Funny, the PC I'm working on right now will be available with a different operating system in March. That operating system is OS X. Even funnier - it will also run Vista, once a few adjustments have been made to the firmware.
PC means "personal computer," i.e., the product description of the orignal Apple II. Then IBM made it a product name. If you're talking about
Actually, I wasn't "simply parroting what the YouTube uploader was suggesting" because I didn't RTFA. Can't parrot what you've never read. However, the fact that the uploader does have a legal background is something you might want to keep in mind in evaluating his comments, as you might want to keep in mind that I am not a lawyer (but once was an English teacher) in evaluating mine.
Now, assume for a moment (I know this will be hard for you) that I had never seen the clips, because I didn't hear about them until the take down notice. Now, the way in which I would express a condition contrary to fact (the grammatical structure which you appear to think I am using here) might be indistinguishable from the way in which I would express a simple past condition (which is, in fact, what I am saying - i.e., that I don't know how the fellow edited the clips, but if he edited them just enough to show what he was trying to show, he should be safe).
That's very interesting - I guess Aperture has improved enough to the point that it has Microsoft running scared when it comes to the Pro photographer market. Yes, the Adobe product line is much stronger - just Photoshop makes it much stronger, and most folks think Lightroom is better than Aperture - but it's available on both platforms (though of course most Adobe software still runs in Rosetta on Intel Macs), while Aperture is only available on the Mac.
No, your comment shows your extreme ignorance of the English language, as what I said is virtually identical to what you said. So long as it's clear that the amount used is that necessary for fair criticism, it is likely fair use.
Actually, if the fellow who posted the content to YouTube carefully edited the video clips just enough to demonstrate that there had been an edit by CNN, and had added his own content explaining what this showed and why, it would probably fit under the Fair Use requirements for scholarship or criticism - but IANAL.
This is an excellent comment. Here's the other comment I'd suggest: ask both companies what they think about Ruby. Just that - "What do you think about Ruby?" It will tell you a lot about your future in each company.
I don't pay attention to politics at all [....] I have slightly conservative views[,] which agrees with their political outlook [....] I am totally uninformed, I shouldn't vote.
Now if only the other 20 million Americans who hold slightly conservative views because they don't pay attention to politics at all, agree with their parents' political viewpoints because they are their parents' political viewpoints, and are totally uninformed did the same thing and refrained from voting, this country would be in much better shape.
The problem is not just that you're not voting - it's that you don't pay the least bit of attention to one of the most important aspects of living in a society. I hope you never complain about the government, etc.
Maybe because the shuttle will have trouble navigating because the apparent positions of the earth and sun against the siderial background will not match what the date tells it to expect, so it will assume that the shuttle is out of position? The one thing where you can really screw yourself big time with a bad date is orbital mechanics.
They usually use Houston time. Most UNIX computers count seconds from January 1, 1970; Julian dating begins with January 1, -4712 (that's 4713 BC), and is usually counted in fractions of a day rather than seconds. And believe me, if there's one thing the folks who have to write orbital mechanics software would understand, it's simple calendar operations. There's probably some limiting piece of hardware that has a 9-bit date register somewhere in the system and everything else has to harmonize with that.
You can attribute by title and first publication date, with the author "unknown" or "anonymous." In the case of a government document, "Publication 4516, US Printing Office, 2006" might be appropriate.
It forbids original research from being presented, but also requires citations. Also, there's an important distincting between synthesizing research and simply copying text whole from another source. In both cases, there should really be a citation; but in an encyclopedia, the former without citation is not preferred, but not embarrassing; the latter is simple plagiarism in any genre. By "copying text," by the way, I don't just mean cut & paste, but even rewording. Synthesis is required, but regurgitation is frowned upon.
Something copied from public domain sites or government sites without attribution is still plagiarised. Plagiarism and copyright infringement are entirely distinct phenomena; just because something is in the public domain does not mean that it cannot be plagiarised.
My MacBook (not a MacBook Pro) gets a little under 4 hours or so on each charge, depending upon how hard I push it. On the other hand, I *never* got 5 hours out of my old iBook. The iBook would stay charged in sleep mode for a week, the MacBook, for two or three days. I'd say slightly less battery time than the iBook (G3), but better than the average laptop.
