And are you aware that complex calculations used to be done on an abacus? This fact, like yours about previous MS OS not needing activation, are both irrelevant. You used to be able to use leaded gas, and were NOT required to wear seatbelts too. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China, or what MS currently requires with XP? It is pretty common knowledge at this point that tinkering with your hardware may require you to re-activate your copy of XP. Don't like it or agree? Then use another OS that doesn't have those stipulations. I have never heard of someone who legitimately owned a licence to XP that couldn't get their OS re-activated with a simple phonoe call to MS. Because it is more of an inconvenience than people are used to, MS is surprisingly easy to deal with on this issue. I had to do it once for a customer I replaced a motherboard for - and I was up and re-activated within 5 minutes. That seems absolutely "easy" to me.
Activating previous versions of the OS was easier--they didn't require activation at all. That, I believe, is the original point the poster was addressing--the ease of an OS reinstallation.
"Easy" is relative. Making that short call is easy. Activating online is easier. Not activating at all is easier still. That was the original point being made.
Your remark about the abacus is also backwards. Complex math was made EASIER by using a calculator, not harder. Activation, while easy in your mind, is still harder than "no activation required." Pumping leaded vs. unleaded gas into your car is irrelevant, since both are equally easy to do.
(Oh, before you accuse me of being an anti-MS fanboy, I do use an OS that doesn't require activation. Two, really: OS X and Win2K)
Hang on, your data speed on the water is too slow to do online activation (understandable), but yet you hit WGA activation issues? The same WGA that only gets triggered by downloading patches and updates etc etc? If your data speed is fast enough for that, it's not "too slow" for online activation.
I think you misunderstood the comment. The point in mentioning WGA is that it will cause trouble when trying to update a cracked OS installation. The need for a WGA crack is independent of the data connection. Presumably this update process is done in port where the data connection is a cheaper land line of some sort.
4) Don't include the email addresses of everyone in the mailing list in the header of your email. Doing that might not only make it spam, but also actually be illegal. IANAL but I would be surprised if this did not fall foul of the EU Data Protection rules.
How would this be illegal? It sounds like the BCC: function.
In the meantime, what is your impression of the OS? Have you had a chance to use the retail version yet? Are you supporting it in a business environment? What's the launch of Vista been like for you?
(1) My impression is that it provides inconvenience in the name of security, by constantly asking if you want to do what you just told the computer to do. I have to admit thought that I find the Aero interface at least interesting--I only wish I had a chance to try it out when trying RC2 (my old HP notebook wouldn't support it).
There was a lot of change for the sake of change. All those things I used to do in Win2K or XP--check IP address (without using the command line), looking at other network machines, changing user accounts--with a few mouse clicks turned into an Easter egg hunt ending mostly in frustration. I wiped the drive clean and put XP back on after about a week.
(2) My only experience was with RC2, briefly, so perhaps my impressions are quite different that they would be with the "final" release.
(3) N/A
(4) It came and went without a thought or care, really. My main OS is OS X so Vista really doesn't concern me.
From this former everyday user's perspective, the Windows family hit its peak with Windows 2000, especially in the UI. The least Microsoft could do is provide a UI option in Vista that matches the Win2K interface. I chose Win2K for my Parallels guest OS partially because of the lack of activation nonsense, but also because I find the interface to be much cleaner and easier to use.
It might be worthwhile to keep an XP partition around just to satisfy the installer when you reformat the Vista partition. You'll probably need it for stuff that is broken in Vista for a while anyway.
If MS does in fact require a previously installed OS before a Vista upgrade will install, would you expect that the Vista upgrade will let you install the upgrade on a volume other than the installation that it is supposed to be upgrading? I mean, if you have XP on the C:\ drive, why would Vista let itself be installed on the D:\ drive? There's nothing to upgrade there!
Are you talking about keeping an XP image around to drop onto a new HD prior to a Vista "upgrade" (and I use the term loosely; I tried the RC2 preview and couldn't do half the simple things I used to do without double the mouseclicks)? Maybe I misunderstood the strategy.
Respectfully...So? This isn't really surprising. MS has always tried to have UPGRADE versions require a previous MS OS already installed. Their allowing you to use a CD key from a previous OS version to do a fresh install of the new was somewhat of a kindness on their part. It is an UPGRADE version.
I've never come across the ability to use a previous version's key as proof of eligibility for an upgrade; it was always by inserting the previous version's installation CD. What scenarios did one use the previous version's key?
