Effectively, this is the test case for the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause, and this injunction indicates that the court is presently leaning in favor of keeping it. The right to make a backup copy is not being questioned, but that'll be a useless right if there's no legal way to do so.
Nope. This isn't going to fix all of the hacks this report is talking about. Simply pick a root password of "password". up2date won't scream about that... but you're sure to be hacked rather quickly.
Somebody needs to take some basic statistics. The fact that Linux is most often the operating system involved in server compromises is not surprising since Linix is the is most often the operating system involved in servers in the first place. If you normalize out for server market share, you'll find things are more or less even.
When it comes to servers, selecting a bad choice of a password or forgetting to properly set file permissions is still the easiest way to get hacked, and that will always be operating system independent. And, that accounts for the majority of security weaknesses. Worms and viri are a client-side issue, servers don't often get hit with those.
So, good work OSX fans. You finally found a metric by which having the fewest number of servers in actual use makes you look good...
I think we've hit the point where three outlawed industries are now joining forces to support each other.
P2P file sharing is an application consumers want but just isn't legal. Therefore, the writers of P2P applications just can't use legal means to collect money for it, they have to get paid under the table.
Spyware and virus writers have the same goal, find any way possible to get their software onto your computer so they can get it to do their bidding. To them, how they get their payload isn't important
How do they get paid? Well, who most needs distributed computing resorces with scattered IP addresses and bandwidth? Spammers. So, they'll gladly pay the creators of bot nets for their services, in a way no ethical buyer ever word.
So there you have it, the connection between P2P and spam...
We've had jokes about smell-o-vision for about as long as we've had television. I guess the modern update is applying smells to e-mail. The consumer applications are a bit questionable, but there is an interesting scientific level below this...
In order to transfer a smell from place A to place B, we need a notation scheme that can combine various levels of a small number of "elemental" smells, just like RGB are the elemental colors of light and CMYK are the elemental colors of pigment.
Once there are devices that can take a smell, store it in the digital notation, and then reproduce it, the bottom is going to fall out purfume industry quick...
Pulling your car into the driveway and having your car mp3 player synch wirelessly with your computer
That's not gonna work without a power wire either. You don't want to ask your car battery to power even an HD 24/7. You don't want to use your car battery to power much of anything when the engine is not running... just leaving the headlights on without the engine on is known to cause problems when starting the car.
And I think that's because Intel isn't known for making human interface devices, which is what Bluetooth is best for.
Bluetooth's goal is to replace the wire between our headset and our phone, the keyboard and our computer and things like that. When the data only needs to move 3 feet but we can't promise a line of site, Bluetooth is the best technology out there.
Seeing that Intel doesn't make any of those things, who cares?
There's no need to wirelessly communicate with an iPod. MP3 players of all kinds will always have to spend time in a docking station... wireless delivery of power still has some serious bugs in it that prevent it from being used in consumer devices.
There is no need for a high-bandwidth solution to do wireless accross a desk. There's no such thing as a desk that it's impossible to string a wire accross. And, so long as we're always running a wire for power, we might as well run one for data too...
Actually, they're further with it... they've allready wedged the (C) symbol into ASCII at number 169, and also the USPTO has gotten their (R) in as ASCII number 174...
The ones who buy the DVD are okay. It's the ones who look at the cover picture, and then put the DVD back on the rack that they're concerned about in this round...
There's been an "FBI WARNING!!!" on videotapes since the 1980s. CDs, holding music or software, deserve the same level of copyright protection, so why not?
If you haven't gotten the clue that digitally sharing the latest thing that came out of Hollywood isn't the smartest idea by now, where have you been?
I'm pretty sure that our forms of media already contain warnings against unauthorized duplication, rebroadcasting, and public performance, but now it's in logo form!
Nice to know CowboyNeal is looking out for Slashdot's copyrights...
The entire exectuive branch is the responsiblity of the president. Only the prez and VP are elected offices, everything else is an appointed position. Therefore, the only effective way to force the replacement of a disliked member of the executive branch is to replace the entire administration from the president on down, there's just no middle step.
