The next question is worse. That question isn't so bad if they defined elsewhere. That could be simply asking if I'd use code I wrote on my laptop in the middle of the night when a crazy idea popped into my head. And doesn't cover what license said code is under so I'd assume it means broadly any code written anywhere other than your chair at work which is covered under any license.
The next question (or maybe a couple questions further) asked how much code written by someone else you would use without permission. The minimum option is 5%
"I don't think you hold copyright on a derivative work - not even the "diff" you created."
No you don't own the collective work, that generally is held by the original author, but you most certainly DO own the code which you actually wrote if said code is copyrightable. Which is why you must explicitly contribute it and there are no shortage of projects which require you to turn copyright over to them or at least sign some sort of legal permission slip.
"I generally just turn over copyright to the owner, so it does not come up, but I believe you would have to do significant, original work, in order to hold the copyright.
But in that case, it's not derivative anyway and you hold copyright alone."
If there is a single line of original open source code in your source then you most defininately do NOT own the copyright. If what you wrote is significant (read copyrightable) or even the entire project minus one sort routine you "borrowed", then it qualifies as a derivative, and if it did not, you have no legal rights to distribute a binary (or even source under an imcompatible license) which contains that routine (of course personal use is another matter. All the code you wrote however you own, so you'd probably just write your own routine and finish things off in this case.
"How do you know that the open source you are looking at actually is the one running in your device?"
Since you umm have the source, you compile it and either image the device with your copy or you compare md5's or some such?
"How do you know that the compiled code, assuming it is compiled correctly, wasn't altered in the transfer to the device?"
Same way?
"How do you know the other onboard chips aren't built with a backdoor, patching, hooking or circumventing whatever code is put in the device?"
Simple, you require the hardware be open as well as the source. Keeping inferior technology alive by keeping advancements that belong to the human species rather than those who happen to discover them FIRST (rarely is something only discovered once ever)secret is a buisness model which needs to be ended. All products should be completely open before hitting the market, forcing companies to continue to innovate and advance their products to stay ahead.
First this is a load, not all games are structured this way. And games don't influence anything but games, this has been shown time and time again and yet people keep coming back trying to claim games are brainwashing people this way or that way. The truth is that people who ALREADY have certain mindsets and ideas are drawn to certain types of games. Games do not make people murderers or encourage them to shoot people. Rather people who are inclined to shoot other people are likely to be playing shooters and graphic killing style games if they play video games.
Second. Let's pretend for a moment that this were true. How exactly is this a bad thing? Games are brainwashing people to have individual thought as opposed to joining in groups of hot out of the mold idiots who follow the crowd and are therefore easier to herd?
We take care of the technical needs of many schools throughout the area and every one of them wants web content filtering.
We typically setup squid and squidguard for them and grab blacklists from a regional database the schools put together.
The first thing you can't help but notice is that it sucks. Even with the various schools additions it doesn't block much of what it should and blocks quite a bit it shouldn't. All of the same problems come into play with these hardcoded blacklists that come into play with spam.
So I'm wondering, is there any filter for squid (or another linux based web proxy) which uses a more intelligent method such as bays?
Re:Sure, bue sheer weight of numbers
on
Methane on Mars?
·
· Score: 1
Do you have any idea how much more it costs to send 20 robotic missions before the manned mission, instead of settling for a couple robotic missions.
Knowing that the robots have basically already told us what they are going to and just send the manned mission from the get? We are far far more cautious than we need to be for a manned mission on the robotic missions. Most of those dollars you speak of already going into redudant testing we don't really need to do. NASA is notorious for it.
Re:Why do you need scientists to have a lab?
on
Methane on Mars?
·
· Score: 1
I could go into the various experiments, etc, etc, etc, that human being could perform, the improvision factor and such. But I won't.
The robot is in many ways like an automatated spam detection method, there are good ones, there are bad ones. And a 5yr old could a better job than the best of them cleaning out my inbox in the morning.
A person or a robot is one question, but there is surely no question we need intelligence up there to take a good hands on close up look. And human intelligence still vastly surpasses software or hardware AI at this point.