I think that is where the state of the art comes in, the only possible solution I see is through satellite connection, but with a moving plane I imagine that is going to give some problems.
Satellite connectivity for an aircraft wouldn't be that hard, really. I would expect the issues to be the same as with marine SATCOM, mainly tracking the satellite and having a clear view of the satellite. On an airplane the LOS issue would be pretty easy, since there isn't much that is above the airplane except empty space. As far as tracking the satellite, a flat-panel phased array antenna would do the job marvelously. In fact, that's one way that the former Connexion by Boeing did it.
As far as bandwidth per user goes, how much does one passenger really need at any given moment? Sending and receiving email doesn't take a lot of bandwidth, and you can go on to do other things while your email client handles that. If you are web surfing, once the page is loaded, your bandwidth requirements are zero until you load a new page. It's not like anybody is going to try hosting a web server at 32,000 feet:)
This is true, and I've argued that point several times. In a way, I contradicted myself when submitting the summary, stating that it appeared to be a result of MOAB and then saying it didn't appear to be explicitly a result of MOAB.
Submitter might want to read the Apple article that was linked to. It specifically mentions MOAB and where to find the QT file.
I did in fact read the link, and I stand by my statement.
"Description: A buffer overflow exists in QuickTime's handling of RTSP URLs. By enticing a user to access a maliciously-crafted RTSP URL, an attacker can trigger the buffer overflow, which may lead to arbitrary code execution. A QTL file that triggers this issue has been published on the Month of Apple Bugs web site (MOAB-01-01-2007). This update addresses the issue by performing additional validation of RTSP URLs."
Where does it state that the fix was a result of the MOAB effort? The bulletin states where a sample file that triggers the issue can be found, that's all.
Yeah, it is hard to accuse Apple of dodging the project by explicitly highlighting their 'contribution'. I wonder what the author wanted to see.
I expected to see an acknowledgment along the lines of "Thanks to the MOAB team for alerting Apple of this flaw in Quicktime." For all we know, Apple already knew about it and fixed it without any help from the MOAB effort. Even Microsoft acknowledges outside efforts that uncover flaws in Microsoft products.
I think we just have to accept that as a society we are moving to the point where we lose our privacy and it seems like you can either embrace the loss or try to fight it.
We may be caught on camera a lot, but it isn't just security cameras; there is a lot of photographing of the public by the public.
Certainly one would have thought that George Allen, running to retain his Virginia senatorial seat, might have understood that directing the term "macaca" to a person of color might have had reverberations beyond that small campaign stop.
While it's not an even trade-off, it's still a trade-off; 'we' watch 'them,' and 'they' watch 'us.' When you talk about a surveillance society, ask yourself this; there are always more camera phones out there than security cameras*, so which should cause more concern?
I don't have an answer; it's a question to stimulate thought.
* No, I don't have a reference but it seems to make sense.
Thus the only way you can work with other people's word documents is to own word. anything else as the parent points out is a waste of valuable time. the cost of word is negligible compared to your time
Isn't interoperability one of the problems that Office 2007 (and the upcoming Office 2008 for Mac) solves by using the Office OpenXML format? It is a open, published standard that anybody can use with no license encumbrance; as a standard, a document on one platform SHOULD be the same on any other platform. Thus, if I should choose to stick with NeoOffice, any document I create in Word and save in OpenXML should be the exact same in NeoOffice (when it supports the format; scheduled for the first quarter of 2007.)
As Office is going to the OpenXML format, there will no longer be a "requirement" as you imply.
(Of course, as has been pointed out, the Office OpenXML standard is 6000+ pages long; I got the PDF document from the ECMA website this morning, and it's 47 MB. What kind of pain and suffering goes into implementing such a standard? Is it really as complex as such a long specification document implies?)
Graham Henderson of the Canadian Recording Industry Association, one of Canada's top lobbyists for stiffer copyright controls, notes that a variety of digital services have taken off in the United States and started to make up a large percentage of music revenues.
"In Canada, that's not happening and it's not happening because we have a culture here where people just assume it's free," said Henderson.
"It's a big black market effect and so instead of 25 per cent [of the market], it's eight per cent here. People are simply abandoning the marketplace altogether, and they've made the decision they'll just download the music and worry about how the artist gets paid later."
What is he referring to as "free?"