I wouldn't worry too much about what history will have to say about the Bush presidency if the Bushites consolidate their hold on power - after all, the Rapture will soon follow and no one will be writing history anymore. (Or, as the losers will call it, "catastrophic environmental collapse" or "Venusiforming.")
Give up on the idea of profitting from this directly. You're likely to make more profit by developing a reputation as a serious and reliable researcher who can help companies to shore up their defense, rather than as a gray-hat who trawls for companies with security flaws looking for a payoff.
You say there are several companies involved. Research them a little, and approach the one that looks most likely to offer you gratitude rather than a lawsuit, and ask who you should inform of a vulnerability you've discovered. GIVE THEM THE INFORMATION FIRST. After you've given them the information, you can let slip that you're looking for security consulting work. As long as you aren't holding out the information - as long as you give them the warning and all the data you have on the vulnerability BEFORE you mention the idea of providing services for pay, you're not committing extortion. Also, don't mention that other companies have the vulnerability or suggest that you're going to approach them, that might look like a shakedown, too (they might think you're offering to NOT warn the other companies if they pay you, and that, too, could be seen as extortionate). Repeat this, carefully, with other companies if you're sure they won't sue you for your trouble, never letting any one company know that the others have the vulnerability or that you are/might be doing business with them.
Next, write up the vulnerability as a research paper. Wait until you've heard back from all of the companies you contacted that they've fixed the vulnerability, but do not mention money in connection with publishing the vulnerability; otherwise, give them six months after your first contact before submitting it to a research journal. When you do publish the vulnerability, only mention companies if it is absolutely necessary: for instance, if it's an Apache vulnerability, you need to mention Apache, but don't need to mention a company using Apache; if it's an IIS vulnerability, you need to mention Microsoft, but not a company using IIS.
Understand that you may not get a job offer right away. The key is to treat the whole thing as a scholarly pursuit for which you DON'T expect to get paid. If you smell like some punk trying to pry money away from a bunch of companies, they'll treat you as a criminal; if you behave like a scholarly researcher who's just out to learn about and publish on the subject of security, they'll treat you as a potential resource: and most companies understand that resources cost money.
One more thing: you might want to talk to a lawyer first. That way, it's on the record that you were trying to get the information out to the proper parties, but saw profit as a potential side effect, not your primary motivation. It's also on the record that you found the vulnerability first. A lawyer might help you to determine which companies it is and isn't safe to contact. I know that means spending some money, but it's better than ending up in federal you-know-what prison because some Chief Security Officer decided that you were trying to blackmail him.
They did use bogus security arguments, and yet, amazingly, the FCC saw through them. I don't know about you folks, but I'm expecting the apocalypse any moment now...
Why, O why don't I have mod points when I can really use them!!! Think of this as a virtual +1 insightful.
I have deep suspicions about long-term information storage. But someone should also note that a lot of what we call material culture isn't represented well in digital forms. The texture of an object, some information about its materials, methods of fabrication - these are things that archaeology can tell us and Wikipedia couldn't - even if it were both reliable and non-volatile. Remember, too, that the Romans thought their material culture and their books would last forever - there are dozens of mentions of a writer named Gallus whom his contemporaries assumed would still be read a thousand years later. Today, Gallus survives only in small fragments.
Look, man, if you're going to astroturf, at least be subtle about it (ok, maybe you're not an astroturfer, based on your other postings, but you sure sound like you're regurgitating MS marketing-speak, and the way your posting has key terms highlighted suggests at least a little training pitching to corporate IT managers). Most people who care about their FPS in games are doing the games full screen, so they're not making big file transfers at the same time: only a marketing department could come up with that (ok, maybe one or two percent of gamers might run a shell script - oh, sorry, batch file - in the terminal - oh, sorry, command line - to do some copying and then crank up Halo while they're waiting for it to finish; but really, does this strike you as a normal usage scenario?). SMB 2.0 just means something else for my Mac, Solaris, and Linux clients to have problems connecting to. Lower CPU usage than XP? Then why are the CPU requirements for XP SP2 only 300 MHz (recommended; 233 MHz required), while those for Vista are 800 MHz (required)? Improved stability, maybe; I haven't noticed too many problems with RC1 on stability, but them I'm running it virtualized, and my XP image is fine, too. And I note that "off the top of [your] head" you don't mention the one thing that every was been crying for (including, I suspect, Microsoft's own programmers): real improvements in security. So far, Vista looks like it's at least as secure as XP SP2 with IE7 (IE7 seems less security-handicapped than IE6, at least in my tests so far, though it's far from perfect), but that's not saying much. The fact that MS isn't promoting security improvements more is reflected by your failure to mention them front and center - if the marketing materials coming out of Redmond were highlighting it first, those who are reading the marketing materials and trying to defend the OS would be highlighting them.
