I think that they want to continue to be listed on Google News AND they want Google News to pay them. Not likely to happen and Google will be happy to skip any news source that opts out. This would divide the news sources (and that part about shooting in the foot would be true)... but if they all get together and sue Google, they can try to force payment.
OTOH, you could hook up a cell phone to a network of the MIT $100 laptops (they automatically connect to each other and can share a network connection).
The $100 laptop from MIT already has a manufacturer lined up and $700 million in financing for the first 7 million boxes so this is not some pie in the sky dream. It is happening now.
Every corporation that I've ever worked for (as a consultant, quite a few) implements file permissions and logins on their networks but all of them run Windows on the desktop wide open because they can't get their applications to run otherwise.
Until Windows gets all of the clueless application developers to follow their "security model" and rewrites all of their legacy code (.wmf file processing anyone) to also follow their security model, Windows will be hopelessly insecure.
Re:Damned if they do, Damned if they don't
on
No Anti-Virus in Vista
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
"Umm... used Windows lately? As in a properly configured Windows?
The security model does that one already."
I use Windows all the time and I've never seen any file permissions and I've never been able to get any work done unless I run as "Administrator".
Windows needs a real security model like Unix where the OS and applications use file permissions and user settings. Then it will be secure.
I think the sub is guilty of an unprovoked attack on the octopus. If you view the video (VTFV), you will clearly see that the octopus didn't even touch the sub and was just swimming by with idle curiosity.
Your friends would be better off starting a business to provide professional support for one of the FOSS CMS systems. It's stupid to reinvent the wheel in this area (especially when their wheel will probably not be as good as the ones that already exist).
Many times in the computer world it has been pronounce "game over" and many times the game has changed. (think WordStar, EasyCalc, Lotus123, MS-DOS, MSIE, and yes, Windows and MS Office).
The market leader always likes to tell people "don't even try to beat us" but people can and will beat them.
At least it helps to understand that they are posted in time order and not randomly.
I agree that it would help to change the shape of the box to be more inclusive so they didn't look like part of the article above... could each be a separate one line grey bar?
Re:Very nice - but has some rough edges currently
on
Slashdot Index Code Update
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I agree that they look like they should be part of the story above. They seem to be just randomly placed on the page... it's confusing.
Why not put them together in a separate section at the top or bottom of the page and organize them better?
I think the 1.6GHz Pentium M must be some kind of "sweet spot" between speed and heat. I have a Dell laptop with this chip (700m) and it's perfect. Lots of speed when I need it and the fan only comes on when doing something processor intensive such as video rendering.
Most recently, there was a famous bet between Julian Simon and Paul Erlich on the price of copper... Erlich bet the price of copper (and other rare metals) would rise... and lost.
"In 1980, economist Julian Simon and biologist Paul Ehrlich decided to put their money where their predictions were. Ehrlich had been predicting massive shortages in various natural resources for decades, while Simon claimed natural resources were infinite.
Ehrlich agreed to the bet, and chose copper, chrome, nickel, tin and tungsten.
By 1990, all five metal were below their inflation-adjusted price level in 1980. Ehrlich lost the bet and sent Simon a check for $576.07."
I was using network and multi-user in an imprecise manner. I apologize.
My point still stands. Unix was designed from the start to accommodate multiple users. Most significantly, it was designed from the beginning to have file permissions and users with different levels of access. This is a fundamental architecture that made it easy to program security.
Windows, OTOH, was designed as a single user standalone machine and had no provision for access controls. This is a continuing source of problems since it is impossible to patch in security onto this fundamentally flawed architecture. Windows is still suffering to day from basic flaw.
Early Unix may have had poor security but it was easy to fix it since the underlying architecture (file permissions and user access controls) were in place.
Windows continues to have poor security since patching on access controls breaks a lot of legacy software. It needs a complete re-write and all new applications.
My point was that the architecture of Unix was designed for a multi-user environment from the start which means that the basic design included such things as the ability to assign permissions to files and the concept of an administrator (root) user to do such things as install software and user accounts with lesser privileges to run software.
OTOH, Windows was a simple single user OS and did not have these considerations at the start and as a result it has been constantly struggling to patch security onto a very poorly architected OS. The WMF vulnerability is only the latest of a long string of problems caused by the poor basic design.
Windows NT (and XP/2003/Vista) was an effort to improve the architecture but it has clearly failed because of the need to support legacy applications and the fact that they did not address the fundamental architecture problems. The fact that all of the new Windows OSs were vulnerable to the WMF problem shows that nothing has changed.
Windows really needs to be completely re-written from the ground up with a "network aware" architecture.... of course, it would be much easier to just use *nix.
"Unix was designed to be portable, multi-tasking and multi-user. The Unix systems are characterized by various concepts: plain text files, command line interpreter, hierarchical file system, treating devices and certain types of inter-process communication as files, etc. "
Wikipedia give a good history of Unix including predecesors Multics, etc. all of which were designed from the start for multi-user environments. When you're designing an OS for a multi-user environment, the basic architecture is designed for security unlike Windows which assumed that there was only one user.
Yes, I agree that Windows is also vulnerable to removable media (and some of the earliest exploits were through removable media). So Windows was really designed for use as an isolated stand alone machine with no communication of any type... not very useful.
I believe this reference is to a Holiday Inn TV commercial where people who were famous/ highly skilled/ special stayed at Holiday Inn and then did amazing things the next day.
Slashdot Mirror
If you still think assets count, I have a Ford car factory to sell you.