And they ALREADY paid the artists...isn't that what that extra levy on recording media you all pay up there is for, reimbursing the artists for copyright infringement that's assumed to be happening (even though there is NO evidence that GUARANTEES that the media one purchases is going to be used for copying music/movies/etc.)
A couple of months later, I got an email from the recruiter asking me what my status was and if I'd found a job yet because they wanted to bring me on board. By that point I had already moved to a new city and accepted a job with a new company. The whole thing seemed very unprofessional, though. I mean, they could have at least sent me a letter of denial instead of not returning my phone calls.
That happened where I used to work--not to me, but to somebody we wanted to hire. He interviewed, my boss dragged his feet for three months or so, then called him back and asked what he was doing. He was doing quite well working for somebody else.
Yes... which is where we got the iMac, iPod and iTunes. I wonder if Apple can make the case that people already associate the "i*" with THEM, either the 'iPhones' TradeMark should be considered diluted, or it should be assigned to them.
Infogear may have applied for it in 1996, but did they ever really use it? When you say iPhone, do you think of Cisco?
I thought there was some requirement to actually USE a trademark for it to be defensible. That's why Ford slapped the "Cobra" name on the recent Mustang--if they didn't the trademark could conceivably be used by another car builder with impunity. There was this iPhone back in '99, but was it really a viable product and can Cisco really claim it was/is an active Trademark?
I'm surprised that Yahoo teamed up with Apple for the free IMAP push service; I'd have expected Google to be all over that, to go with the Google Maps app.
Until relatively recently W2K, W2K professional, and Windows 98 would have been on the list as well.
I have to ask...what's the difference between Win2K and Win2K Pro? I've never seen Win2K, only the "Pro" variety. I can only find Windows 2K Pro, Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server.
This is exactly how schools should be run. The kids that fail their exams should be required to repeat their classes. If they continue to fail, they should be kicked out. The world will always need ditch diggers.
Oh no, you can't do that, because then the kids' self-esteem would be hurt. After all, we want our children to be happy, right? Doing such mean-spirited things like holding them accountable and disciplining them would cause such stress to their developing minds.
(2) Why would I do that? I did not say that eBay was populated by cheapskates, I simply said that for the money you might make versus the cost of the listing, there isn't enough to be made to make it worth the effort.
At present, robots are regarded simply as property, he says, but as engineers strive to make them conscious that will change: "An analogy can be drawn with the animal rights movement suggesting that, with enough complexity, androids may lay claim to some moral status even though this may be less than what is required for legal personhood."
One word: NO.
It's a MACHINE.
Let's look at the abstract from the paper:
Androids have begun to act in ways that, on the surface, seem human.
They SEEM human, but they are NOT HUMAN. The actions of an android are programmed responses to stimuli--they are not the product of intelligent thought. Note that when I say "intelligent thought" I am referring to the lack of intelligent thought of the android, not the programmer.
However, no one is prepared to view them as anything other than property.
That is because they ARE property. They are machines, made out of metal and plastic, manufactured in a factory.
As androids become more sophisticated, and as engineers try harder to make them 'conscious', moral, ethical and legal issues will arise.
Yes, these issues will arise, but only by lawyers who are looking for the next big payout. Again, I stress...IT'S A MACHINE.
An analogy can be drawn with the animal rights movement suggesting that, with enough complexity, androids may lay claim to some moral status even though this may be less than what is required for legal personhood.
No, 'they' (meaning androids) cannot lay claim to 'some moral status' any more than my car can make that claim. They are inanimate objects, behaving in a way based on programming. They are MACHINES.
However, there are significant differences between animals and androids. Identifying similarities and differences, which may ultimately depend on how we come to conceive of human consciousness, will lead to an understanding of how our ideas about consciousness impact on our concept of rights. A moral dilemma may come early in android development, and when it does, it could have unexpected ramifications if not understood by researchers.
No it won't because androids are NOT CONSCIOUS, SENTIENT BEINGS. They are MACHINES.
Failure to be aware of this risk could result in reactions that curtail android science.
No, success in ignoring these non-risks will result in lawyers such as David J. Calverley having to go find real, legitimate legal cases to handle instead of taking "I, Robot" so seriously.
Can you tell this has me a bit pissed off? I tried to read this with an open mind, really I did, but in the end I can't find any way to take it seriously. in fact, I can't believe I wasted the time to respond to it.