To try to be fair, lets take a look at this whole bundling with the OS issue. I think where we get confused is by calling windows an Operating system, there is an operating system in there but lets not forget that an operating system is a kernel and doesn't even include a way to interact with that kernel (ie shell, gui, etc). Nobody is really claiming that Microsoft should be forced to only distribute the operating system.
The windows operating system is equivelent to the linux operating system, the main place to go if you want just the linux operating system is kernel.org. No, what we are really talking about here is the Microsoft windows distributions and there is nothing wrong with Microsoft bundling all the software they want with them even if they are a monopoly. The real problem is having all those applications install by default. The default install should include only system level applications (ie the kernel, c libraries, shell and gui, basic set of standard utils for managing files and directories).
There is nothing wrong with them including all their apps in their distribution if they wanted to, so long as they don't default them in the install. There is no reason to deny them the right to include their browser on the cd, media player, etc. The justification for going this far is that they are a monopoly and I think it would be far enough in this corner of the issue, have a quarterly review of what they want to install by default by a panel which includes various experts from the industry (expert not measured in which fortune 500 they work for, but rather by expertise, Linus Torvalds for instance should be on the panel).
Their api's, protocols, filesystems, and formats of course should be fully published on the internet as well as all new api's and communications protocols at any point in time for the rest of eternity that their market share in desktop operating systems exceeds 40%, if they go under it and come back up to 40% everything kicks in again. Of course all their api's and protocols, filesystems, and formats cannot be patented and are rendered into the public domain upon creation.
The fine should be at least to the two of 200 billion as a rough estimate of illegitimate gains from their actions, payable in sums of 1billion per year us dollar equiv (adjusted to factor inflation) payable to a non-profit organization which will use it to fund open-source development. Some system would need to be implemented to get input on what the world needs unlocked from proprietary hands most.
Anyone else think this would be a FAIR and PROPER way of handling this that would actually have some effect if actively enforced?
"(The word "non-discriminatory" is absent in the english translation, but present in other languages). So according to this Microsoft has not right to sell their API specification too much expensive. If they charge too much for their network API, Samba people should be able to attack microsoft because the price is not reasonable and is discriminating against open source project"
First there is nothing in the ruling which actually spells that out. Which means in 7yrs or so when this ruling goes into effect, Microsoft will have to blatantly violate the ruling (read anything less than $4bil per copy of software which uses the API isn't worth taking them back to court over). The concern for samba isn't about paying for access to the api, it's royalties Microsoft will charge on a per copy basis for any software which uses said api. And once said api is readily available and they can charge royalties for it they don't have to maintain a trade secret and it won't matter if samba is an independently coded implementation of the API, microsoft can still sue for royalties.
"Also about the WMP-free version : "However, Microsoft must refrain from using any commercial, technological or contractual terms that would have the effect of rendering the unbundled version of Windows less attractive or performing. In particular, it must not give PC manufacturers a discount conditional on their buying Windows together with WMP." so Microsoft cannot sell WMP-free only 2$ cheaper than other versions. And Microsoft cannot force websites to put content in WMV format only, because that will make WMP version more attractiv than the WMP-free version."
That's not what it says at all, it says very vaguely that microsoft "must refrain from using any commercial, technological or contractual terms that would have the effect of rendering unbundled versions of Windows less attractive or performing."
Ideally this would mean they can't only make it $2 cheaper, in reality it means a whole lot of nothing. It's vague enough that Microsoft can fight it off everytime someone attempts to enforce it unless it's the one example they gave. As a result they won't try to enforce it unless it's the one example they gave and possibly not even then.
"And Microsoft cannot force websites to put content in WMV format only, because that will make WMP version more attractiv than the WMP-free version."
That's a bit of a stretch, actually making a case you can win against microsoft's lawyers trying to connect anything that doesn't explictly mean contracts regarding bundled/non-bundled copies of windows is hopless/damn near impossible. Common snese and legal sense have nothing to do with one another, you should infer things, the legal ruling mean just what it says and does not have enough force to enforce what it implies, only what it spells out and only then if it's extremely blatant, extremely public, and concerns a huge amount of $$$.
