Yep, but nobody dies if someone breaks into my house. But when somebody breaks into say a nuclear power plant people might die, thats why it is, and should be, much harder to get into a nuclear power plant than it is to get into my house...
I never intended to say the hacker should *not* be held responsible, but most of the time (but not always) a hacker gets his chance because somebody did a lousy job keeping the system secure. If this system is something that could kill people of abused then a lousy sysadmin is as responsible as the person abusing the system IMHO.
Well, if hacking actually resulted in deaths, a life sentence would be applicable.
Yes, i agree, but not just for the hacker. I would at least take a serious look at the people responsible for the system. If some kids kicks agains the wall of a building and it collapses, who's to blame?
Has it?
Not that i know of, but i might happen. I've heard news somewhere about warnings for terrorist attacks through the internet, things like possible attacks to nuclear power plants. Personally i think anyone that build a system to control a nuclear power plant and connects it to the internet should get a life sentence. If a hack causes death the hacker can never be the only one to blame IMHO.
This is hardly a new problem. I've heard story about 5 1/4" floppy disks in an archive that were picked up after 10 years or so, they could find a drive, but most of the data was gone. But the same things (though slower) happen to paper, if you don't archive and conserve properly you will be in trouble getting it back. True for digital data as well as for paper, nothing new there... I think digital data is easier in some way because you can preserve identical copies easily and transfer to an other system is easier as well, try moving/reordering an paper archive.
IMHO, preservation is a major argument for open formats and open source software though. It gives you the change to make sure for yourself you have the format and source to read it preserved with the data. Try getting your hands on Office 95 in, say, 2142...
You've had more luck then I usually have. I've found that a lot of sites block browsers with javascript or serverside scripts and are not willing to change the check. When using Konquerer or Opera i keep getting kick of websites until is chose to identify as MSIE. Even when you mail the webmaster that the site works perfectly and all he has to do is change the browser check i keep getting replies that say that they only target MSIE users and they will not change the site. I just keep being suprised by sites that work perfectly well in non MSIE browsers and still block everything thats not MSIE. I really can't understand the ignorance of some webdevelopers...
The amount of virusses recieved by a certain user has a strong relation with the amount of friends or enemies that run outlook one has. A true nerd will never give his email adress to anybody who uses MS software, so he will hardly see any viruses, however, some people have a social life wich involves normal people as well (yes, really!), so they are very likely to receive this type of viruses.
Also note that the percentage is much higher when one recieves just one email (spam, most likely) per week because he has no friends at all.
That's show a part of the problem MS runs into at the moment and one of the reasons behind Licensing 6.0. It's very hard to tell a company they need to upgrade their office suite when nothing has changed but the interface and the clip-arts. If office 97 works for them, they will never spend any money on getting a new version. The same is true for the OS, tell me one good reason for a company to upgrade the desktops from 2000 to XP. 2000 works, people know how it works, nothing more/new is needed.
From a company's point of view windows and Office are fine the way they are now, just like they don't need a new type of screwdriver they don't need a new OS or office suite. Thats the big problem MS has at the moment, they have sold their software to almost everybody so now they will have to look for ways to make these people pay once more to be able to keep making profit on windows and office.
The first part is true, but the main difference is that the user gets to decided wich program is allowed to perform certain functions. This allows you to restrict untrusted code, such as an applet. When an applet is signed the user gets to decide what the applet is allowed to do when signed by person x, based on wether or not the user trusts person x. The user is allways in control here and the one that decides what's allowed on his system. IHMO, thats a good thing. Now MS want basically the same, with one little difference, they will be in charge, not you...
(emphasis mine)
But wenus.dtcomsa.com is also in the mx record for dtcomsa.com and dtcomsa.com itself does not have an DNS record nor does www.dtcomsa.com...
Yes, i whould try that if i were you, it reminds of of a PC with a 3com 905c wich worked with the 3com drivers in one slot and worked with the NT4 drivers in another slot. But none of the driver would work always.
"Networking: The splendid Internet along with grasps, the electronic mail immediately holds above transmits."
I think i'll pass for now, call me when there is an English version. Though I agree that the internet is splendid and it sometimes makes me grasp.
Thus above transmits mean I can only use AboveNet?
But I must say the thing looks cool. They could sell some more if they made an English version I guess...
Mr. Shryock said changing the modem to use more bandwidth is a violation of the customer service agreement. ...
The clear distinction between this type of theft and the theft of cable services is that there is a finite amount of resource.
So they broke the agreement with their ISP, so what that happens, shut them of. If they don't keep their part of the contract, the ISP is no longer bound by it and are free to shut down their lines. But I don't see how it becomes theft...
Re:Not quite
on
Is Linux Dead?
·
· Score: 5, Informative
Indeed, actually the/. submission is more wrong than the MSNBC article. Try to find the word dead somewhere. The article asks what happend to linux after a lot of the hype died down and concludes it's still growing and doing well on the server part but is hardly seen on the desktop.
That's all, hardly any news, and by no means an intersting article IMHO.
Now should i post a story to MSNBC stating that "It appears that Slashdot is reporting that MSNBC is spreading M$ fud"?