From what I've read, nobody knows who LMH is. Now, how much weight do you really want to put behind an initiative being run by somebody who won't reveal his/her name? If you are making security issues public and want anybody to take them seriously, tell us who you are and what credentials you have that call for the tech community to take you seriously. Until then, to me you are a bozo out for attention.
Aren't there data recovery services that recover data from supposedly wiped media (hard drives, memory cards, etc.)?
Besides, how likely are you to to make back the listing fees on used media? Given how the prices are coming down, why would you buy used when you can buy new for only a little more? Brand new 1 GB CF is going for $10, why buy used?
I would be worried that I would lose money selling used memory media on eBay; it would make more sense moneywise to just smash them with a hammer; get some exercise, and anything that was on them is now unrecoverable.
Slashdot Mirror
"Easy" is relative. Making that short call is easy. Activating online is easier. Not activating at all is easier still. That was the original point being made.
Your remark about the abacus is also backwards. Complex math was made EASIER by using a calculator, not harder. Activation, while easy in your mind, is still harder than "no activation required." Pumping leaded vs. unleaded gas into your car is irrelevant, since both are equally easy to do.
(Oh, before you accuse me of being an anti-MS fanboy, I do use an OS that doesn't require activation. Two, really: OS X and Win2K)
There was a lot of change for the sake of change. All those things I used to do in Win2K or XP--check IP address (without using the command line), looking at other network machines, changing user accounts--with a few mouse clicks turned into an Easter egg hunt ending mostly in frustration. I wiped the drive clean and put XP back on after about a week.
(2) My only experience was with RC2, briefly, so perhaps my impressions are quite different that they would be with the "final" release.
(3) N/A
(4) It came and went without a thought or care, really. My main OS is OS X so Vista really doesn't concern me.
From this former everyday user's perspective, the Windows family hit its peak with Windows 2000, especially in the UI. The least Microsoft could do is provide a UI option in Vista that matches the Win2K interface. I chose Win2K for my Parallels guest OS partially because of the lack of activation nonsense, but also because I find the interface to be much cleaner and easier to use.
Are you talking about keeping an XP image around to drop onto a new HD prior to a Vista "upgrade" (and I use the term loosely; I tried the RC2 preview and couldn't do half the simple things I used to do without double the mouseclicks)? Maybe I misunderstood the strategy.
As far as bandwidth per user goes, how much does one passenger really need at any given moment? Sending and receiving email doesn't take a lot of bandwidth, and you can go on to do other things while your email client handles that. If you are web surfing, once the page is loaded, your bandwidth requirements are zero until you load a new page. It's not like anybody is going to try hosting a web server at 32,000 feet
This is true, and I've argued that point several times. In a way, I contradicted myself when submitting the summary, stating that it appeared to be a result of MOAB and then saying it didn't appear to be explicitly a result of MOAB.
"Description: A buffer overflow exists in QuickTime's handling of RTSP URLs. By enticing a user to access a maliciously-crafted RTSP URL, an attacker can trigger the buffer overflow, which may lead to arbitrary code execution. A QTL file that triggers this issue has been published on the Month of Apple Bugs web site (MOAB-01-01-2007). This update addresses the issue by performing additional validation of RTSP URLs."
Where does it state that the fix was a result of the MOAB effort? The bulletin states where a sample file that triggers the issue can be found, that's all.
Well, another security fix was released today, and Apple did acknowledge LMH for reporting it:
5 031
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=30
I expected to see an acknowledgment along the lines of "Thanks to the MOAB team for alerting Apple of this flaw in Quicktime." For all we know, Apple already knew about it and fixed it without any help from the MOAB effort. Even Microsoft acknowledges outside efforts that uncover flaws in Microsoft products.
We may be caught on camera a lot, but it isn't just security cameras; there is a lot of photographing of the public by the public.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15994151/site/newswee
From the referenced link:
Certainly one would have thought that George Allen, running to retain his Virginia senatorial seat, might have understood that directing the term "macaca" to a person of color might have had reverberations beyond that small campaign stop.
While it's not an even trade-off, it's still a trade-off; 'we' watch 'them,' and 'they' watch 'us.' When you talk about a surveillance society, ask yourself this; there are always more camera phones out there than security cameras*, so which should cause more concern?
I don't have an answer; it's a question to stimulate thought.
* No, I don't have a reference but it seems to make sense.
