"Microsoft researchers have developed a tool, named "Strider Ghostbuster" that can detect rootkits by comparing clean and suspect versions of Windows and looking for differences."
Oh wow! How inovative! Detecting differences by compairing a known good copy with an infected one.... Wow! I wonder if they've appied for the Patent? They've even given it a cute name and everything!
"You have to prioritize based on immediate threat."
And what threat did Iraq pose?? No WMD. They Saddam was contained.
Let's face it. This was a blood for votes war started by Bush.
It's costing us billions of dollars and over 1000 American lives. And I don't give a shit if we did capture Saddam. His capture wasn't worth a single American life!
I only hope that history will paint Bush as the evil little mental midget that he really is.
Whenever someone starts talking about how the future will be, I always look closely at the premises that the person uses to extrapolate possible future events. Without accurate premises the chances of coming to an accurate conclusion are small.
The author makes a couple of premises:
1.Bandwidth will become almost unlimited. 2.This unlimited bandwidth will make the operating system irrelevant.
With enough investment I believe that bandwidth could be greatly increased and provided to everyone so I'll accept his first premise for now. However, he makes the statement:
"In a world of unlimited bandwidth and remote applications, the operating system doesn't matter, and there's no lock-in. In such a world,"
I have a problem with this assertion. Every application must run under some kind of architecture. Even remote applications. The only way around this from the client side is to execute all applications on a remote computer and use some kind of dumbed down terminal to display the results.
Even if bandwidth increases as the author suggests, the computing power needed to remotely run all applications for all customer's would take a quantum leap in computer power that I don't see coming any time soon.
If rather than running the applications remotely they are run on the client then the operating system once again becomes important and all the compatibility issues that Microsoft is counting on to maintain there monopoly come into play.
You then enter a world much like what Microsoft wants via its.NET technology. A world where everything we do gets properly metered and billed. A world where the user owns or better yet leases a Microsoft "box" that runs Microsoft.Net applications sold as services.
The author makes a very good point that the average person doesn't have the technical skill needed to properly maintain a complex computer system nor do they wish to learn such skills. As a geek, the though of turning control of my hardware over to a third party is unpleasant. I suppose, however, that non-geek types will be unaware of all of the ramifications and with an effective marketing campaign may blissfully do so. But turning over ones hardware is a very different thing from turning over ones sensitive information. Even non-geek types are becoming uncomfortable with this. So, we are back to some kind of local storage and local operating system.
"It's not just that spammers are ignoring these requests, they will actually just merge their lists with the responses (on the off chance that you might try to also unsubscribe some of your other email addresses / or a friend's email address)."
Oops... my post got snipped...
on
SCO.com Defaced
·
· Score: 1
I seem to remember when there were demonstrators out in front of SCO and some of their employees went out to join the demonstration with bogus signs making it look like Linux folks condoned theft.
I wouldn't put it past SCO to deface their own website and blame it on the Linux community.
Re:Nothing for you to see here. Please move along
on
SCO.com Defaced
·
· Score: 1
their employees went out to join the demonstration with bogus signs making it look like Linux folks condoned theft.
I wouldn't put it past SCO to deface their own website and blame it on the Linux community.
The spammer's DNS will never come into it. All the screen saver has to do is to send a request directly to the spammer's IP address. No lookup, no DNS.
"Lycos monitors the site's responsiveness and throttles back when the site starts to falter. "
So they don't want to do a denial of service attack so when the spammer's need more bandwidth they allow them to have it... Okay I guess I just don't get it. Do they think the servers that the spammers are using pay on a per byte basis??
"The question you gotta ask yourself (and the MS gorillas when they come a pounding threatening lawsuits) is why doesn't MS throw it's weight into the courtroom for all of their so-called infringed patents?"
Because the risks from IBM and others are great. Microsoft has made the decision to use patents in a different way. Their weapon of choice has always been FUD. They are calculating that Patents may be used most effectively by the threat of lawsuits. Far less risk and if people buy it they gain.
Like all of their FUD campaigns, this one will fail as well. People are getting wise to Microsoft's lying ways. But that is not to say that this FUD campaign must be vigorously fought to ensure that it fails quickly.
We also need to push to fix the broken patent system.