They could have been clearer on that point. But if i were LucasArts i'd offer the spec in exchange for direct link to the LucasArts online store for all games that work.
They could be selling their classic games for a lot a platforms if they work with these guys. I think that would be a good deal for both parties...
While this is partly true, i don't think it's the main problem. The things you mention make it harder to write a bug-less program, but in no way imposible. The same can be applied to thing like C# and Java, less effort is needed, but it's by no means impossible to write bad software. The programming language is just the tool, the program is the design + implementation. And design is the larger part here.
Compare it to building say a treehouse, that will be easier given good tools, but is your design looks like flying carpet, you will never get a treehouse, no matter what tools you use. But is the design is allright you might even manage to build a treehouse with your bare hands...
That's mostly true, but it gets better when you let developers test eachothers code. They will do anything to make it go wrong;-)
And they are very descriptive testers most of the time.
Well, it's never to much, until you've done every possible thing. Thats one of the advantages of open source development. A lot of people are working, playing, coding with the beta version wich means a lot of things get tested.
In my experiance most errors show up with unexpected things, like missing error checks etc. A good point to start testing is to test agains the developer. Ask him everything, what if i do this, what if i do that. If you think crazy enough (like normal users), you will recieve a dozen of 'euh, don't know' answers. Thats where your errors are;-)
Most tests are based on what the system is supposed to do, not on what one can do. Given a few users anything can be done to the program, things you likely didn't test because you understand the program to good. Try putting your mother behind the prog;-)
Thats where the customer should take action and think about what sofware they spend money on. They should demand to be able to test the software and/or return it when it doesn't suits there needs. (Almost) nobody buys a car without a test drive and without warranty, but people keep buying software they can't return after opening the package and keep agreeing to all kinds of EULA's.
I remember reading an old MS EULA (DOS 5?) that specified explicitly that any promises made buy MS or its resellers were not giving you any rights and should be ignored. According to that EULA you whould not have any rights, even if they sold you empty floppy disks.
Software will get better when people stop paying for crap. As long as they do, you will always find people producing crap.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, but nobody dies if someone breaks into my house. But when somebody breaks into say a nuclear power plant people might die, thats why it is, and should be, much harder to get into a nuclear power plant than it is to get into my house...
I never intended to say the hacker should *not* be held responsible, but most of the time (but not always) a hacker gets his chance because somebody did a lousy job keeping the system secure. If this system is something that could kill people of abused then a lousy sysadmin is as responsible as the person abusing the system IMHO.
Assaulting me: 1 year.
Assaulting me because I'm Zoroastrian: 5 years.
Assaulting me by hitting me over the head with a computer: 10 years.
Passing feel-good laws that make a patchwork of justice: priceless!
Shouldn't that be timeless?
Well, if hacking actually resulted in deaths, a life sentence would be applicable.
Yes, i agree, but not just for the hacker. I would at least take a serious look at the people responsible for the system. If some kids kicks agains the wall of a building and it collapses, who's to blame?
Has it?
Not that i know of, but i might happen. I've heard news somewhere about warnings for terrorist attacks through the internet, things like possible attacks to nuclear power plants. Personally i think anyone that build a system to control a nuclear power plant and connects it to the internet should get a life sentence. If a hack causes death the hacker can never be the only one to blame IMHO.
This is hardly a new problem. I've heard story about 5 1/4" floppy disks in an archive that were picked up after 10 years or so, they could find a drive, but most of the data was gone. But the same things (though slower) happen to paper, if you don't archive and conserve properly you will be in trouble getting it back. True for digital data as well as for paper, nothing new there...
I think digital data is easier in some way because you can preserve identical copies easily and transfer to an other system is easier as well, try moving/reordering an paper archive.
IMHO, preservation is a major argument for open formats and open source software though. It gives you the change to make sure for yourself you have the format and source to read it preserved with the data. Try getting your hands on Office 95 in, say, 2142...
MS will make sure you will always have the latest sofware to make sure you won't have any problems...
Perl is definitely a good thing(tm), your favorite website depends on it!
You've had more luck then I usually have. I've found that a lot of sites block browsers with javascript or serverside scripts and are not willing to change the check. When using Konquerer or Opera i keep getting kick of websites until is chose to identify as MSIE. Even when you mail the webmaster that the site works perfectly and all he has to do is change the browser check i keep getting replies that say that they only target MSIE users and they will not change the site.
I just keep being suprised by sites that work perfectly well in non MSIE browsers and still block everything thats not MSIE. I really can't understand the ignorance of some webdevelopers...
Oops, here's the link.
Since when doesn't opera come with flash? It's even the other way around, flash comes with opera ;-)
So, here we are trying to tell people they should be standard compliant and the next thing we do is slashdot validator.w3.org...
The amount of virusses recieved by a certain user has a strong relation with the amount of friends or enemies that run outlook one has. A true nerd will never give his email adress to anybody who uses MS software, so he will hardly see any viruses, however, some people have a social life wich involves normal people as well (yes, really!), so they are very likely to receive this type of viruses.
Also note that the percentage is much higher when one recieves just one email (spam, most likely) per week because he has no friends at all.