This report doesnt'accuse anybody of abusing their power, but simply using bad science when trying to justify their decisions. They could have made such decisions with no reasoning at all, but then the public would likely assume the worst possible self-serving reason is the true one. Well, if the scitific reasoning as wrong, either the person is stupid or acting on those self-serving reasons...
But that's not exactly what this group is claiming. They're not questioning the final decisions the Bush Administration has made, but claiming that invalid science is being used to back up the decisions, essentially using bad science as a cover story because if they stated the real reason, it might not be accepted by the public as easily.
The Bush administration has started to get into a bad habit of saying things it can't back up, when simply telling the truth would have been good enough.
We had a legit reason to invade Iraq, it just wasn't the one the administration was talking about. At the end of the first Gulf War, the peace treaty said that Iraq would not have WMDs, and the UN would get to have uninterfered with inspections to make sure they didn't. Iraq was playing games with the inspectors, so we couldn't be sure that they didn't have any WMDs. That alone is a justification to attack, they had broken the deal that ended the first war.
They were playing the hidden ball trick and making it look like they had WMDs. That was the reason Saddam had to go, because we couldn't take the risk that he just might have the ability to give his WMD program to Al Queda.
But, instead of saying that it was a worst case situation that we should have the ability to prove isn't happening but can't, the Bush administration took it a step foward and said that Iraq actually did have WMDs, and it turns out Saddam had the biggest bluff in history working. Saddam and the people around him sure thought they had WMDs, but the truth turns out to be that his scientists couldn't come up with the goods but were too scared of him to say they faied. Oops...
Had Bush just stuck to what he knew was true, he could have justified the war with a weaker but still good enough justification. But, instead, he over inflated the information, and now he's got a credibility problem that infects nearly everything else he says. He ended up doing a right thing but for the wrong reasons...
Being able to answer the "Can I speak with your last recent supervisor there?" question with the "Sure, if you can manage to track him down because the only thing I know is that he's no longer with that company either." is usually met with a short laugh and then the next on-topic question... just leave them with a few happy people that they can find.
Your response to that recuiter is to inform him that he might as well forget about that client and try another one isn't looking to hire a fictional character. (Clearly, he's already in "screw you..." mode, so there's nothing to lose.) He knew you had spotty employment caused by the marketplace when he started the conversation, why did he even bother trying to talk to you in the first place?
Nobody's who is looking for a job has a clean and happy employment history. Either we've been dumped, or for some reason want to dump our employer.
Employers are looking for hard working, intelligient, and honest people. ----show me one employer.
The statement appears to be vaciously true. Because there are no employers at all, it's imposible to prove the statement false by coming up with an example of an employer who isn't looking for a hard working, intelligient, and honest person.
And understand that even thought your job didn't have a scheduled end date when you were hired. You did have one, you were lied to. If your boss has no idea what you're going to be working on after the project is finished, likely you're not going to be. You were a consultant, even though your income was filed on a W-2 instead of a 1099.
Almost every unemployed techie these days got that way not because it was our own fault, but just like the examples above, projects get canceled or things or we were on a project that look good on the drawing board but didn't work in practice. The fact that our ex-employers weren't able to show to the state that the breakup was our fault so that we'd be denied unemployment pay is proof enough that it wasn't our fault.
In fact, I've actually got a copy of state unemployment form that assigns a letter code for just about every reason you can think about for letting somebody go... and my ex-employer selected "U" for "Unknown". (Chosing not to disclose the reason would have been an "N" for "No contest".) If my ex-employer's HR department can't even figure out the reason that I was let go, that's a sign that we've got a long story here.
My answer for why they can't speak to my immediate supervisor at my past job? "I have no idea where he is. From what I was told as I was leaving, it didn't seem like he was going to have the option of staying with them for much longer either. The rest of managers at the company were happy with the level of service I was providing their departments. Letting me go was not the only debatable business decision from him that his higher-ups were scratching their heads about. I've got the number for the HR exec there on the resume, he can confirm what I just told you."
Slashdot Mirror
Effectively, this is the test case for the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause, and this injunction indicates that the court is presently leaning in favor of keeping it. The right to make a backup copy is not being questioned, but that'll be a useless right if there's no legal way to do so.
Not good... not good at all.
Because this survey isn't counting the number of bugs, but the number of times any bug is exploited. Big difference.