At some point, I'm looking to upgrade 150-200 machines that are currently running XP. I want to upgrade to a secure, reliable OS that my colleagues are comfortable working with and that runs the software they need to do their jobs. I wish that OS were Solaris, or Linux, or BSD, or OS X - oh boy, do I ever - but it's going to be a Windows; so I want to see Vista give me some of the things that the various Unices will give me: security (ok, there is one aspect of the Windows security model that is superior to the tradtional UNIX security model, ACLs, and I put those to good use; but I want more), stability (I'm sick and tired of getting a BSOD every time nVidia comes out with a new driver: and don't tell me it's nVidia's fault, because I don't have the same problems with our Macs), and ease of administration and maintenance. I would like to have a robust filesystem which makes file recovery easy, ideally something like ZFS; but Microsoft gave up on that goal. I'd like a much more robust terminal like bash; it looked like MS was going in the right direction, but now that's delayed, too. I'd like a consistent user interface that doesn't dull me into distraction, but also doesn't add nonsense just for the sake of being different - like Mac OS 10.3 (OS 10.4 is a better OS, but they've given back a little in the consistency department, and I'd like to see them move back to a more unified way of interacting with the user); Vista *certainly* isn't there. I'd like to be able to change settings easily myself, because I know the OS pretty well, not have to dig through four layers of windows to get to a setting, but still be able to prevent other, less knowledgeable users from making changes whose consequences they don't understand; with Vista, you've got some security through policies, and that's good, but you've also got this unnecessary layer of "if the user won't need it, bury it".
Finally, I'd like a nice, stable set of libraries for.NET. The.NET API was too limited with.NET 1.1, yes; but come on! By the time I understand all the new bits of each version of.NET
This was pretty funny - about 3 years ago when it was first circulating via email. Of course, it's pretty silly for a country that has no written constitution would be making this kind of a joke (the Magna Carta delineates the rights of the propertied class and the limits of the powers of the King - it doesn't delineate the limits of the powers of the Parliamentary government; and what a Brit means by "constitution" is what e.g. Plato meant by "politea" or Cicero by "res publica" - the way in which the state is constituted, in effect via common law and various written laws, not an overarching written framework in a single, relatively easy-to-understand document - though with very complex subtleties - with legal force).
You do realize that the major change between 2000 and XP was in the user interface, right? And that 2000 was NT 5.0, and XP was NT 5.1? I'd argue that the real "major" OS change was from XP to XP SP2. Oh, and the charge for the 2000 to XP upgrade was $200; the charge for the OS X upgrades is usually $129.
Apple charged for all X.Y changes under OS X except for the leap (and it was a leap) from 10.0 to 10.1. These changes are significant version changes (heck, 10.4 includes a whole new architecture).
Yes and no. As it happens, we think that most (if not all) galaxies do have massive objects at their cores - but the question is, whether that object was what caused the galaxy to form, or whether it was a byproduct of some other process (for instance, I can see how mass segregation would eventually lead to the formation of a black hole at the core of a galaxy). As someone else has pointed out, in a complex system, the objects can orbit a common center of gravity that is not associated with any one massive object. But I am not an astrophysicist.
Unfortunately, "your book" isn't exactly determinative. No one thinks of IEDs as "military hardware." They are things that can be created by a mob, not just by military hardware manufacturers (unlike RPGs; it would be interesting to find out where the RPGs are coming from in Iraq, by the way: while I'm sure many are left-overs from the Hussein regime, it's quite possible that many are not).
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, you're right on that one; one minute should NOT warrant a DMCA takedown.
