They might be the best hackers in the world, but theyre pretty harmless when they can't afford to get a computer to hack themselves to fame and fortune in the first place.
Unless they got some cybercrime loan or something I guess
The $2 is not generally handled as much and this seems to be a perfect example of why it isn't.
So... its not handled as much because people don't recognise it.... because its not used much. Isn't that rather pardoxial? Wouldnt all denomiations have this problem if that were the reason?
"OMG WTF THESE MAFIOSOS ARE SO STUPID THEY FILM THEIR LIFE!!!".
lol. good one. This show is nothing but an ad endorsed by sony for freebord. freebord pays to get their site shown for a few seconds during the show, and thats that. Its been documented many places it is a fictional story. 'sif the guy happens to get some guy badgering to buy pirated videos from him just at the same time he is 99% through upping it to a site, and writing an e-mail asking for more money. heh. and showing IP addresses throughout the flick.
The whole video is entirely an ad for the freebord thing. The guy visits the site for like 10 seconds throughout the whole video.
Not a bad idea, but Im sick of these big companies not being upfront about their motives and advertising etc and would refuse to be influenced by such marketing crap.
It certainly would have been nice if the article submitter put this in the summary. As it is, nothing was given as a reason for them sueing, which makes it pretty damn useless.
It is just a static page. Everything is done client-side in javascript. I think google can handle serving up a few pages of HTML for @#$@#$ sake.
When they talk about 'intensive on the labs server', they are referring to things that do loads of CPU intensive stuff on the server. ie, google 'sets', or graphing or stuff like that. A couple kb to a few thousand blog readers is extremely unlikely to cause a problem for Google. Think about how much those servers must serve up everyday. Even if the labs servers are different, this one static page would be a drop in the ocean compared to the rest of the labs stuff.
How is this sulking? Choosing not to use a particular license for some free library because it could cause problems for the community as a whole? XFree86 and X.org are again a good example.
This is a bad example, you dont have apps installing their own copy of X to run. It is too large, and is very likely to already be installed. My library isn't likely to be installed, because it is not part of any distro or anything like that, it is an addon for an application. People can't "choose" which one they want if applications install their own modified versions in order to work.
The fact is, there is no license which meets these requirements. Software which needs these requirements but is open source is generally protected from this problem by already being in wide distrbution, and it not being practical for developers to ship their own modified versions.
Imagine if every java app installed its own modified JRE in order to work. Now imagine if the system can only handle one JRE installation. That is the problem I am facing, and unfortuantly there is no open source license which enforces this. The LGPL kind of comes close, but it is not sufficient.
The solution is perhaps to grow up and stop wanting to keep control. Life is to short to worry about that kind of thing.
An easier solution is to not open the source at all. There are valid reasons to prevent forking. The library is a COM automation addon for a single instance app. The last thing I want is people making minor adjustments to the code to accomplish what they want and ship their modified version with their code. As I said, it is only practical to have one installation of the library and the library is shared amongst many other applications. I am happy to "share" control, and the source and everything else. But I dont want different incompatible versions being installed.
The reason it works for X and Linux etc, is due to lazy developers as I said. The code has too much penetration for a single motiviated developer to make a significant fork. And people can choose which fork they want to use.
In my case, the library would be installed with each app. I dont want developers to ship modfied versions of the library with their apps, because multiple modified versions cannot be installed alongside each other.
It has nothing to do with "growing up", it is just being practical. And unfortuantly, there is no open source license which lets you achieve this.
This is the biggest problem with open source for me. The problem of people creating forks. There are times when multiple forks are not desired.
I have written a library which is only practical to have one installation on a machine, and one interface defined. Multiple incompatible versions of this library would cause huge problems, or be very wasteful. It would also take away control from the original developer, which isnt fair, and a major motivation to *not* open the source.
What license can I use that would effecively prevent forking, but at the same time be open source? AFAIK there is none, which is a major problem. The only thing stopping this being a problem in reality is laziness on behalf of developers that couldnt be bothered to fork the code. Any pointers?
And if Rincon meant "Great browser", I suppose that would be a freudian slip for describing every other browser other than IE? You can always twist something in your favour if you put it into whatever context you like.
I dont. There was a recent gdiplus bug which allowed arbitrary code to be executed through just viewing an image. This could be exploited through MSN messenger with no interaction on part of the user.
So wheres the virus? There is none, because MS just has to block that client and force people to upgrade to connect. Centralisation can be a wonderful thing sometimes.