Isn't interoperability one of the problems that Office 2007 (and the upcoming Office 2008 for Mac) solves by using the Office OpenXML format? It is a open, published standard that anybody can use with no license encumbrance; as a standard, a document on one platform SHOULD be the same on any other platform. Thus, if I should choose to stick with NeoOffice, any document I create in Word and save in OpenXML should be the exact same in NeoOffice (when it supports the format; scheduled for the first quarter of 2007.)
As Office is going to the OpenXML format, there will no longer be a "requirement" as you imply.
(Of course, as has been pointed out, the Office OpenXML standard is 6000+ pages long; I got the PDF document from the ECMA website this morning, and it's 47 MB. What kind of pain and suffering goes into implementing such a standard? Is it really as complex as such a long specification document implies?)
What is he referring to as "free?"
And they ALREADY paid the artists...isn't that what that extra levy on recording media you all pay up there is for, reimbursing the artists for copyright infringement that's assumed to be happening (even though there is NO evidence that GUARANTEES that the media one purchases is going to be used for copying music/movies/etc.)
It should be Buying Representation In Backroom Exchanges
Got a link to your 1996 paper?
That happened where I used to work--not to me, but to somebody we wanted to hire. He interviewed, my boss dragged his feet for three months or so, then called him back and asked what he was doing. He was doing quite well working for somebody else.
Infogear may have applied for it in 1996, but did they ever really use it? When you say iPhone, do you think of Cisco?
I thought there was some requirement to actually USE a trademark for it to be defensible. That's why Ford slapped the "Cobra" name on the recent Mustang--if they didn't the trademark could conceivably be used by another car builder with impunity. There was this iPhone back in '99, but was it really a viable product and can Cisco really claim it was/is an active Trademark?
Just doesn't feel right for some reason.
I'm surprised that Yahoo teamed up with Apple for the free IMAP push service; I'd have expected Google to be all over that, to go with the Google Maps app.
I have to ask...what's the difference between Win2K and Win2K Pro? I've never seen Win2K, only the "Pro" variety. I can only find Windows 2K Pro, Server, Advanced Server, and Datacenter Server.
Oh no, you can't do that, because then the kids' self-esteem would be hurt. After all, we want our children to be happy, right? Doing such mean-spirited things like holding them accountable and disciplining them would cause such stress to their developing minds.
(Excuse me while I put my bullshit boots on)
(1) I use a Mac.
(2) Why would I do that? I did not say that eBay was populated by cheapskates, I simply said that for the money you might make versus the cost of the listing, there isn't enough to be made to make it worth the effort.
One word: NO.
It's a MACHINE.
Let's look at the abstract from the paper:
They SEEM human, but they are NOT HUMAN. The actions of an android are programmed responses to stimuli--they are not the product of intelligent thought. Note that when I say "intelligent thought" I am referring to the lack of intelligent thought of the android, not the programmer.
That is because they ARE property. They are machines, made out of metal and plastic, manufactured in a factory.
Yes, these issues will arise, but only by lawyers who are looking for the next big payout. Again, I stress...IT'S A MACHINE.
No, 'they' (meaning androids) cannot lay claim to 'some moral status' any more than my car can make that claim. They are inanimate objects, behaving in a way based on programming. They are MACHINES.
No it won't because androids are NOT CONSCIOUS, SENTIENT BEINGS. They are MACHINES.
No, success in ignoring these non-risks will result in lawyers such as David J. Calverley having to go find real, legitimate legal cases to handle instead of taking "I, Robot" so seriously.
Can you tell this has me a bit pissed off? I tried to read this with an open mind, really I did, but in the end I can't find any way to take it seriously. in fact, I can't believe I wasted the time to respond to it.
From what I've read, nobody knows who LMH is. Now, how much weight do you really want to put behind an initiative being run by somebody who won't reveal his/her name? If you are making security issues public and want anybody to take them seriously, tell us who you are and what credentials you have that call for the tech community to take you seriously. Until then, to me you are a bozo out for attention.
Why would I not post them on eBay, even if wiped?
Aren't there data recovery services that recover data from supposedly wiped media (hard drives, memory cards, etc.)?
Besides, how likely are you to to make back the listing fees on used media? Given how the prices are coming down, why would you buy used when you can buy new for only a little more? Brand new 1 GB CF is going for $10, why buy used?
I would be worried that I would lose money selling used memory media on eBay; it would make more sense moneywise to just smash them with a hammer; get some exercise, and anything that was on them is now unrecoverable.