Once somebody is *in*, then that's it. They can destroy the data on the computer, they can lock it up so nobody can use it, or they can infect another machine.
As for physical products, there's an entirely different environment happens. There are controlled ways to use this product. It's reasonable that your car is on the road driving a certain speed. It's reasonable that if the tire explodes for whatever reason, it does so in such a way that it doesn't get tangled up int he car and lock it up, causing rollover. So what happens when it turns out that the tires are defective, they get recalled. Software can be patched, but not recalled.
So let's talk about a computer on the net here. You've got a Windows computer using Outlook Express. It's on the net 24/7 thanks to broadband. (Spare me the usual uptime jokes about Windows, they were funny back in 99.) Somebody sends you an email, and it causes something to happen in Outlook Express. The exploit was use of a feature in Outlook. Let's say that the hacker didn't use a buffer overflow or anything like that, they just used the default features and found a way to cause mischief with them.
Okay, so somebody went with Microsoft's defaults and they ended up sending a virus to everybody in their contact list. Is Microsoft responsible?
Well, that's the funny thing about computers, the answer is not black and white. First, when the feature was originally developed, was Microsoft negligent for allowing that sort of exploit? that's a toughie. In some ways, yes, in some ways, no. Should Microsoft have anticipated somebody'd be an ass with it? Hindsight is 20/20. Did one programmer put in the activex feature and another programmer put in the 'email everybody on your contact list' feature? Was there a disconnect that prevented the foresight that somebody did that? If so, what about the user? Were they being responsible? Did they take the proper security precautions?
Even back in 1995, there was talk about internet security. Watch out for malicious files. Careful what you open! Should the user have at least looked at the security settings? Some would say, yes. Computers are not simple devices. Nor are they assembly line machines, almost all of them are unique in some form or another. It's sort of like depending on TV to have your values in mind when it blasts programming to your children.
What about patches? Microsoft can't 'recall' the product reasonably. (look at all the pirated copies of Windows out there) So what do they do? They release a patch. Should users stay on top of patching? Of course! MS puts all this effort into fixing stuff, at some point they just cannot be blamed for the damage caused by a virus or worm.
Anyway, I've babbled too much here. You asked why software is different. The short and very simple answer is that responsibility is shared between both the software maker and the user to a larger degree than most products. Worse, the exploits that are often used don't really apply in a negligence case in the real world. Buffer underruns come to mind. Somebody has to be fairly slick to figure that one out. It's sort of like figuring out the exact sonic frequency it'd take to make a car's tires explode, and then figuring out a way to broadcast it in such a way that it affects cars all over the place. Is Firestone responsible for negligence for not protecting thier tires against this type of attack? Afterall, materials resonate at certainn frequencies. Are they negligent for leaving that vulnerability o
"You agreed to the product being sold AS IS."
Ehh..
There is some common sense ground here. I don't think it's as black and white as you're saying.
I'm not sure if I think they have a legal case or not. I certainly hope they don't, though. I'm worried about the ripples that could be caused by this case. Remember when sexual harassment was a big deal? Remember all those stupid lawsuits that stemmed from that? Could this turn into one of those things?
"That's assuming you're only buying one game, what if you decided you wanted 20 games? Now you've just saved thirty dollars for a short trip to the store."
Sure. And you could save $150 by buying 100 games. Congratulations, you proved that this isn't a black and white everything only works one way world.
"The problem is : if Microsoft is judged responsible, what would happen to others in the same situation ? Especially to free software ?"
I'm glad somebody else finally said this.
There are a few simple things to consider:
- Software is written by error-prone humans.
- Software is maliciously used by people who concoct creative ideas.
- Linux may be more secure by default, but it's still a human error away from having the same type of problem hit it.
I'll tell you all something, if I'd be scared shitless about releasing an app on the web if it turned out I could be responsible for somebody else being a bastard with it.
"What happened to talking to your "significant other" while waiting for dinner to be served, or waiting for hte movie to start."
Who says I don't? Why do you have to assume it's "Oh, he just plays that game, he doesn't talk to anybody or have any sort of social life"? Give me a little credit, will ya?
My girlfriend doesn't like all the same movies I do. Simple as that. She wouldn't go with me to see Star Trek or Terminator. Hence, I went alone.
" I can not stay I have ever went to dinner or a movie alone."
I do, from time to time. I eat at restaraunts for lunch. My gf lives too far away for me to go have lunch with her. Simple.
"I do not mean to be rude, but the technology that is supposed to be bringing us closer together is not doing its job. Instead of talking to the person beside you in public places, we are talking on or playing games on a cell phone. Instead of spending quality time with people, we are on the Internet."
You look *way* too deep into what I said. You're assuming I'm playing games and not talking to anybody. You're assuming I play on the internet and don't talk to anybody. You probably think I don't go out or do anything exciting but watch Slashdot all day. Again, I say, give me some credit.
For the record, technology is keeping me in touch with a lot of people from all over the world. I've been to Brazil, Australia, and Canada, and are still in touch with many of the people I've met there. I've got a friend I routinely IM with over my cell phone, she lives two towns over. My GF and I email each other while I'm at work. My friends around the city use IRC to get a gathering going. And then there's Live Journal, which provides me with a deeper insight into what's going on with my friends.
Technology isn't bringing us closer together? While you're busy telling me I'm doing nothing but playing games on my cell phone, I'm actually quite entrenched with technology and how it relates to my social life.