So when people stop buying CD/DVDs etc, they will have to get their money through court cases like this instead. The people that are concerned about these raids probably arent buying too many CDs anyway. pretty pointless boycott.
Except the first comment is "its not checkpoint, its choicepoint", and discussion about how they are a security company and havent been 'haxored' due to their 'great' products.
yeah, and find every site known to man ending in.com. Try searching for +COM Programming, and get every programming site ending in.com. Its pretty useless.
Its also a major pain when programming COM stuff (component object model). The "COM" is always dropped (anything.COM), making your most important keyword completely ignored in the search. You always have to hit and miss with other words like IUnknown and hope the poster or web page has used it.
The API isnt only used for casual statistics. I imagine its used for 'related links' type of stuff in applications, or mapping links around the web etc.
When the results are all that an API has to offer the end client, surely the quality and accuracy of such results is a factor. In fact, if there are no difference in features, surely the accuracy of the results would *be* the deciding factor. Its not just about getting people to switch, but also people that arent currently using either.
There were plenty of search engines before google, yet people switched over in droves because of the accuracy of the results.
Yes the indexing service may have access to everything. Thats why I said it won't return search results for files *you* dont have permissions to list.
ie, the indexing service checks the permssion of the requesting user, and only lists files they would be able to list in the OS. Its only common sense.
All these "attacks" assume the indexing program will index and return results for files you dont have access to.
Im pretty sure the indexing server on Windows won't return 'search results' for files you dont have permissions to list. As with any other sensible indexing schemes, except perhaps the newer silly 'desktop search' tools. Seems pretty obvious to me.
The trouble is, its quite common to show layers on a mouse over, in particular for menus. Disalbing the onload layers will just mean they show the layer when you move your mouse, which is bound to happen, and its pretty impossible for teh browser to distinguish between moving your mouse ovre a drop down menu bit of html, or moving it over any other bit of html.
Slashdot Mirror
accidently modded this underrated when I meant overrated. replying to undo the mod, cause this really is crap.
They might be the best hackers in the world, but theyre pretty harmless when they can't afford to get a computer to hack themselves to fame and fortune in the first place.
Unless they got some cybercrime loan or something I guess
The $2 is not generally handled as much and this seems to be a perfect example of why it isn't.
So... its not handled as much because people don't recognise it.... because its not used much. Isn't that rather pardoxial? Wouldnt all denomiations have this problem if that were the reason?
"First, let me assure you that this is not one of those shady pyramid schemes you've been hearing about. No sir. Our model is the trapezoid!"
The GPL concerns the license to make use of the source code, not the application.
A music license conerns the "use" of the music itself.
You should compare the license of the binary application, not the source code license.
"OMG WTF THESE MAFIOSOS ARE SO STUPID THEY FILM THEIR LIFE!!!".
lol. good one. This show is nothing but an ad endorsed by sony for freebord. freebord pays to get their site shown for a few seconds during the show, and thats that. Its been documented many places it is a fictional story. 'sif the guy happens to get some guy badgering to buy pirated videos from him just at the same time he is 99% through upping it to a site, and writing an e-mail asking for more money. heh. and showing IP addresses throughout the flick.
The whole video is entirely an ad for the freebord thing. The guy visits the site for like 10 seconds throughout the whole video.
Not a bad idea, but Im sick of these big companies not being upfront about their motives and advertising etc and would refuse to be influenced by such marketing crap.
It certainly would have been nice if the article submitter put this in the summary. As it is, nothing was given as a reason for them sueing, which makes it pretty damn useless.
It is just a static page. Everything is done client-side in javascript. I think google can handle serving up a few pages of HTML for @#$@#$ sake.
When they talk about 'intensive on the labs server', they are referring to things that do loads of CPU intensive stuff on the server. ie, google 'sets', or graphing or stuff like that. A couple kb to a few thousand blog readers is extremely unlikely to cause a problem for Google. Think about how much those servers must serve up everyday. Even if the labs servers are different, this one static page would be a drop in the ocean compared to the rest of the labs stuff.
Indeed, it's always easier to sulk.
How is this sulking? Choosing not to use a particular license for some free library because it could cause problems for the community as a whole?
XFree86 and X.org are again a good example.
This is a bad example, you dont have apps installing their own copy of X to run. It is too large, and is very likely to already be installed. My library isn't likely to be installed, because it is not part of any distro or anything like that, it is an addon for an application. People can't "choose" which one they want if applications install their own modified versions in order to work.