Funny, the PC I'm working on right now will be available with a different operating system in March. That operating system is OS X. Even funnier - it will also run Vista, once a few adjustments have been made to the firmware.
PC means "personal computer," i.e., the product description of the orignal Apple II. Then IBM made it a product name. If you're talking about
Actually, I wasn't "simply parroting what the YouTube uploader was suggesting" because I didn't RTFA. Can't parrot what you've never read. However, the fact that the uploader does have a legal background is something you might want to keep in mind in evaluating his comments, as you might want to keep in mind that I am not a lawyer (but once was an English teacher) in evaluating mine.
Now, assume for a moment (I know this will be hard for you) that I had never seen the clips, because I didn't hear about them until the take down notice. Now, the way in which I would express a condition contrary to fact (the grammatical structure which you appear to think I am using here) might be indistinguishable from the way in which I would express a simple past condition (which is, in fact, what I am saying - i.e., that I don't know how the fellow edited the clips, but if he edited them just enough to show what he was trying to show, he should be safe).
That's very interesting - I guess Aperture has improved enough to the point that it has Microsoft running scared when it comes to the Pro photographer market. Yes, the Adobe product line is much stronger - just Photoshop makes it much stronger, and most folks think Lightroom is better than Aperture - but it's available on both platforms (though of course most Adobe software still runs in Rosetta on Intel Macs), while Aperture is only available on the Mac.
No, your comment shows your extreme ignorance of the English language, as what I said is virtually identical to what you said. So long as it's clear that the amount used is that necessary for fair criticism, it is likely fair use.
Actually, if the fellow who posted the content to YouTube carefully edited the video clips just enough to demonstrate that there had been an edit by CNN, and had added his own content explaining what this showed and why, it would probably fit under the Fair Use requirements for scholarship or criticism - but IANAL.
This is an excellent comment. Here's the other comment I'd suggest: ask both companies what they think about Ruby. Just that - "What do you think about Ruby?" It will tell you a lot about your future in each company.
I don't pay attention to politics at all [....] I have slightly conservative views[,] which agrees with their political outlook [....] I am totally uninformed, I shouldn't vote.
Now if only the other 20 million Americans who hold slightly conservative views because they don't pay attention to politics at all, agree with their parents' political viewpoints because they are their parents' political viewpoints, and are totally uninformed did the same thing and refrained from voting, this country would be in much better shape.
The problem is not just that you're not voting - it's that you don't pay the least bit of attention to one of the most important aspects of living in a society. I hope you never complain about the government, etc.
Maybe because the shuttle will have trouble navigating because the apparent positions of the earth and sun against the siderial background will not match what the date tells it to expect, so it will assume that the shuttle is out of position? The one thing where you can really screw yourself big time with a bad date is orbital mechanics.
They usually use Houston time. Most UNIX computers count seconds from January 1, 1970; Julian dating begins with January 1, -4712 (that's 4713 BC), and is usually counted in fractions of a day rather than seconds. And believe me, if there's one thing the folks who have to write orbital mechanics software would understand, it's simple calendar operations. There's probably some limiting piece of hardware that has a 9-bit date register somewhere in the system and everything else has to harmonize with that.
You can attribute by title and first publication date, with the author "unknown" or "anonymous." In the case of a government document, "Publication 4516, US Printing Office, 2006" might be appropriate.
It forbids original research from being presented, but also requires citations. Also, there's an important distincting between synthesizing research and simply copying text whole from another source. In both cases, there should really be a citation; but in an encyclopedia, the former without citation is not preferred, but not embarrassing; the latter is simple plagiarism in any genre. By "copying text," by the way, I don't just mean cut & paste, but even rewording. Synthesis is required, but regurgitation is frowned upon.
Something copied from public domain sites or government sites without attribution is still plagiarised. Plagiarism and copyright infringement are entirely distinct phenomena; just because something is in the public domain does not mean that it cannot be plagiarised.
Never, ever trust published battery ratings.
My MacBook (not a MacBook Pro) gets a little under 4 hours or so on each charge, depending upon how hard I push it. On the other hand, I *never* got 5 hours out of my old iBook. The iBook would stay charged in sleep mode for a week, the MacBook, for two or three days. I'd say slightly less battery time than the iBook (G3), but better than the average laptop.