70 or 80 hours a week may be possible for a young programmer but it would kill me. Literally. If I didn't die from a heart attack I would fall asleep on the way home and possibly kill someone else as well as myself.
Why do that to your body? Trust me, your health is worth more than the overtime.
"Open source faces no more, if not less, legal risk than proprietary software."
This statement is based on the premise that legal action will actually be based on perceived patent violations in open source software and that open source software contains either no legitimate violations or at least no more violations than most proprietary software. That is, all of the patents that it does violate are bogus being issued on prior art or trivial methods by a broken patent system.
Although it may well be the case that most of Microsoft's patent portfolio is unenforceable if contested by an entity with sufficiently deep pockets, I doubt that actual violations will be the deciding factor if litigations are pursued. I believe that Microsoft will weigh many factors before pursuing litigation and the legitimacy of their claim will weigh far less than any tactical or strategical advantage that perusing even a bogus law suit will offer.
Microsoft has repeatedly shown that it does not care about a fair and open market and is unconcerned of going afoul of antitrust laws. Indeed the weak response by the US justice system to Microsoft's past transgressions has had the same effect on this corporate bully as passive behavior has on the playground bully or the bully in the work place. A bully won't changed until forced to do so and some can never change.
To Microsoft, software patents are just another weapon to be wielded against anyone who would dare attempt to take a slice of the market. It is just another anticompetitive tool that they will use directly though litigation or indirectly though a FUD campaign.
It's time that the DOJ got their act together and removed this bully from the corporate playground. Microsoft needs to be broken into at least two and probably three separate entities before their blatant disregard for the antitrust laws permanently destroy any chance of an open and fair market in the software sector.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah yeah I know... I just thought that something should be innovative even if it was my spelling of the word.
"Microsoft researchers have developed a tool, named "Strider Ghostbuster" that can detect rootkits by comparing clean and suspect versions of Windows and looking for differences."
Oh wow! How inovative! Detecting differences by compairing a known good copy with an infected one.... Wow! I wonder if they've appied for the Patent? They've even given it a cute name and everything!
"One of the biggest questions in evolution is, why aren't all organisms asexual?" says Adami.
He never saw Deliverance did he?
I was rather vocal on that topic myself on that topic. You can stop waiting...
"You have to prioritize based on immediate threat."
And what threat did Iraq pose?? No WMD. They Saddam was contained.
Let's face it. This was a blood for votes war started by Bush.
It's costing us billions of dollars and over 1000 American lives. And I don't give a shit if we did capture Saddam. His capture wasn't worth a single American life!
I only hope that history will paint Bush as the evil little mental midget that he really is.
And Earth is the left side pocket...
Whenever someone starts talking about how the future will be, I always look closely at the premises that the person uses to extrapolate possible future events. Without accurate premises the chances of coming to an accurate conclusion are small.
.NET technology. A world where everything we do gets properly metered and billed. A world where the user owns or better yet leases a Microsoft "box" that runs Microsoft .Net applications sold as services.
The author makes a couple of premises:
1.Bandwidth will become almost unlimited.
2.This unlimited bandwidth will make the operating system irrelevant.
With enough investment I believe that bandwidth could be greatly increased and provided to everyone so I'll accept his first premise for now. However, he makes the statement:
"In a world of unlimited bandwidth and remote applications, the operating system doesn't matter, and there's no lock-in. In such a world,"
I have a problem with this assertion. Every application must run under some kind of architecture. Even remote applications. The only way around this from the client side is to execute all applications on a remote computer and use some kind of dumbed down terminal to display the results.
Even if bandwidth increases as the author suggests, the computing power needed to remotely run all applications for all customer's would take a quantum leap in computer power that I don't see coming any time soon.
If rather than running the applications remotely they are run on the client then the operating system once again becomes important and all the compatibility issues that Microsoft is counting on to maintain there monopoly come into play.
You then enter a world much like what Microsoft wants via its
The author makes a very good point that the average person doesn't have the technical skill needed to properly maintain a complex computer system nor do they wish to learn such skills. As a geek, the though of turning control of my hardware over to a third party is unpleasant. I suppose, however, that non-geek types will be unaware of all of the ramifications and with an effective marketing campaign may blissfully do so. But turning over ones hardware is a very different thing from turning over ones sensitive information. Even non-geek types are becoming uncomfortable with this. So, we are back to some kind of local storage and local operating system.