I think that they want to continue to be listed on Google News AND they want Google News to pay them. Not likely to happen and Google will be happy to skip any news source that opts out. This would divide the news sources (and that part about shooting in the foot would be true)... but if they all get together and sue Google, they can try to force payment.
OTOH, you could hook up a cell phone to a network of the MIT $100 laptops (they automatically connect to each other and can share a network connection).
The $100 laptop from MIT already has a manufacturer lined up and $700 million in financing for the first 7 million boxes so this is not some pie in the sky dream. It is happening now.
Until Windows gets all of the clueless application developers to follow their "security model" and rewrites all of their legacy code (.wmf file processing anyone) to also follow their security model, Windows will be hopelessly insecure.
Windows needs a real security model like Unix where the OS and applications use file permissions and user settings. Then it will be secure.
I think the sub is guilty of an unprovoked attack on the octopus. If you view the video (VTFV), you will clearly see that the octopus didn't even touch the sub and was just swimming by with idle curiosity.
Your friends would be better off starting a business to provide professional support for one of the FOSS CMS systems. It's stupid to reinvent the wheel in this area (especially when their wheel will probably not be as good as the ones that already exist).
The market leader always likes to tell people "don't even try to beat us" but people can and will beat them.
I agree that it would help to change the shape of the box to be more inclusive so they didn't look like part of the article above... could each be a separate one line grey bar?
Why not put them together in a separate section at the top or bottom of the page and organize them better?
I think the 1.6GHz Pentium M must be some kind of "sweet spot" between speed and heat. I have a Dell laptop with this chip (700m) and it's perfect. Lots of speed when I need it and the fan only comes on when doing something processor intensive such as video rendering.
I am shocked... absolutely shocked!!!
Didn't they also in the past systematically trash Intel processors as being inferior?
Most recently, there was a famous bet between Julian Simon and Paul Erlich on the price of copper... Erlich bet the price of copper (and other rare metals) would rise... and lost.
http://www.overpopulation.com/faq/People/julian_si mon.html
From the article:
"In 1980, economist Julian Simon and biologist Paul Ehrlich decided to put their money where their predictions were. Ehrlich had been predicting massive shortages in various natural resources for decades, while Simon claimed natural resources were infinite.
Ehrlich agreed to the bet, and chose copper, chrome, nickel, tin and tungsten. By 1990, all five metal were below their inflation-adjusted price level in 1980. Ehrlich lost the bet and sent Simon a check for $576.07."
My point still stands. Unix was designed from the start to accommodate multiple users. Most significantly, it was designed from the beginning to have file permissions and users with different levels of access. This is a fundamental architecture that made it easy to program security.
Windows, OTOH, was designed as a single user standalone machine and had no provision for access controls. This is a continuing source of problems since it is impossible to patch in security onto this fundamentally flawed architecture. Windows is still suffering to day from basic flaw.
Early Unix may have had poor security but it was easy to fix it since the underlying architecture (file permissions and user access controls) were in place.
Windows continues to have poor security since patching on access controls breaks a lot of legacy software. It needs a complete re-write and all new applications.
OTOH, Windows was a simple single user OS and did not have these considerations at the start and as a result it has been constantly struggling to patch security onto a very poorly architected OS. The WMF vulnerability is only the latest of a long string of problems caused by the poor basic design.
Windows NT (and XP/2003/Vista) was an effort to improve the architecture but it has clearly failed because of the need to support legacy applications and the fact that they did not address the fundamental architecture problems. The fact that all of the new Windows OSs were vulnerable to the WMF problem shows that nothing has changed.
Windows really needs to be completely re-written from the ground up with a "network aware" architecture.... of course, it would be much easier to just use *nix.
"Unix was designed to be portable, multi-tasking and multi-user. The Unix systems are characterized by various concepts: plain text files, command line interpreter, hierarchical file system, treating devices and certain types of inter-process communication as files, etc. "
Wikipedia give a good history of Unix including predecesors Multics, etc. all of which were designed from the start for multi-user environments. When you're designing an OS for a multi-user environment, the basic architecture is designed for security unlike Windows which assumed that there was only one user.
Interesting history that you can read here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix
Yes, I agree that Windows is also vulnerable to removable media (and some of the earliest exploits were through removable media). So Windows was really designed for use as an isolated stand alone machine with no communication of any type... not very useful.
Windows was designed as a stand alone OS without network connections so it is full of problems like this. They are fundamental to the architecture.
OTOH, the *nix OSs were designed from the start for a network environment with appropriate security.
Windows will never be ready for the net without a complete re-write.
I believe this reference is to a Holiday Inn TV commercial where people who were famous/ highly skilled/ special stayed at Holiday Inn and then did amazing things the next day.
I think you missed the point that this mouse charges in the PC card slot so you don't have another charger dongle for it.
http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/spring97/0247.htm l
I guess he thought the Internet was as poorly designed as the first incarnation of Ethernet that he designed.
(1) - extinquish once and for all the possibility of independent thought, and
(2) - conquer the whole surface of the earth.
There are therefore two great problems which the Party is concerned to solve. One is:
(1) - how to discover, against his will, what another human being is thinking. And the other is:
(2) - how to kill several hundred million people in a few seconds without giving warning before hand.
Actually, the judge in this case is a certified conservative... appointed by George Bush... so definitely not a "liberal activist" judge.
The FAQ includes a method to encrypt the boot volume on Windows.