"Federal law - 28 U.S.C. 1498 - allows the United States to purchase products like ciprofloxacin for official use from manufacturers other than the patent holder."
If Microsoft really started requiring Third party Programs to fully clean themselves up, including the registry, or lose that little Windows compatable mark on the box art, they would lose over half the companies claiming to be compatable.
The "Designed for Windows 2000" and the XP variation are pretty strict. The program has to use the Windows installer, which usually ensures a clean removal. The program also has to run properly under limited privileges. Most programs are not certified by Microsoft in that way. They just say "compatible," which has no restrictions. Check your facts.
That's because you're probably changing the privileges of a necessarily system-level process. The.NET services, as I stated in my example, run under an unprivileged account. Any other non-system services can (and should) also run at such an unprivileged level. If you disable system-level access for a service that needs it, it will fail. So, I don't see your point. Processies like "Server" need system-level access. Yes, there are services that run at stupidly high levels of privilege, but it's a flaw in the service itself or the configuration of said service, not the service security model.
but last time I checked, an out-of-the-box Windows box is owned minutes after connecting to the network
Last I checked, out of the box machines come with SP2, which fixes most such vulnerabilities, and have a firewall enabled by default. In addition, the latest desktop and server versions of Windows come with very few services enabled by default. It's also been a LONG time since any Microsoft email program ran worms without user interaction. And finally, if you take security so seriously, why don't you filter viruses in messages on your mail server, patch your mail clients, install client-side virus scanners, or TRAIN your users?
IE sucks for security, but that doesn't seem to be part of your argument. Please play again later.
It's not new. I know it's been there since at least Windows 2000. Open the properties for any service. The account it runs under is right in front of you. The.NET Framework is one system that uses such an unprivileged account. Did you even open the services MMC before posting?
Technically, copying music from a CD without maintaining this flag is in violation of the DMCA...
I'm not so sure about that. It's not like you have to decrypt something. All you have to do is write a disk copier that either ignores both bits or duplicates both bits. The DMCA doesn't force you to write software that affirms copy-protection technology, just software that doesn't go out of its way to circumvent copy-protection technology. (IANAL)
You can make it look like anything you want, what's your beef?
Flexible interfaces like you describe are usually bad things. They create inconsistancy across systems, a high overhead of setting up a new box, and lots of support trouble. That's why Apple's GUI often feels so constrained. They try to choose the one best way to do something, implement it, and spare their users a glut of customization options.
So, my beef would be two fold. Not only do they choose a poor, inconsistant model for their GUI, they also let you change it in a bunch of different ways that increase inconsistancy.
As an athiest that position is untenable, and I haven't run into any non-religious justifications for moral absolutism. If you happen to know of any, I'd be interested in a reference.
Read some David Hume. There are plenty of accounts on non-relativistic, secular morality.
Thanks and nice article on FireWire the other day!
I don't understand why anyone would think Microsoft is anti-Firewire. USB is Intel's baby. Microsoft runs on a partially Intel-controlled platform. So Microsoft writes code to support such a platform. Intel's reluctant Firewire support led to reluctanct Microsoft support. Yet, Firewire support in Windows XP is quite good.
Clearly GenBank must have rigorously aligned this sequence
Yeah, odds are they got a perfect match, just not one for the right reason.:-) I didn't say GenBank was perfect. I just said they're not the genetic equivalent of Wikipedia.
That project, minus the insignificant addition of photos, is already widely underway at GenBank, a part of NCBI, which is in turn part of NIH. Most major biological journals require submissions of sequences to GenBank prior to consideration for publication. Combined with NCBI's taxonomic system, I don't see the value of this new project.
I work in this lab. Specifically, I'm working on objective analysis of RNA sequence alignment heuristics.
If you can modify kernel32.dll you can easily make the same change to the two backup copies before SFP gets around to restoring it.
The modified versions still won't be properly signed. Windows will ask for the CD; I said that in my comment. With that resolved, SFP is exactly what you're talking about. If SFP is a flawed system for maintaining system integrity, your proposal is no better.
How about a program that takes the cryptohash of the virgin final installed code, and checks against that hash periodically
It's called System File Protection, and it's been part of Windows since at least Windows 2000. It's been beefed up in XP. It does exactly what you describe and keeps a cache of known good copies. If the local known-good store goes sour, Windows asks for the CD.
How would I know where their money goes? They refuse to file financial reports like most charities by claiming a religious exemption. I demand transparency before any charitable organization reasonably expect any cash from me.
Charities exist in a privilaged place in tax law that can easily be abused. So, with the privilage of not paying taxes, charities need to be transparent with their finances. The Salvation Army's use of religious exemption is unacceptable.
I realize that his use of "and" doesn't necessarily mean he's using an implication between normal and okay or deviant and not okay. However, the mention of normalcy and deviance would be otherwise irrelevant if he weren't using normalcy and deviance as hypothesis for implications.