Nope. This isn't going to fix all of the hacks this report is talking about. Simply pick a root password of "password". up2date won't scream about that... but you're sure to be hacked rather quickly.
Stupidity runs on any OS...
Somebody needs to take some basic statistics. The fact that Linux is most often the operating system involved in server compromises is not surprising since Linix is the is most often the operating system involved in servers in the first place. If you normalize out for server market share, you'll find things are more or less even.
When it comes to servers, selecting a bad choice of a password or forgetting to properly set file permissions is still the easiest way to get hacked, and that will always be operating system independent. And, that accounts for the majority of security weaknesses. Worms and viri are a client-side issue, servers don't often get hit with those.
So, good work OSX fans. You finally found a metric by which having the fewest number of servers in actual use makes you look good...
Uh. Why do you think zombie networks and selling access to them wasn't a problem earlier?
Viruses are finally sophisticated enough to create botnets, and spammers have become more and more desperate for ways to pump their e-mail out.
I think we've hit the point where three outlawed industries are now joining forces to support each other. P2P file sharing is an application consumers want but just isn't legal. Therefore, the writers of P2P applications just can't use legal means to collect money for it, they have to get paid under the table. Spyware and virus writers have the same goal, find any way possible to get their software onto your computer so they can get it to do their bidding. To them, how they get their payload isn't important How do they get paid? Well, who most needs distributed computing resorces with scattered IP addresses and bandwidth? Spammers. So, they'll gladly pay the creators of bot nets for their services, in a way no ethical buyer ever word. So there you have it, the connection between P2P and spam...
We've had jokes about smell-o-vision for about as long as we've had television. I guess the modern update is applying smells to e-mail. The consumer applications are a bit questionable, but there is an interesting scientific level below this...
In order to transfer a smell from place A to place B, we need a notation scheme that can combine various levels of a small number of "elemental" smells, just like RGB are the elemental colors of light and CMYK are the elemental colors of pigment.
Once there are devices that can take a smell, store it in the digital notation, and then reproduce it, the bottom is going to fall out purfume industry quick...
Pulling your car into the driveway and having your car mp3 player synch wirelessly with your computer That's not gonna work without a power wire either. You don't want to ask your car battery to power even an HD 24/7. You don't want to use your car battery to power much of anything when the engine is not running... just leaving the headlights on without the engine on is known to cause problems when starting the car.
And I think that's because Intel isn't known for making human interface devices, which is what Bluetooth is best for.
Bluetooth's goal is to replace the wire between our headset and our phone, the keyboard and our computer and things like that. When the data only needs to move 3 feet but we can't promise a line of site, Bluetooth is the best technology out there.
Seeing that Intel doesn't make any of those things, who cares?
AAA cells just can't power an iPod for very long. Duracells and hard drives don't mix very well...
Infrared is hard to use at high speeds when you're moving. That line-of-sight issue can do it in every time.
Bluetooth is meant mostly for human interface devices... the abilty to drive a printer or do other networking tasks is just a nice bonus.
If only we could give ZDnet writers -1's for the columns they hand in....
There's no need to wirelessly communicate with an iPod. MP3 players of all kinds will always have to spend time in a docking station... wireless delivery of power still has some serious bugs in it that prevent it from being used in consumer devices.
There is no need for a high-bandwidth solution to do wireless accross a desk. There's no such thing as a desk that it's impossible to string a wire accross. And, so long as we're always running a wire for power, we might as well run one for data too...
Actually, they're further with it... they've allready wedged the (C) symbol into ASCII at number 169, and also the USPTO has gotten their (R) in as ASCII number 174...
The ones who buy the DVD are okay. It's the ones who look at the cover picture, and then put the DVD back on the rack that they're concerned about in this round...
There's been an "FBI WARNING!!!" on videotapes since the 1980s. CDs, holding music or software, deserve the same level of copyright protection, so why not?
If you haven't gotten the clue that digitally sharing the latest thing that came out of Hollywood isn't the smartest idea by now, where have you been?
I'm pretty sure that our forms of media already contain warnings against unauthorized duplication, rebroadcasting, and public performance, but now it's in logo form!
Nice to know CowboyNeal is looking out for Slashdot's copyrights...
