I doubt it. The thing is... how many lines of code go into a Linux distribution, and can you expect that the general public is gonna go through all of the source on their own and try to determine if any of it was stolen? Even if you looked through the kaleidescope long enough and tried to make it look like they were receiving stolen property, that'd be a tough mountain for the prosecution to climb if something like this went to court.
When the PS2 came out it was labeled as being "fiendishly difficult to code for" as well by a few developers who took at look at the development kit, and it still turned out ok.;)
Now that Dan Rather went out on a limb and got burned, nobody else is going to go out on a limb. That means that nobody is ever going to ask Mr. Bush where the WMD are, where Osama is, how many have to die, did you really do coke at Camp David, and why the hell aren't we doing anything about the Sudan, Iran, or North Korea?
As far as I'm concerned, all that's going to come from the Dan Rather incident is people are going to double-check their sources before running something as a news item. Not playing hardball with someone you're interviewing shouldn't be affected by this.
But then again... this is the American media we're talking about, here.
Well considering the demise in market share of IE and the rise of alternative browsers - eg Opera, Firefox, Mozilla etc.... it would seem smart to bring out a browser.
As much as we all like Firefox, it hasn't "risen" yet. Internet Explorer still has a stranglehold on the browser market and I expect the trend to continue for awhile yet.
Would it be unethical if he knocked on their door and told them in person of their vulnerabilities? How about if he slipped a flyer under their door while they weren't home? That seems to me to be the ethical equivilence of using their computer to print a warning.
Actually in this case it was more like he walked into someone's house, borrowed a sheet of paper and a pen in the kitchen or in the study, wrote "Your house is unlocked", and posted it on the fridge for the homeowner to see.
I actually went and looked at the service agreement for the first time just now. Just by skimming through, I did not see anything that clearly states that agents have access to your password, however I found this little nugget:
Usernames, passwords, email addresses and IP addresses are EarthLink's property and EarthLink may alter or replace them at any time.
So they could probably claim ownership over your password (as it exists within Midas, not over the password itself) and could justify allowing employees clear access.
More importantly, however, only customer service agents are granted access to billing information, and all activity (even just viewing the credit card number) is logged in the system. That to me is more important than who sees my password.
Earthlink's accounting database (Midas) allows all the agents a clear view of account passwords. Unless the QA guidelines have changed since I worked there, the password is acceptable as confirmation that the person calling in is actually the account holder and is allowed to make changes or obtain information about the account in question. And I believe that's the main reason why. There's also secret words and the last four digits of credit card information, but there were plenty of times where the person I talked to wouldn't have that information for one reason or another. (Set the secret word 2 years ago, wife has the credit card, etc.)
The First Amendment guarantees you protection of your right to free speech from encroachment by the U.S. government. It does not guarantee you the right to a venue or an audience. If a major ISP (or even a local ISP, for that matter) wants to prevent you from sending material they don't like using their equipment, that's not censorship - that's their right.
... how about to the shelf, where it can rest in peace? Episodes 1 and 2 have had just about the same effect on the original movies as DS9/Voyager/Enterprise have had on Star Trek. He's ruining something that was just fine the way it was.
To me, this sounds more like Cringely being Cringely.
He's a pretentious jackass. First time I read his work was when he had a thing or two to say about Earthlink's software back in 2003 (I was working for Earthlink at the time) and not only was everything he said wrong, it was wrong to the point of it not even being funny. They say you need to take everything you read on the internet with a grain of salt, and as far as I'm concerned that guy's the poster child.
So is running Windowsupdate and Ad-Aware.
Any method you can take to secure your computer against crap like that is a "workaround" - it'll work until the next time the user decides they want to download a pack of 1400 emoticons for their Incredimail program.
Yeah, that's gonna happen. Last thing we need are civil rights groups everywhere screaming at the top of their lungs that illegalizing adware is stifling free speech!
It's never bothered Microsoft to come up with their own ways of doing things regardless of what everyone else is doing, why should they all of a sudden want the music industry to follow them on a CD protection scheme?
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe it's an unconscious attempt to escape the stereotypes seen in movies like Revenge Of the Nerds ;)
I doubt it. The thing is ... how many lines of code go into a Linux distribution, and can you expect that the general public is gonna go through all of the source on their own and try to determine if any of it was stolen? Even if you looked through the kaleidescope long enough and tried to make it look like they were receiving stolen property, that'd be a tough mountain for the prosecution to climb if something like this went to court.
In Soviet Russia, the lame jokes make the A/C's!
....yeah
Uhhhh
/waves his wand *POOF!*
Restart your computer and all will be well again.