I wouldn't worry too much about what history will have to say about the Bush presidency if the Bushites consolidate their hold on power - after all, the Rapture will soon follow and no one will be writing history anymore. (Or, as the losers will call it, "catastrophic environmental collapse" or "Venusiforming.")
Give up on the idea of profitting from this directly. You're likely to make more profit by developing a reputation as a serious and reliable researcher who can help companies to shore up their defense, rather than as a gray-hat who trawls for companies with security flaws looking for a payoff.
You say there are several companies involved. Research them a little, and approach the one that looks most likely to offer you gratitude rather than a lawsuit, and ask who you should inform of a vulnerability you've discovered. GIVE THEM THE INFORMATION FIRST. After you've given them the information, you can let slip that you're looking for security consulting work. As long as you aren't holding out the information - as long as you give them the warning and all the data you have on the vulnerability BEFORE you mention the idea of providing services for pay, you're not committing extortion. Also, don't mention that other companies have the vulnerability or suggest that you're going to approach them, that might look like a shakedown, too (they might think you're offering to NOT warn the other companies if they pay you, and that, too, could be seen as extortionate). Repeat this, carefully, with other companies if you're sure they won't sue you for your trouble, never letting any one company know that the others have the vulnerability or that you are/might be doing business with them.
Next, write up the vulnerability as a research paper. Wait until you've heard back from all of the companies you contacted that they've fixed the vulnerability, but do not mention money in connection with publishing the vulnerability; otherwise, give them six months after your first contact before submitting it to a research journal. When you do publish the vulnerability, only mention companies if it is absolutely necessary: for instance, if it's an Apache vulnerability, you need to mention Apache, but don't need to mention a company using Apache; if it's an IIS vulnerability, you need to mention Microsoft, but not a company using IIS.
Understand that you may not get a job offer right away. The key is to treat the whole thing as a scholarly pursuit for which you DON'T expect to get paid. If you smell like some punk trying to pry money away from a bunch of companies, they'll treat you as a criminal; if you behave like a scholarly researcher who's just out to learn about and publish on the subject of security, they'll treat you as a potential resource: and most companies understand that resources cost money.
One more thing: you might want to talk to a lawyer first. That way, it's on the record that you were trying to get the information out to the proper parties, but saw profit as a potential side effect, not your primary motivation. It's also on the record that you found the vulnerability first. A lawyer might help you to determine which companies it is and isn't safe to contact. I know that means spending some money, but it's better than ending up in federal you-know-what prison because some Chief Security Officer decided that you were trying to blackmail him.
They did use bogus security arguments, and yet, amazingly, the FCC saw through them. I don't know about you folks, but I'm expecting the apocalypse any moment now ...
Why, O why don't I have mod points when I can really use them!!! Think of this as a virtual +1 insightful.
I have deep suspicions about long-term information storage. But someone should also note that a lot of what we call material culture isn't represented well in digital forms. The texture of an object, some information about its materials, methods of fabrication - these are things that archaeology can tell us and Wikipedia couldn't - even if it were both reliable and non-volatile. Remember, too, that the Romans thought their material culture and their books would last forever - there are dozens of mentions of a writer named Gallus whom his contemporaries assumed would still be read a thousand years later. Today, Gallus survives only in small fragments.
Look, man, if you're going to astroturf, at least be subtle about it (ok, maybe you're not an astroturfer, based on your other postings, but you sure sound like you're regurgitating MS marketing-speak, and the way your posting has key terms highlighted suggests at least a little training pitching to corporate IT managers). Most people who care about their FPS in games are doing the games full screen, so they're not making big file transfers at the same time: only a marketing department could come up with that (ok, maybe one or two percent of gamers might run a shell script - oh, sorry, batch file - in the terminal - oh, sorry, command line - to do some copying and then crank up Halo while they're waiting for it to finish; but really, does this strike you as a normal usage scenario?). SMB 2.0 just means something else for my Mac, Solaris, and Linux clients to have problems connecting to. Lower CPU usage than XP? Then why are the CPU requirements for XP SP2 only 300 MHz (recommended; 233 MHz required), while those for Vista are 800 MHz (required)? Improved stability, maybe; I haven't noticed too many problems with RC1 on stability, but them I'm running it virtualized, and my XP image is fine, too. And I note that "off the top of [your] head" you don't mention the one thing that every was been crying for (including, I suspect, Microsoft's own programmers): real improvements in security. So far, Vista looks like it's at least as secure as XP SP2 with IE7 (IE7 seems less security-handicapped than IE6, at least in my tests so far, though it's far from perfect), but that's not saying much. The fact that MS isn't promoting security improvements more is reflected by your failure to mention them front and center - if the marketing materials coming out of Redmond were highlighting it first, those who are reading the marketing materials and trying to defend the OS would be highlighting them.