The entire exectuive branch is the responsiblity of the president. Only the prez and VP are elected offices, everything else is an appointed position. Therefore, the only effective way to force the replacement of a disliked member of the executive branch is to replace the entire administration from the president on down, there's just no middle step.
This report doesnt'accuse anybody of abusing their power, but simply using bad science when trying to justify their decisions. They could have made such decisions with no reasoning at all, but then the public would likely assume the worst possible self-serving reason is the true one. Well, if the scitific reasoning as wrong, either the person is stupid or acting on those self-serving reasons...
But that's not exactly what this group is claiming. They're not questioning the final decisions the Bush Administration has made, but claiming that invalid science is being used to back up the decisions, essentially using bad science as a cover story because if they stated the real reason, it might not be accepted by the public as easily.
The Bush administration has started to get into a bad habit of saying things it can't back up, when simply telling the truth would have been good enough.
We had a legit reason to invade Iraq, it just wasn't the one the administration was talking about. At the end of the first Gulf War, the peace treaty said that Iraq would not have WMDs, and the UN would get to have uninterfered with inspections to make sure they didn't. Iraq was playing games with the inspectors, so we couldn't be sure that they didn't have any WMDs. That alone is a justification to attack, they had broken the deal that ended the first war.
They were playing the hidden ball trick and making it look like they had WMDs. That was the reason Saddam had to go, because we couldn't take the risk that he just might have the ability to give his WMD program to Al Queda.
But, instead of saying that it was a worst case situation that we should have the ability to prove isn't happening but can't, the Bush administration took it a step foward and said that Iraq actually did have WMDs, and it turns out Saddam had the biggest bluff in history working. Saddam and the people around him sure thought they had WMDs, but the truth turns out to be that his scientists couldn't come up with the goods but were too scared of him to say they faied. Oops...
Had Bush just stuck to what he knew was true, he could have justified the war with a weaker but still good enough justification. But, instead, he over inflated the information, and now he's got a credibility problem that infects nearly everything else he says. He ended up doing a right thing but for the wrong reasons...
Being able to answer the "Can I speak with your last recent supervisor there?" question with the "Sure, if you can manage to track him down because the only thing I know is that he's no longer with that company either." is usually met with a short laugh and then the next on-topic question... just leave them with a few happy people that they can find.
Your response to that recuiter is to inform him that he might as well forget about that client and try another one isn't looking to hire a fictional character. (Clearly, he's already in "screw you..." mode, so there's nothing to lose.) He knew you had spotty employment caused by the marketplace when he started the conversation, why did he even bother trying to talk to you in the first place?
Nobody's who is looking for a job has a clean and happy employment history. Either we've been dumped, or for some reason want to dump our employer.
Employers are looking for hard working, intelligient, and honest people.
----show me one employer.
The statement appears to be vaciously true. Because there are no employers at all, it's imposible to prove the statement false by coming up with an example of an employer who isn't looking for a hard working, intelligient, and honest person.
And understand that even thought your job didn't have a scheduled end date when you were hired. You did have one, you were lied to. If your boss has no idea what you're going to be working on after the project is finished, likely you're not going to be. You were a consultant, even though your income was filed on a W-2 instead of a 1099.
Almost every unemployed techie these days got that way not because it was our own fault, but just like the examples above, projects get canceled or things or we were on a project that look good on the drawing board but didn't work in practice. The fact that our ex-employers weren't able to show to the state that the breakup was our fault so that we'd be denied unemployment pay is proof enough that it wasn't our fault.
In fact, I've actually got a copy of state unemployment form that assigns a letter code for just about every reason you can think about for letting somebody go... and my ex-employer selected "U" for "Unknown". (Chosing not to disclose the reason would have been an "N" for "No contest".) If my ex-employer's HR department can't even figure out the reason that I was let go, that's a sign that we've got a long story here.
My answer for why they can't speak to my immediate supervisor at my past job? "I have no idea where he is. From what I was told as I was leaving, it didn't seem like he was going to have the option of staying with them for much longer either. The rest of managers at the company were happy with the level of service I was providing their departments. Letting me go was not the only debatable business decision from him that his higher-ups were scratching their heads about. I've got the number for the HR exec there on the resume, he can confirm what I just told you."