Note: IANAL, I'm an american and I don't think anybody would argue that it's our citizens who have the most lubricant caked on our bums from previous microsoft reemings.
"No one force you to use the DMZ. If that is not what you meant, I'd sure like to know because this didn't make much sense to me."
You are aware that most of the hardware firewalls permit ALL outbound traffic by default and allow all traffic in that is initiated from inside the firewall?
"Useless, if they can get to the BIOS it usually means that they have physical access. This means that they can just pull a quick jumper, or use something like CMOSRAM.EXE to wipe all the existing settings (and password)."
Of course, as soon as they get through all the physical security I've mentioned and somehow get a disk in. And of course without security personel noticing.
1. Whether you like it or not, firewall and open up what you need, that's both inbound and outbound, do NOT get a linksys router or other silly piece of hardware that believes in the concept of "trusted" interface. Be sure to have it NAT, although never get the impression that NAT is security in itself.
2. Dedicate purpose, do not use one machine to fill multiple roles, instead use different systems for different tasks and run firewalls on each that are configured for just what traffic needs to go in and out on that machine. If you MUST use a machine for multiple roles then take it off the network and transfer data as needed using removable media.
3. You may need windows, but be sure you aren't using it for anything you don't need to, anything that can be done on a secured linux or BSD system should be.
4. Use secure passwords but use passwords you can remember as well, even a shit password is better than a 200 random character password that you end up taping to your monitor. But don't use a shit password either, just come up with a decent scheme, l33t script is good for coming up with secure passwords and change them often (daily or weekly depending on the system).
5. Use both filesystem compression and encryption in windows, for files that need to be more PGP them with a strong passphrase which is also changed often.
6. Files which aren't changed often should be encrypted, moved to removable media and then locked in a safety deposit box. For medium term data that needs to be more readily available consider an offsite encrypted storage drive, make sure you connect to it through an encrypted link and make sure you do NOT keep information for accessing this on pc's or written down anywhere. For absolute emergencies keep a physical handwritten (don't type it or you've already defeated the point) copy of the information you need in a safty deposit box.
7. Make sure all data is eradicated from the pc drives on a regular basis. What i find useful is to have a machine that is dedicated to zeroing drives and keep base images. Having extra drives and hotswap ide bays helps make this convient. Cycle drives so that in the morning you have a clean set of imaged drives for the pc's.
8. At the end of the day all files which are accessed on a VERY regular basis and aren't suitable for the above should be moved to removable media that is at least locked in a safe.
9. No wireless access, at all, ever.
10. Keep systems and software updated.
11. All email should be handled on systems which are not running windows. Seriously evaluate where email is needed and where it's not, all email should be run through a linux gateway scanner, running something like a combination of amavisd+clamav+postfix(or really most anything but sendmail).
12. Where you do have windows systems make sure they have a/v software on them, and that not all have the same a/v software, I find a combination of pc-cillan and avg works well, this way if the machines are on the network and one is infected, obviously it's a/v software didn't catch the virus, but the other might.
13. If a virus should be detected this should be a red light issue and require all systems on the physically connected network be pulled off the network immediately, all drives be put in a secure offline non-windows systems and scanned, and working files be transferred off and encrypted. The systems in question should be reimaged immediately and only then can the safely scanned data be put back on them and work resumed. (It's a bitch but neccesary).
14. On the systems themselves make rigorous use of filesystem permissions, registry manipulation, anything else in your bag of tricks.
15. Bios password the systems, prevent floppy booting, etc, change these passwords regularly.
16. Physically lock the systems, installing small magnetic relays that trip a buzzer when the system is opened in addition to locks doesn't hurt either.
Your right there, we are stretched pretty thin, but it's not trying to occupy iraq, it's trying to occupy iraq and continue to occupy the rest of the world.
Nonetheless, either way it's the same result in a sudden decisive attack, we can't assemble our forces fast enough.
If I'm a contract killer with 20million in the bank from past murders, and I make an average of 100k a year. Your prosecuting me for the murders I've commited and darn, I wasn't able to convince you to accept coupons in lieu of the one grand fine. I guess I'd live with it yeah;)
As for picking some random chump and slapping a grand on them, it's done all the time, it's called a tax break. This is just proof it doesn't cost much more to buy a license to kill.