The fact is, there is no license which meets these requirements. Software which needs these requirements but is open source is generally protected from this problem by already being in wide distrbution, and it not being practical for developers to ship their own modified versions.
Imagine if every java app installed its own modified JRE in order to work. Now imagine if the system can only handle one JRE installation. That is the problem I am facing, and unfortuantly there is no open source license which enforces this. The LGPL kind of comes close, but it is not sufficient.
The solution is perhaps to grow up and stop wanting to keep control. Life is to short to worry about that kind of thing.
An easier solution is to not open the source at all. There are valid reasons to prevent forking. The library is a COM automation addon for a single instance app. The last thing I want is people making minor adjustments to the code to accomplish what they want and ship their modified version with their code. As I said, it is only practical to have one installation of the library and the library is shared amongst many other applications. I am happy to "share" control, and the source and everything else. But I dont want different incompatible versions being installed.
The reason it works for X and Linux etc, is due to lazy developers as I said. The code has too much penetration for a single motiviated developer to make a significant fork. And people can choose which fork they want to use.
In my case, the library would be installed with each app. I dont want developers to ship modfied versions of the library with their apps, because multiple modified versions cannot be installed alongside each other.
It has nothing to do with "growing up", it is just being practical. And unfortuantly, there is no open source license which lets you achieve this.
This is the biggest problem with open source for me. The problem of people creating forks. There are times when multiple forks are not desired.
I have written a library which is only practical to have one installation on a machine, and one interface defined. Multiple incompatible versions of this library would cause huge problems, or be very wasteful. It would also take away control from the original developer, which isnt fair, and a major motivation to *not* open the source.
What license can I use that would effecively prevent forking, but at the same time be open source? AFAIK there is none, which is a major problem. The only thing stopping this being a problem in reality is laziness on behalf of developers that couldnt be bothered to fork the code. Any pointers?
And if Rincon meant "Great browser", I suppose that would be a freudian slip for describing every other browser other than IE? You can always twist something in your favour if you put it into whatever context you like.
I expect a nasty IM virus someday.
I dont. There was a recent gdiplus bug which allowed arbitrary code to be executed through just viewing an image. This could be exploited through MSN messenger with no interaction on part of the user.
So wheres the virus? There is none, because MS just has to block that client and force people to upgrade to connect. Centralisation can be a wonderful thing sometimes.
So when people stop buying CD/DVDs etc, they will have to get their money through court cases like this instead. The people that are concerned about these raids probably arent buying too many CDs anyway. pretty pointless boycott.
Except the first comment is "its not checkpoint, its choicepoint", and discussion about how they are a security company and havent been 'haxored' due to their 'great' products.
You can do that today already, with your home CRT. Just so long as you dont mind seeing only a fraction of her at a time :)
yeah, and find every site known to man ending in .com. Try searching for +COM Programming, and get every programming site ending in .com. Its pretty useless.
Its also a major pain when programming COM stuff (component object model). The "COM" is always dropped (anything.COM), making your most important keyword completely ignored in the search. You always have to hit and miss with other words like IUnknown and hope the poster or web page has used it.
Windows servers up 55%...
stats are pretty meaningless with nothing to compare them to.
The API isnt only used for casual statistics. I imagine its used for 'related links' type of stuff in applications, or mapping links around the web etc.
When the results are all that an API has to offer the end client, surely the quality and accuracy of such results is a factor. In fact, if there are no difference in features, surely the accuracy of the results would *be* the deciding factor. Its not just about getting people to switch, but also people that arent currently using either.
There were plenty of search engines before google, yet people switched over in droves because of the accuracy of the results.
You should be comparing the http://search.yahoo.com/ site instead. It is pretty much identical to google.
Yes the indexing service may have access to everything. Thats why I said it won't return search results for files *you* dont have permissions to list.
ie, the indexing service checks the permssion of the requesting user, and only lists files they would be able to list in the OS. Its only common sense.
All these "attacks" assume the indexing program will index and return results for files you dont have access to.
Im pretty sure the indexing server on Windows won't return 'search results' for files you dont have permissions to list. As with any other sensible indexing schemes, except perhaps the newer silly 'desktop search' tools. Seems pretty obvious to me.
The trouble is, its quite common to show layers on a mouse over, in particular for menus. Disalbing the onload layers will just mean they show the layer when you move your mouse, which is bound to happen, and its pretty impossible for teh browser to distinguish between moving your mouse ovre a drop down menu bit of html, or moving it over any other bit of html.