When the PS2 came out it was labeled as being "fiendishly difficult to code for" as well by a few developers who took at look at the development kit, and it still turned out ok. ;)
If GMail's layout continues to be as sparse as Google itself, then I dont see why it can't continue to load quickly after it leaves the beta stage.
Now that Dan Rather went out on a limb and got burned, nobody else is going to go out on a limb. That means that nobody is ever going to ask Mr. Bush where the WMD are, where Osama is, how many have to die, did you really do coke at Camp David, and why the hell aren't we doing anything about the Sudan, Iran, or North Korea?
... this is the American media we're talking about, here.
As far as I'm concerned, all that's going to come from the Dan Rather incident is people are going to double-check their sources before running something as a news item. Not playing hardball with someone you're interviewing shouldn't be affected by this.
But then again
with one IT Director saying doing so would be like hiring serial-killing doctor Harold Shipman to treat your ailing and aged mother."
That's the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Cracking a computer network is nothing like killing another human being, much less killing multiple people.
That figure is amusing.
... 8?
400% of 2 is what
Well considering the demise in market share of IE and the rise of alternative browsers - eg Opera, Firefox, Mozilla etc.... it would seem smart to bring out a browser. As much as we all like Firefox, it hasn't "risen" yet. Internet Explorer still has a stranglehold on the browser market and I expect the trend to continue for awhile yet.
Would it be unethical if he knocked on their door and told them in person of their vulnerabilities? How about if he slipped a flyer under their door while they weren't home? That seems to me to be the ethical equivilence of using their computer to print a warning. Actually in this case it was more like he walked into someone's house, borrowed a sheet of paper and a pen in the kitchen or in the study, wrote "Your house is unlocked", and posted it on the fridge for the homeowner to see.
I actually went and looked at the service agreement for the first time just now. Just by skimming through, I did not see anything that clearly states that agents have access to your password, however I found this little nugget:
Usernames, passwords, email addresses and IP addresses are EarthLink's property and EarthLink may alter or replace them at any time.
So they could probably claim ownership over your password (as it exists within Midas, not over the password itself) and could justify allowing employees clear access.
More importantly, however, only customer service agents are granted access to billing information, and all activity (even just viewing the credit card number) is logged in the system. That to me is more important than who sees my password.
Earthlink's accounting database (Midas) allows all the agents a clear view of account passwords. Unless the QA guidelines have changed since I worked there, the password is acceptable as confirmation that the person calling in is actually the account holder and is allowed to make changes or obtain information about the account in question. And I believe that's the main reason why. There's also secret words and the last four digits of credit card information, but there were plenty of times where the person I talked to wouldn't have that information for one reason or another. (Set the secret word 2 years ago, wife has the credit card, etc.)
The First Amendment guarantees you protection of your right to free speech from encroachment by the U.S. government. It does not guarantee you the right to a venue or an audience. If a major ISP (or even a local ISP, for that matter) wants to prevent you from sending material they don't like using their equipment, that's not censorship - that's their right.
... how about to the shelf, where it can rest in peace? Episodes 1 and 2 have had just about the same effect on the original movies as DS9/Voyager/Enterprise have had on Star Trek. He's ruining something that was just fine the way it was.
To me, this sounds more like Cringely being Cringely.
He's a pretentious jackass. First time I read his work was when he had a thing or two to say about Earthlink's software back in 2003 (I was working for Earthlink at the time) and not only was everything he said wrong, it was wrong to the point of it not even being funny. They say you need to take everything you read on the internet with a grain of salt, and as far as I'm concerned that guy's the poster child.
Parent modded improperly. Doom 3 + all effects = murder on some computers. It was a legitimate comment.
The only thing I didn't like about I, Robot is the fact that Will Smith is in it. God I hate that guy. Otherwise it was a pretty decent summer flick.
So is running Windowsupdate and Ad-Aware. Any method you can take to secure your computer against crap like that is a "workaround" - it'll work until the next time the user decides they want to download a pack of 1400 emoticons for their Incredimail program.
Yeah, that's gonna happen. Last thing we need are civil rights groups everywhere screaming at the top of their lungs that illegalizing adware is stifling free speech!
Now it seems this is universal, or at the very least universal outside the macintosh world.
I fail to see the difference!
/ducks
Got the same thing ... oh well, no sense in watching a documentary on something I was there for. ;)
... then again, I don't get spam, so it's impossible to decrease the amount of what I DO get.
It's never bothered Microsoft to come up with their own ways of doing things regardless of what everyone else is doing, why should they all of a sudden want the music industry to follow them on a CD protection scheme?
... but I didn't think Vincent was all that compelling of a character in the first place.