I dunno, I prefer to consider the fact that the top technical talent in the world finds Microsoft's products (basically, all of them) to be inferior to most of the competiting products in each category to be a reasonable blow against that argument. But please come again.
That's all fine and dandy but you shouldn't profit from breaking the law (ideally ever) particulary when caught and convicted. If Microsoft made 1 trillion dollars by breaking the law, the MINIMUM fine for the crime should be 1 trillion 1, whether that bankrupts microsoft or not is irrelevant.
And the real number is more like 100billion, which would be a reasonable fine, they simple lose the profit they made breaking the law. Having already spent some of their illgotten gains is their own problem. Now 100billion of course wouldn't bankrupt microsoft who already has something to the tune of 80billion in cash reserves. But it would cause them to have to restructure and liquidate assets, it would be a blow to their buisness but not a death blow. A mere 600mil isn't even a sneeze.
If I make $10/minute, and save 10minutes by speeding to work, that's $100. Now lets say I get a ticket everyday for $50 (this is showing a concept, dont' pull out the anal details like the time it takes to get the ticket). I'm still profiting by $50/day by breaking the law. As long as I come out ahead, why the hell would I stop?
This is more like a tax than a fine, the EU is saying they want a cut.
While I'd have to agree concerning the US air defense, it's rather pathetic. You are quite mistaken about he naval power.
At all times the US literally has EVERY point on the globe within strike range from it's ships. We have carriers out the arse, they aren't something you can readily dismiss, the US has almost as much in naval air power as it's entire airforce.
As for friendly airbases... you do realize that "sending peacekeepers and helping to establish a democratic government" translates to haha suckers we've conquered another territory and come out smelling like roses. When you bear that in mind and take a look at the globe you'll quickly realize we've "aided" very very strategic positions throughout asia and the middleeast particularly.
Now I realize your European missles don't go very far very accurately, but with current NAVAL missle technology here in the US we can hit within 50ft anywhere in europe from 1/3rd of the way across the globe. The land launched missles can go farther yet. We can take out your bases sitting back in asia with little or no trouble. The other thing to consider is that for quite some time the bulk of US naval (actual ship I mean) investment has been in subs. We have hundreds of them scouring the oceans (all of them) at all times ready to strike.
There is no such thing as a US vessel that isn't stocked to carry on at sea for less than 2yrs with rationing in an emegency situation and subs go for 2yrs routinely without stopping to port and thats without wartime rations.
Don't be a fool on this topic, our naval power is our military power. It's the only branch of our military which legally can be maintained indefinately in time of peace and those writting the budget know it. As a result the navy has it's own navy, air force (carriers, angels, stealths, among others), and army (seals, marines).
Our special forces, particularly the seals, are the most elite units in the world to top it all off, as demonstrated in the gulf war when iraq lost kuwait entirely thanks to a single seal team taking out their communications.
Quite frankly I find my country to be the greediest, most hypocritical, corrupt, and evil nation in the world... but make no mistake, we got where we are today by having really damn big guns. (That and the fact that nobody would attack us on the simple merit of us being the only nation to use nukes in combat and that after the fact we armed a few hundred submarines with them and positioned them so they can nuke any point in the world repeatedly within a few minutes).
Once again I must point out, the first two have already happened, MSN is both the default search and the default homepage and IS integrated into IE! all have been true since the release of IE 4 over 6yrs ago!
I hate MS as much as the next guy. But they can't exactly just set this as the default in IE and win the war like the majority of posters seem to be saying.
Why not? They've done it with media player, IE, etc etc. Well they can't because they've been doing it for over 6yrs already and google rose to the top with MSN search as the default homepage and search in IE already!
Install IE, open the browser, up pops the MSN search page. You think just because they make a new search engine and start pointing to it as the default rather than MSN it's going to suddenly kill google?
I might have agreed 6yrs ago, but now having seen that at no time since they made it the default page with IE 4 in win98 has MSN EVER been the top search engine.. I'm afraid history has already shown otherwise sorry guys.
