It will be interesting if (when?) Novell and Microsoft succeed in demonstrating that SCO has no clear title to "Unix." Depositions in the trial, by people who negotiated the contract between AT&T and SCO, seem to indicate that the Unix copyrights didn't change ownership. SCO just got right to copy, modify, and sell.
Perhaps this was not beyond Sun, and perhaps Sun was just trying to weaken Linux in the marketplace. After all, Linux competes with Solaris. The 9.3 million could have been intended to support the company that was trying to throttle Linux.
Still, if (when?) it comes out that SCO did not have a Unix copyright to license, then there will be some 'splainin for Sun to do, having paid SCO for a license to something SCO doesn't own.
> If the network the ATM's connect to is safe, the box should be safe. > If they connect to the internet, I'm moving my money to another bank, > no matter what OS they run!
Well, you can make your own choices, but it's possible to implement a secure application that transmits data across the internet.
With smart chips on the ATM cards, you can make it so that the pin number never leaves the card. You can use strong, two-factor authentication (or even three when the technology matures a little more).
It's not really the internet that causes the problems. It's poor design at the OS and application level. And it's probably possible to compensate for poor security in the OS if the application designers are smart.
Judicious use of encryption technology all the way from smart card to secured database is within reach of a smart high-school student.
Don't judge the secure systems by whether they use the internet. Instead, judge them on who built them and how well they were built.
As a geekly laptop owner, I can take my relatively-secure internet access with me.
But travellers that don't have laptops, travellers who've lost their laptops, and people who don't own computers, are going to find internet access more and more essential as time goes by.
It would be good if there were some way to have secure public terminals, that people could get onto the internet and be reasonably assured that their access is private.
I realize that iron-clad security isn't possible, but if it could rise to at least the security of ATMs (I say this knowing that ATMs have vulnerabilities) then I think the internet would be a better public resource.
Have a look at Bruce Schneier's "Beyond Fear" book. He makes the parent poster's point with lots of facts and figures.
Terrorists never succeed. The WTC attack was far and away the exception to terrorist attacks in it's number of casualties. The goal of terrorism is to amplify the publicity of a small attack.
Publicity is where it's at if you want to be seen as changing the world.
Still, a very few people have changed the world by inventing vaccines and discovering basic science. But ask someone who invented each of the vaccines that they've taken, you'll find that these world-changing inventors didn't get nearly as much publicity as terrorists.
So, there's your choice: change the world vs: just get the world's attention.
I read the article, but didn't pick up on what kind of "power line" they're talking about.
There are cross-country transmission lines (the "twisted" lines in the parent postings) and there are neighborhood distribution lines, and there are the 120+120V lines that go from the house to the transformer on the pole.
I'm wondering if the cross-country transmission lines are different lines than are being addressed by the FCC.
SCO could get in trouble with the SEC if they misrepresent their standing in court on their website.
Besides which, the judges are noticing SCO's public statements, and if SCO contracticts what they're telling the judge, or what the judge is telling them, they could annoy the judge.
People have morals, not corporations. "The stockholders" (as a group entity) don't have morals.
A corporation is going to maximize profit and minimize risk. Those are the survival rules for corporations.
Corporations are going to try to keep as much control as they can, and that's why they use whatever monopolistic, power-grabbing tactics they can. It minimizes risk.
Don't expect corporations to behave like people. They aren't people. They're machines trying to optomize an equation.
Slashdot Mirror
It will be interesting if (when?) Novell and Microsoft succeed in demonstrating that SCO has no clear title to "Unix." Depositions in the trial, by people who negotiated the contract between AT&T and SCO, seem to indicate that the Unix copyrights didn't change ownership. SCO just got right to copy, modify, and sell.
Perhaps this was not beyond Sun, and perhaps Sun was just trying to weaken Linux in the marketplace. After all, Linux competes with Solaris. The 9.3 million could have been intended to support the company that was trying to throttle Linux.
Still, if (when?) it comes out that SCO did not have a Unix copyright to license, then there will be some 'splainin for Sun to do, having paid SCO for a license to something SCO doesn't own.
> I never quite understood about companies that want to be built in downtown areas. ... ...
>
> Management gets all the window office[s]
I think you answered your own question.
BZZZT!
Saying X+2 and X+3, where X > 0, are both prime has to be wrong.
One of these numbers is even. The only even prime is 2.
IANAM, but neither is tbjw, I'll wager (nor the five people who modded this post up).
> I say we (US Tax payers) Give Burt Rutan 500 Million
> (the cost of a *one* shuttle mission) and stand back.
If he continues to be successful, he'll get his 500 million from the private sector.
I wouldn't want to hobble him with _taxpayer_ dollars. That's what ruined NASA.
> If the network the ATM's connect to is safe, the box should be safe.
> If they connect to the internet, I'm moving my money to another bank,
> no matter what OS they run!