Slashdot Mirror
People need to realize that the government has the ability to use any patent for its own use or license a private organization's use.
Read the law.
"Federal law - 28 U.S.C. 1498 - allows the United States to purchase products like ciprofloxacin for official use from manufacturers other than the patent holder."
IANAL
It was a joke. Limited platform availability is hardly an argument in favor of security.
You have to grant that IE 6's security flaws never reach seem to reach beyond the Windows platform.
Consider: The passive voice is known and is used by me when wanted, dammit!
The "Designed for Windows 2000" and the XP variation are pretty strict. The program has to use the Windows installer, which usually ensures a clean removal. The program also has to run properly under limited privileges. Most programs are not certified by Microsoft in that way. They just say "compatible," which has no restrictions. Check your facts.
Prozac is an SSRI, which means it's an anti-depressant, not an ADHD treatment.
Notice the or. Any one of those steps alone would fix his problem.
That's because you're probably changing the privileges of a necessarily system-level process. The .NET services, as I stated in my example, run under an unprivileged account. Any other non-system services can (and should) also run at such an unprivileged level. If you disable system-level access for a service that needs it, it will fail. So, I don't see your point. Processies like "Server" need system-level access. Yes, there are services that run at stupidly high levels of privilege, but it's a flaw in the service itself or the configuration of said service, not the service security model.
Last I checked, out of the box machines come with SP2, which fixes most such vulnerabilities, and have a firewall enabled by default. In addition, the latest desktop and server versions of Windows come with very few services enabled by default. It's also been a LONG time since any Microsoft email program ran worms without user interaction. And finally, if you take security so seriously, why don't you filter viruses in messages on your mail server, patch your mail clients, install client-side virus scanners, or TRAIN your users?
IE sucks for security, but that doesn't seem to be part of your argument. Please play again later.
It's not new. I know it's been there since at least Windows 2000. Open the properties for any service. The account it runs under is right in front of you. The .NET Framework is one system that uses such an unprivileged account. Did you even open the services MMC before posting?
I'm not so sure about that. It's not like you have to decrypt something. All you have to do is write a disk copier that either ignores both bits or duplicates both bits. The DMCA doesn't force you to write software that affirms copy-protection technology, just software that doesn't go out of its way to circumvent copy-protection technology. (IANAL)
Flexible interfaces like you describe are usually bad things. They create inconsistancy across systems, a high overhead of setting up a new box, and lots of support trouble. That's why Apple's GUI often feels so constrained. They try to choose the one best way to do something, implement it, and spare their users a glut of customization options.
So, my beef would be two fold. Not only do they choose a poor, inconsistant model for their GUI, they also let you change it in a bunch of different ways that increase inconsistancy.
I would say SP2 for XP was a significant update for functionality. The .NET framework is also a "Windows Update" with lots of added capability.
Power companies in the U.S. are required to buy excess power off you at the same rate that you would pay for power off them.
Read some David Hume. There are plenty of accounts on non-relativistic, secular morality.
I don't understand why anyone would think Microsoft is anti-Firewire. USB is Intel's baby. Microsoft runs on a partially Intel-controlled platform. So Microsoft writes code to support such a platform. Intel's reluctant Firewire support led to reluctanct Microsoft support. Yet, Firewire support in Windows XP is quite good.
Yeah, odds are they got a perfect match, just not one for the right reason. :-) I didn't say GenBank was perfect. I just said they're not the genetic equivalent of Wikipedia.
Wrong. GenBank aligns submissions against existing data and requires submitters to validate any possibly errors.
I work in this lab. Specifically, I'm working on objective analysis of RNA sequence alignment heuristics.
The modified versions still won't be properly signed. Windows will ask for the CD; I said that in my comment. With that resolved, SFP is exactly what you're talking about. If SFP is a flawed system for maintaining system integrity, your proposal is no better.
It's called System File Protection, and it's been part of Windows since at least Windows 2000. It's been beefed up in XP. It does exactly what you describe and keeps a cache of known good copies. If the local known-good store goes sour, Windows asks for the CD.
Is this the new Microsoft Box model?
How would I know where their money goes? They refuse to file financial reports like most charities by claiming a religious exemption. I demand transparency before any charitable organization reasonably expect any cash from me.
The AIP did eventually get the Salvation Army to do some disclosure, but it was back in 1998. But other religious charities, like Christian Aid regularly release their financial statements without a hassle.
Charities exist in a privilaged place in tax law that can easily be abused. So, with the privilage of not paying taxes, charities need to be transparent with their finances. The Salvation Army's use of religious exemption is unacceptable.
Download.com adds an accurate "editor's note" to any package that contains spyware or adware.
I realize that his use of "and" doesn't necessarily mean he's using an implication between normal and okay or deviant and not okay. However, the mention of normalcy and deviance would be otherwise irrelevant if he weren't using normalcy and deviance as hypothesis for implications.