Maybe you should come out of your world of absolutist logic and assumptions that are ill-concieved. It's turning you into a pessimist.
"The problem is that there's good money being thrown at this kind of stuff (for example, testing the viscosity of ketchup - there's a boon to mankind) when it could be spent in much better ways."
Fundamental stuff has to be understoood. I'm sorry you lost family members to cancer, however, there's no telling what all will need to be understood in order to cure it or anything else.
We live in a diverse, colorful world. Remember that.
" until voice recognition reaches a point were it can reliably interpret a vast vocabulary from multiple voices and accents, none of this can happen."
That technology is here today. The big problem isn't in understanding the signals, it's in understanding the context. There are systems today that can hear what you're saying, and recognize when it hears a command. I have one of those R2-D2 toys. It is very good at hearing you say "Hey R2!". UPS has a phone system where it asks you to say out loud your tracking number. It worked! Even Microsoft's got a speech recognition demo. While playing with it, it was giving me a decent transcript of what it was hearing on TV. (Note: this wasn't intentional, I didn't have the mic like right up to the tv or anything.) Though I did have an amusing moment. My cat tried to jump in my lap, missed, and clawed into my leg. My computer thought I had called it a 'stupid little bench'.
The technology is more or less there, now the problem is context. How does the computer know if the word 'may' means may or May? How does the computer understand phrases like "Kick your butt"?
I have a solution to this problem. Though it's by no means easy to incorporate. A neural network has been built a few times before. I saw an experiment once where a robot arm with an electronic eye was tied to a neural net. They brought a child up to it and played with blocks. Within minutes, the child had taught the robot a game. She'd take a block and then wait. The robot would take a block and then wait. Then she'd take another one. The the robot would. And so on. The robot was not programmed to do this. The kid just taught the robot a very simple game.
Meanwhile, there are humanoid robots in development. They can walk. Cool, eh? Well imagine tying this guy into a neural net. It'd be strange at first, but over time, it would learn. It would learn english. It would even pick up slang.
Personally, I think this is the path to getting good voice recognition out of a computer. We need for one to live with us like we do. I don't think poking in a bunch of commands and if/then statements are going to do it.
"...still no cure for cancer."
I hate stupid comments like this. Research of cancer doesn't go faster if you add more people to it, especially if those people have no qualifications or background to do it.
" but McBride whining about the simple fact that the code was there now has some merit to it?"
You guys have to be careful about fanatics like McBride. It's easy to dismiss their claims and say "bah", but you really have to watch out for legitimacy of their claims. Remember, few people are actually lunatics. Everybody's motivated by something.
"Perhaps that should be their new slogan: "Amazon, when you don't care enough to buy them a real gift."
You think I'm buying virtual gifts?
"I have no desire to "wear" my computer."
Of course not, the technology's being developed, then the apps that make it interesting will come. Personally, I think auto mechanics would love to have a wearable computer. Imagine having instant access to the internal workings of the particular car you're working on. Instant reference.
" Nor do I have any desire to play games on my cellphone."
What's wrong with that? Well I guess I can't entice you, but personally I've enjoyed having simple games to play. At the last movie I saw, I played snake while waiting for the stupid previews to be over. When I'm alone for a bit, like waiting for my meal to be served, I get on the net with my cell phone and get updated on the news. Can I live without? Sure. But I can make a little use of my time.
" (In fact I don't even own a cellphone because of the hideously overpriced services)."
Hideous? I pay about 10-15 bucks a month more than a landline, all my long distance is free, and my phone's with me all the time. I get better service and it only costs a little more than a landline that only works at.. uh.. home.
"So to punish your son for downloading music, which really doesn't have any value anyway, you destroyed a computer worth over 1000 dollars of your son's money?"
Sounds like some of that infamous RIAA math to me.
"Oh wow. I had no idea Dr. Laura visited Slashdot!"
Oh wow. I had no idea anybody that listened to Dr. Laura visits Slashdot!
"I taught my son a lesson by destroying his iBook."
Just so you know, you're raising a rebel.
"In any event, no one here has anymore right to judge my parenting skills than I do."
Perhaps not. But when everybody tells you what an idiotic parent you are being, I'd advise you listen. You don't have to agree, but seriously, listen.
"Longer than it took to slashdot it, it seems. "
Actually it stayed up like 2 hours.
Interesting note: I tried to create a batch file that endlessly spun on the CPU, trying to make it self DoS. Unfortunately, I'm running Windows 2000. When I made a batch file that looped itself, after it spun a few times I got a message to the effect of "too many iterations, closing app". Now with all the talk about how stupid MS security is, it was an interesting suprise to find that it wouldn't let me put it in an endless loop.
Oh gee. Yeah, I challenged an unfair moderation. You better mod me down before somebody see's it!
Meta-mods: Please go up a couple of posts before you mod me down. I was modded as off-topic for a comment that was very much on-topic.
Aww it's down. :(
"It's just another way that the Japanese government has found to stifle the already depressed economy."
Of course, that's the aim of the Japanese Government.
"Can't you legally buy the cartridge and then (legally) download a rom of that game?"
Yep. But you still have to make that trip to go get it. You could save yourself some money, but at the cost of time. What what point is it worth saving $1.50?
"Because they never got the same ad budget as the summer blockbusters, smaller films relied on the buzz generated by screeners, or so the blurb would suggest."
:)
Ah, thank you. That's exactly what I was trying to piece together.