Well, you can make your own choices, but it's possible to implement a secure application that transmits data across the internet.
With smart chips on the ATM cards, you can make it so that the pin number never leaves the card. You can use strong, two-factor authentication (or even three when the technology matures a little more).
It's not really the internet that causes the problems. It's poor design at the OS and application level. And it's probably possible to compensate for poor security in the OS if the application designers are smart.
Judicious use of encryption technology all the way from smart card to secured database is within reach of a smart high-school student.
Don't judge the secure systems by whether they use the internet. Instead, judge them on who built them and how well they were built.
> this is also my first post, /. community!
> so i wish to formally introduce myself to the
Welcome to Slashdot.
Just be careful with the words "first post!"
As a geekly laptop owner, I can take my relatively-secure internet access with me.
But travellers that don't have laptops, travellers who've lost their laptops, and people who don't own computers, are going to find internet access more and more essential as time goes by.
It would be good if there were some way to have secure public terminals, that people could get onto the internet and be reasonably assured that their access is private.
I realize that iron-clad security isn't possible, but if it could rise to at least the security of ATMs (I say this knowing that ATMs have vulnerabilities) then I think the internet would be a better public resource.
Warm Offices "causea" increased productivity "causes" offshoring to warmer climates.
What a crock.
Editors, what are you smoking, and can I have some, too?
Have a look at Bruce Schneier's "Beyond Fear" book. He makes the parent poster's point with lots of facts and figures.
Terrorists never succeed. The WTC attack was far and away the exception to terrorist attacks in it's number of casualties. The goal of terrorism is to amplify the publicity of a small attack.
Publicity is where it's at if you want to be seen as changing the world.
Still, a very few people have changed the world by inventing vaccines and discovering basic science. But ask someone who invented each of the vaccines that they've taken, you'll find that these world-changing inventors didn't get nearly as much publicity as terrorists.
So, there's your choice: change the world vs: just get the world's attention.
> Why did they expect to find a boat/plane in a apartment building?
Because you can't fit a ship or an airliner in an apartment, silly.
I loved my inferior camera, and my family snapshots, until I found that they had barely-visible distortions.
Now I have to find an accurate camera and retake all those photos.
This was the first time that I've seen Jon, and he reminds me of Zappa, as social commentator thought-to-be-buffoon.
The obfuscated-ballot-stuffing-program-DETECTOR contest.
A program that, when given the source code of a vote counting program, indicates whether the program is fair or crooked.
Thanks for an insightful, balanced article.
I read the article, but didn't pick up on what kind of "power line" they're talking about.
There are cross-country transmission lines (the "twisted" lines in the parent postings) and there are neighborhood distribution lines, and there are the 120+120V lines that go from the house to the transformer on the pole.
I'm wondering if the cross-country transmission lines are different lines than are being addressed by the FCC.
Anyone have knowledge of which lines are BPL?
> Wal-Mart sells 1 out of every 5 retail CDs. Monopoly one, meet monopoly two.
One in 5 is a far cry from a monopoly.
> Which journalist is going to quote 'pro-SCO.net' as a source?
There have been some journalists and rags that are partcularly clueless, or spinning themselves as experts and saying very foolish, pro-SCO things.
Not to name names, but you'll see names named over on Groklaw.
SCO could get in trouble with the SEC if they misrepresent their standing in court on their website.
Besides which, the judges are noticing SCO's public statements, and if SCO contracticts what they're telling the judge, or what the judge is telling them, they could annoy the judge.
They didn't even say what hemisphere!
I think you've been trolled.
Beware of journalists in researchers' clothing.
> If it were to erupt again --
> fortunately it does so rarely, about once every 600k years
IIRC, a lake in Yellowstone is moving, because the ground under it is tipping.
That's a big clue.
> All my data is XORed against itself before it is written to disk.
;-)
I think they call that a one-time pad.
"One-time" 'cause that's how many times you'll try it.
We have a 65 pound, lean, black dog.
Wouldn't bite the mailman if he asked for it (which a mailman did one day, literally).
But when solicitors and service people come to our house, they're very, very wary of our dog.
You just have to make the thugs move along to a less intimidating target. A big dog does the job, and provides faithful companionship as well.
> you're colossally full of shit
I think the parent post chose the wrong target for its vituperation.
I don't think the grandparent post was presenting the quote as truth.
I took it as exposing the other face of the two-faced RIAA argument that their revenue is going down due to file sharing.
People have morals, not corporations. "The stockholders" (as a group entity) don't have morals.
A corporation is going to maximize profit and minimize risk. Those are the survival rules for corporations.
Corporations are going to try to keep as much control as they can, and that's why they use whatever monopolistic, power-grabbing tactics they can. It minimizes risk.
Don't expect corporations to behave like people. They aren't people. They're machines trying to optomize an equation.