At some point, I'm looking to upgrade 150-200 machines that are currently running XP. I want to upgrade to a secure, reliable OS that my colleagues are comfortable working with and that runs the software they need to do their jobs. I wish that OS were Solaris, or Linux, or BSD, or OS X - oh boy, do I ever - but it's going to be a Windows; so I want to see Vista give me some of the things that the various Unices will give me: security (ok, there is one aspect of the Windows security model that is superior to the tradtional UNIX security model, ACLs, and I put those to good use; but I want more), stability (I'm sick and tired of getting a BSOD every time nVidia comes out with a new driver: and don't tell me it's nVidia's fault, because I don't have the same problems with our Macs), and ease of administration and maintenance. I would like to have a robust filesystem which makes file recovery easy, ideally something like ZFS; but Microsoft gave up on that goal. I'd like a much more robust terminal like bash; it looked like MS was going in the right direction, but now that's delayed, too. I'd like a consistent user interface that doesn't dull me into distraction, but also doesn't add nonsense just for the sake of being different - like Mac OS 10.3 (OS 10.4 is a better OS, but they've given back a little in the consistency department, and I'd like to see them move back to a more unified way of interacting with the user); Vista *certainly* isn't there. I'd like to be able to change settings easily myself, because I know the OS pretty well, not have to dig through four layers of windows to get to a setting, but still be able to prevent other, less knowledgeable users from making changes whose consequences they don't understand; with Vista, you've got some security through policies, and that's good, but you've also got this unnecessary layer of "if the user won't need it, bury it".
Finally, I'd like a nice, stable set of libraries for .NET. The .NET API was too limited with .NET 1.1, yes; but come on! By the time I understand all the new bits of each version of .NET
This was pretty funny - about 3 years ago when it was first circulating via email. Of course, it's pretty silly for a country that has no written constitution would be making this kind of a joke (the Magna Carta delineates the rights of the propertied class and the limits of the powers of the King - it doesn't delineate the limits of the powers of the Parliamentary government; and what a Brit means by "constitution" is what e.g. Plato meant by "politea" or Cicero by "res publica" - the way in which the state is constituted, in effect via common law and various written laws, not an overarching written framework in a single, relatively easy-to-understand document - though with very complex subtleties - with legal force).
You do realize that the major change between 2000 and XP was in the user interface, right? And that 2000 was NT 5.0, and XP was NT 5.1? I'd argue that the real "major" OS change was from XP to XP SP2. Oh, and the charge for the 2000 to XP upgrade was $200; the charge for the OS X upgrades is usually $129.
Apple charged for all X.Y changes under OS X except for the leap (and it was a leap) from 10.0 to 10.1. These changes are significant version changes (heck, 10.4 includes a whole new architecture).
Yes and no. As it happens, we think that most (if not all) galaxies do have massive objects at their cores - but the question is, whether that object was what caused the galaxy to form, or whether it was a byproduct of some other process (for instance, I can see how mass segregation would eventually lead to the formation of a black hole at the core of a galaxy). As someone else has pointed out, in a complex system, the objects can orbit a common center of gravity that is not associated with any one massive object. But I am not an astrophysicist.
Actually, in the US, BOTH sides have to pay: the caller pays airtime and call charges, the callee just airtime.
Unfortunately, "your book" isn't exactly determinative. No one thinks of IEDs as "military hardware." They are things that can be created by a mob, not just by military hardware manufacturers (unlike RPGs; it would be interesting to find out where the RPGs are coming from in Iraq, by the way: while I'm sure many are left-overs from the Hussein regime, it's quite possible that many are not).