If people don't want bionic will resistance be futile?
"It's not just that spammers are ignoring these requests, they will actually just merge their lists with the responses (on the off chance that you might try to also unsubscribe some of your other email addresses / or a friend's email address)."
:-)
Or your obnoxious bosses email address...
This product will have millions of people buying it for $27,000.00 in order to rip off the next big movie hit that comes out on a $15.00 DVD!
You might want to think of someone other than yourself for a change. Our children and our children's children maybe...
... if Maureen O'Gara would melt if she got wet!
Intelligent, honest, trustworthy and celibate :-(
I seem to remember when there were demonstrators out in front of SCO and some of their employees went out to join the demonstration with bogus signs making it look like Linux folks condoned theft.
I wouldn't put it past SCO to deface their own website and blame it on the Linux community.
their employees went out to join the demonstration with bogus signs making it look like Linux folks condoned theft.
I wouldn't put it past SCO to deface their own website and blame it on the Linux community.
A national park must be owned by a nation... Solar park maybe?
The spammer's DNS will never come into it. All the screen saver has to do is to send a request directly to the spammer's IP address. No lookup, no DNS.
"Lycos monitors the site's responsiveness and throttles back when the site starts to falter. "
So they don't want to do a denial of service attack so when the spammer's need more bandwidth they allow them to have it... Okay I guess I just don't get it. Do they think the servers that the spammers are using pay on a per byte basis??
"The question you gotta ask yourself (and the MS gorillas when they come a pounding threatening lawsuits) is why doesn't MS throw it's weight into the courtroom for all of their so-called infringed patents?"
Because the risks from IBM and others are great. Microsoft has made the decision to use patents in a different way. Their weapon of choice has always been FUD. They are calculating that Patents may be used most effectively by the threat of lawsuits. Far less risk and if people buy it they gain.
Like all of their FUD campaigns, this one will fail as well. People are getting wise to Microsoft's lying ways. But that is not to say that this FUD campaign must be vigorously fought to ensure that it fails quickly.
We also need to push to fix the broken patent system.
"...I dunno, sharing a torrent for a music album or a linux distro is a bit different to someones home movie."
Well I guess that depends on the type of "home movie" **cough** doesn't it...
Sounds like a good time to polish up your resume and get a job where your employer will give a shit about you.
70 or 80 hours a week may be possible for a young programmer but it would kill me. Literally. If I didn't die from a heart attack I would fall asleep on the way home and possibly kill someone else as well as myself.
Why do that to your body? Trust me, your health is worth more than the overtime.
The parent post is NOT A TROLL...
/. loses its credibility.
Even though we may not agree with the poster his post was not trolling but rather a valid point.
Please do not mod people down based on wether or not you agree. Be fair or
"Open source faces no more, if not less, legal risk than proprietary software."
This statement is based on the premise that legal action will actually be based on perceived patent violations in open source software and that open source software contains either no legitimate violations or at least no more violations than most proprietary software. That is, all of the patents that it does violate are bogus being issued on prior art or trivial methods by a broken patent system.
Although it may well be the case that most of Microsoft's patent portfolio is unenforceable if contested by an entity with sufficiently deep pockets, I doubt that actual violations will be the deciding factor if litigations are pursued. I believe that Microsoft will weigh many factors before pursuing litigation and the legitimacy of their claim will weigh far less than any tactical or strategical advantage that perusing even a bogus law suit will offer.
Microsoft has repeatedly shown that it does not care about a fair and open market and is unconcerned of going afoul of antitrust laws. Indeed the weak response by the US justice system to Microsoft's past transgressions has had the same effect on this corporate bully as passive behavior has on the playground bully or the bully in the work place. A bully won't changed until forced to do so and some can never change.
To Microsoft, software patents are just another weapon to be wielded against anyone who would dare attempt to take a slice of the market. It is just another anticompetitive tool that they will use directly though litigation or indirectly though a FUD campaign.
It's time that the DOJ got their act together and removed this bully from the corporate playground. Microsoft needs to be broken into at least two and probably three separate entities before their blatant disregard for the antitrust laws permanently destroy any chance of an open and fair market in the software sector.
No matter how cheap they offer downloads there are always going to be people willing to break the law in order to get it free.