Yeah, they're doing a great job at copying something MS did years ago but MS coders are releasing "vaporware" such as Win2K and WinXP, which are more advanced. Shut-up with the slashdot-speak already. You sound like an idiot.
NT4 came out in 95. Win2000 in 2000. No charges were made for service packs in between. How many versions of MacOS did Apple charge people for in that time period? Your isn't would be funny if it had some basis in fact.
I don't believe mirroring a site without the consent of the author falls under fair use. I could copy cnn's web site otherwise, place my own ads there, and make money by stealing their content, otherwise.
I disagree. Google may have told Yahoo that the google search engine is the only option you may use if you want to use google at all, for instance. MS has never forced anyone to use a product against their will, BTW. They simply deal in contracts. Contracts are entered into voluntarily by both parties. To compare MS business practices to threat of force with a weapon is silly. A visit to Iraq or N. Korea might change your view of what "against their will" really means. Apple's business practives are no better than MSs either, BTW. No one consders them a monopoly, however, so they're excused from their so-called bad behavior.
I beileve they're paranoid about collecting a history of the searches a particular person made. Mirroring web pages is way down on their list of complaints.
God forbid copyright owners should have control over copying of their work. Using the law to take away this right is a socialist attempt to deprive people of their work "for the public good". The public has no right to someone's work, only the right to barter with the worker for something he wants. BTW, It's Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, not Schrodinger (or Shrodinger).
"We're talking piracy, significant examples of piracy.' By contrast, Sydney Uni says it knows of one student with a handful of files on a website, which does actually sound quite a bit like one track here, one track there"
Give me a break. Typical slashdot fud. The issue is not some stupid website sharing a handful of songs. It's about p2p file sharing on the uni network. Either the uni is completely clueless about what goes on, or they're lying.
It's not an inherent monopoly. It's a govt granted monopoly. If the govt. allowed competitors to run their own independent networks, there would be real competition, and no need for govt. regulation.
It's a sad day in America when asking the govt. to let you control your own network is considered blackmail. What ever happened to freedom in this country? You can blame the govt. for lack of competition too. They have enforced telcom monopolies by not allowing competitors to route their own networks. Instead, they think granting monopolies and regulating them is the answer. Well, it's not the answer if business is not guaranteed, as in broadband. The risk is too high, for a low regulated return. The telcom industry stock is already leading the way down in the stock market. Why should they take more unnecessary risks?
Why should SBC invest money in a network that others will be able to sponge off of at whatever arbitrary rate the govt. thinks is fair. Of course they're not going to invest money. Given all the telcom failures recently, the risk has proven to be enormous. No one in their right mind would take such a risk under regulatory conditions. The same thing happened with CA power. There was no incentive to invest in new power plants since profit margins are minimal due to state regulation, even though the increase in demand over time was easily predictable. Only after rolling blackouts threatened govt re-elections did Davis do anything about the problem.
Quit spinning the issue. It's simple. Without a guarantee of a monopoly on their own network, there is no incentive to improve the network. Therefore, if you want broadband in Kansas, look elsewhere.
""The big losers today are the people of Kansas" -- Translation: The big winners today are the people of Kansas."
Yes, SBC's decision not nto improve broadband is a real win for Kansas consumers.
The only intelligent thing you said is "er, because we care about our profits above all". That's exactly why they're saying fuck you Kansas. If we can't own our own network, why bother builidng it.
Slashdot has no problem with the govt. regulating MS, but when they want to regulate something slashdot users like, suddenly regulation is evil. If the govt. is allowed to regulate standard telephony, they must do the same for VoIP. Otherwise, VoIP software companies and ISPs have an unfair advantage over telephone companies. I propose deregulating telephony, rather than regulating VoIP.
In either Windows or Unix, can't I simply boot from a cd or floppy and gain root access? The only thing that makes this exploit interesting is that you can get access to the computer without interrupting normal operation.
As people have pointed out, the general public doesn't actually know what's running on the machines, open source or not, so open source is no better than closed source. If someone tampers with the open source, joe user won't know. What is needed is an independent govt agency that is tasked with verifies the voting machine works. This can be done by hooking the I/O into a separate tester, for instance, designed by a differnt group of people. The tester votes at a rapid rate, randomly casting votes at a fast rate until the number of votes cast is greater than the number of votes actually expected to be cast. The vote totals can then be matched to the epected values to see if the machines are working. Of course, neither machine can be networked to avoid tampering after the machine has been found to work properly. A paper trail is useful in case there is an unrecoverable hardware error, although redundant systems should make the probability of this event very unlikely.
All the punch card reader systems so far have been closed source. Plus mechanical voting systems makers don't provide blue-prints. Why the sudden outcry now that the machines are more modern?
Slashdot Mirror
So I shouldn't buy Apple products either?
YEeh. No govt. should have the right to know who's entering their country.
Yeah, they're doing a great job at copying something MS did years ago but MS coders are releasing "vaporware" such as Win2K and WinXP, which are more advanced. Shut-up with the slashdot-speak already. You sound like an idiot.
Like who? I've yet to see a secure OS except by disconnecting the network cable.