That's show a part of the problem MS runs into at the moment and one of the reasons behind Licensing 6.0. It's very hard to tell a company they need to upgrade their office suite when nothing has changed but the interface and the clip-arts. If office 97 works for them, they will never spend any money on getting a new version. The same is true for the OS, tell me one good reason for a company to upgrade the desktops from 2000 to XP. 2000 works, people know how it works, nothing more/new is needed.
From a company's point of view windows and Office are fine the way they are now, just like they don't need a new type of screwdriver they don't need a new OS or office suite. Thats the big problem MS has at the moment, they have sold their software to almost everybody so now they will have to look for ways to make these people pay once more to be able to keep making profit on windows and office.
The first part is true, but the main difference is that the user gets to decided wich program is allowed to perform certain functions. This allows you to restrict untrusted code, such as an applet. When an applet is signed the user gets to decide what the applet is allowed to do when signed by person x, based on wether or not the user trusts person x.
The user is allways in control here and the one that decides what's allowed on his system. IHMO, thats a good thing. Now MS want basically the same, with one little difference, they will be in charge, not you...
whois -h whois.domaininfo.com dtcomsa.com:
Registrar:domaininfo.com
Domain Name: dtcomsa.com
[Owner of domain]
"dataCOM" S.A
Dworcowa 15
Plock, 09-402
PL
Nameserver: wenus.dtcomsa.com (213.77.115.17)
Nameserver: ns5.ports.se (193.12.211.20)
(emphasis mine)
But wenus.dtcomsa.com is also in the mx record for dtcomsa.com and dtcomsa.com itself does not have an DNS record nor does www.dtcomsa.com...
Yes, i whould try that if i were you, it reminds of of a PC with a 3com 905c wich worked with the 3com drivers in one slot and worked with the NT4 drivers in another slot. But none of the driver would work always.
"Networking: The splendid Internet along with grasps, the electronic mail immediately holds above transmits."
I think i'll pass for now, call me when there is an English version. Though I agree that the internet is splendid and it sometimes makes me grasp.
Thus above transmits mean I can only use AboveNet?
But I must say the thing looks cool. They could sell some more if they made an English version I guess...
Mr. Shryock said changing the modem to use more bandwidth is a violation of the customer service agreement.
...
The clear distinction between this type of theft and the theft of cable services is that there is a finite amount of resource.
So they broke the agreement with their ISP, so what that happens, shut them of. If they don't keep their part of the contract, the ISP is no longer bound by it and are free to shut down their lines. But I don't see how it becomes theft...
Indeed, actually the /. submission is more wrong than the MSNBC article. Try to find the word dead somewhere. The article asks what happend to linux after a lot of the hype died down and concludes it's still growing and doing well on the server part but is hardly seen on the desktop.
That's all, hardly any news, and by no means an intersting article IMHO.
Now should i post a story to MSNBC stating that "It appears that Slashdot is reporting that MSNBC is spreading M$ fud"?
They could have been clearer on that point. But if i were LucasArts i'd offer the spec in exchange for direct link to the LucasArts online store for all games that work.
They could be selling their classic games for a lot a platforms if they work with these guys. I think that would be a good deal for both parties...
While this is partly true, i don't think it's the main problem. The things you mention make it harder to write a bug-less program, but in no way imposible. The same can be applied to thing like C# and Java, less effort is needed, but it's by no means impossible to write bad software. The programming language is just the tool, the program is the design + implementation. And design is the larger part here.
Compare it to building say a treehouse, that will be easier given good tools, but is your design looks like flying carpet, you will never get a treehouse, no matter what tools you use. But is the design is allright you might even manage to build a treehouse with your bare hands...
Might be true, but you shouldn't write the algorithm before you designed what is should do and how it should be used within the larger program.
... is the most annoyin part of dev
;-)
That's mostly true, but it gets better when you let developers test eachothers code. They will do anything to make it go wrong
And they are very descriptive testers most of the time.
"I wonder how much testing is too much"
;-)
Most tests are based on what the system is supposed to do, not on what one can do. Given a few users anything can be done to the program, things you likely didn't test because you understand the program to good. Try putting your mother behind the prog ;-)
Well, it's never to much, until you've done every possible thing. Thats one of the advantages of open source development. A lot of people are working, playing, coding with the beta version wich means a lot of things get tested. In my experiance most errors show up with unexpected things, like missing error checks etc. A good point to start testing is to test agains the developer. Ask him everything, what if i do this, what if i do that. If you think crazy enough (like normal users), you will recieve a dozen of 'euh, don't know' answers. Thats where your errors are
Thats where the customer should take action and think about what sofware they spend money on. They should demand to be able to test the software and/or return it when it doesn't suits there needs. (Almost) nobody buys a car without a test drive and without warranty, but people keep buying software they can't return after opening the package and keep agreeing to all kinds of EULA's.
I remember reading an old MS EULA (DOS 5?) that specified explicitly that any promises made buy MS or its resellers were not giving you any rights and should be ignored. According to that EULA you whould not have any rights, even if they sold you empty floppy disks.
Software will get better when people stop paying for crap. As long as they do, you will always find people producing crap.