A->B does not mean B->A. That is: no other work -> fix bugs does not mean fix bugs -> no other work. Your logic skills need some work.
NT4 came out in 95. Win2000 in 2000. No charges were made for service packs in between. How many versions of MacOS did Apple charge people for in that time period? Your isn't would be funny if it had some basis in fact.
No. They wrote NT from scratch based on VMS experience and abandoned IBMs OS/2 efforts
Yeah. I'm sure they guys who designed VMS are real UNIX fans.
Why would they be using unix if they were VMS designers from DEC? It would have been a lot more funny if you were using VMS scripting commands.
I don't believe mirroring a site without the consent of the author falls under fair use. I could copy cnn's web site otherwise, place my own ads there, and make money by stealing their content, otherwise.
I disagree. Google may have told Yahoo that the google search engine is the only option you may use if you want to use google at all, for instance. MS has never forced anyone to use a product against their will, BTW. They simply deal in contracts. Contracts are entered into voluntarily by both parties. To compare MS business practices to threat of force with a weapon is silly. A visit to Iraq or N. Korea might change your view of what "against their will" really means. Apple's business practives are no better than MSs either, BTW. No one consders them a monopoly, however, so they're excused from their so-called bad behavior.
I beileve they're paranoid about collecting a history of the searches a particular person made. Mirroring web pages is way down on their list of complaints.
God forbid copyright owners should have control over copying of their work. Using the law to take away this right is a socialist attempt to deprive people of their work "for the public good". The public has no right to someone's work, only the right to barter with the worker for something he wants. BTW, It's Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, not Schrodinger (or Shrodinger).
Piracy is theft. You're taking someone's intellectual property without compensation.
"We're talking piracy, significant examples of piracy.' By contrast, Sydney Uni says it knows of one student with a handful of files on a website, which does actually sound quite a bit like one track here, one track there"
Give me a break. Typical slashdot fud. The issue is not some stupid website sharing a handful of songs. It's about p2p file sharing on the uni network. Either the uni is completely clueless about what goes on, or they're lying.
It's not an inherent monopoly. It's a govt granted monopoly. If the govt. allowed competitors to run their own independent networks, there would be real competition, and no need for govt. regulation.
It's a sad day in America when asking the govt. to let you control your own network is considered blackmail. What ever happened to freedom in this country? You can blame the govt. for lack of competition too. They have enforced telcom monopolies by not allowing competitors to route their own networks. Instead, they think granting monopolies and regulating them is the answer. Well, it's not the answer if business is not guaranteed, as in broadband. The risk is too high, for a low regulated return. The telcom industry stock is already leading the way down in the stock market. Why should they take more unnecessary risks?
Why should SBC invest money in a network that others will be able to sponge off of at whatever arbitrary rate the govt. thinks is fair. Of course they're not going to invest money. Given all the telcom failures recently, the risk has proven to be enormous. No one in their right mind would take such a risk under regulatory conditions. The same thing happened with CA power. There was no incentive to invest in new power plants since profit margins are minimal due to state regulation, even though the increase in demand over time was easily predictable. Only after rolling blackouts threatened govt re-elections did Davis do anything about the problem.
Quit spinning the issue. It's simple. Without a guarantee of a monopoly on their own network, there is no incentive to improve the network. Therefore, if you want broadband in Kansas, look elsewhere.
""The big losers today are the people of Kansas" -- Translation: The big winners today are the people of Kansas."
Yes, SBC's decision not nto improve broadband is a real win for Kansas consumers.
The only intelligent thing you said is "er, because we care about our profits above all". That's exactly why they're saying fuck you Kansas. If we can't own our own network, why bother builidng it.
They learned enough not to bother investing money in improving broadband in Kansas. Who really lost?
Slashdot has no problem with the govt. regulating MS, but when they want to regulate something slashdot users like, suddenly regulation is evil. If the govt. is allowed to regulate standard telephony, they must do the same for VoIP. Otherwise, VoIP software companies and ISPs have an unfair advantage over telephone companies. I propose deregulating telephony, rather than regulating VoIP.
In either Windows or Unix, can't I simply boot from a cd or floppy and gain root access? The only thing that makes this exploit interesting is that you can get access to the computer without interrupting normal operation.
This can be just as easily done with the current punch card systems.
As people have pointed out, the general public doesn't actually know what's running on the machines, open source or not, so open source is no better than closed source. If someone tampers with the open source, joe user won't know. What is needed is an independent govt agency that is tasked with verifies the voting machine works. This can be done by hooking the I/O into a separate tester, for instance, designed by a differnt group of people. The tester votes at a rapid rate, randomly casting votes at a fast rate until the number of votes cast is greater than the number of votes actually expected to be cast. The vote totals can then be matched to the epected values to see if the machines are working. Of course, neither machine can be networked to avoid tampering after the machine has been found to work properly. A paper trail is useful in case there is an unrecoverable hardware error, although redundant systems should make the probability of this event very unlikely.
All the punch card reader systems so far have been closed source. Plus mechanical voting systems makers don't provide blue-prints. Why the sudden outcry now that the machines are more modern?