Lets talk about how they cleaned up the search results for Xfree86 and linux and such before making this announcement (check em) and how they will undoubtedly bring the scewed results back if they succeed and become top search dog.
The MSN homepage has been the default IE homepage since IE4 and win98. This is hardly a new card MS will be playing, google has been beating their primary tactic for a very long time now.
First I'd like to say I'm disappointed I found no other posts like this or mirrors. Second I'd like to say how disappointed I am that after 3yrs of slashdot I finally sold my soul and signed up for NYT only to discover there is NO DAMN VIDEO CLIP!!!!
--Begin Article--
TOKYO, March 14 - Toyota has unveiled a humanoid robot that walks, waves its arms and bows. And, as if that were not enough, it also plays the trumpet.
The four-foot-tall robot, introduced last week, is a prototype for what Toyota says will be a series of autonomous machines that it hopes to build over the next two decades to serve as personal assistants, aides for the elderly and laborers. Toyota also displayed a rolling robot and showed film of a pair of robotic legs that its engineers designed to carry a disabled person.
Toyota is the second Japanese car company to build a humanoid robot. Honda introduced its first walking robot in 1996. Its latest version, called Asimo, can dance, recognize familiar faces and answer simple questions. Sony also unveiled a small humanoid robot last year.
Toyota acknowledges that it is unlikely to turn a profit building robots anytime soon, but the program highlights its engineering-oriented culture and willingness to invest in projects that may not pay off for decades.
"We just started developing the technology, so we don't have any plan to make a business,'' Fujio Cho, Toyota's president, told reporters on Thursday. "However, in the long run, I think we will have chances to commercialize the technology.''
Mr. Cho also said that Toyota expected motion sensors and other advanced technologies developed for robots to have automotive applications, particularly in computer systems designed to sense, and avoid, impending accidents.
Toyota's robot, developed over two and a half years, whirred loudly as it walked slowly on stage at a news conference, carrying a brass trumpet in one hand. At center stage, it turned to face the crowd, put the trumpet to its artificial lips and played a rendition of "When You Wish Upon a Star.'' The walking robot was later joined on stage by a rolling counterpart and the two played a lively duet of "Trumpeter's Holiday.''
Developing artificial lips flexible enough to play a trumpet was a major engineering challenge, according to Mr. Cho. Toyota said it built the trumpet-playing robot to serve as an entertainer at the 2005 World Exposition in Aichi, where Toyota has its world headquarters.
Toyota declined to say how much the robot cost, but years of record profits and growing global sales have given Toyota vast resources to invest in new technologies.
So far, even the most advanced humanoid robots have only a few practical applications. Honda leases its walking robot to museums and department stores, where it greets visitors, but the company has no plans to sell it.
Nearly all robotic applications are in factories, where they are used to automate production and perform tasks that are difficult for humans.
The Japan Robot Association predicts that the robot market, now about $4 billion, could grow to as much as $14 billion in 2010.
Slashdot Mirror
The next question is worse. That question isn't so bad if they defined elsewhere. That could be simply asking if I'd use code I wrote on my laptop in the middle of the night when a crazy idea popped into my head. And doesn't cover what license said code is under so I'd assume it means broadly any code written anywhere other than your chair at work which is covered under any license.
The next question (or maybe a couple questions further) asked how much code written by someone else you would use without permission. The minimum option is 5%
Informative????
"I don't think you hold copyright on a derivative work - not even the "diff" you created."
No you don't own the collective work, that generally is held by the original author, but you most certainly DO own the code which you actually wrote if said code is copyrightable. Which is why you must explicitly contribute it and there are no shortage of projects which require you to turn copyright over to them or at least sign some sort of legal permission slip.
"I generally just turn over copyright to the owner, so it does not come up, but I believe you would have to do significant, original work, in order to hold the copyright.
But in that case, it's not derivative anyway and you hold copyright alone."
If there is a single line of original open source code in your source then you most defininately do NOT own the copyright. If what you wrote is significant (read copyrightable) or even the entire project minus one sort routine you "borrowed", then it qualifies as a derivative, and if it did not, you have no legal rights to distribute a binary (or even source under an imcompatible license) which contains that routine (of course personal use is another matter. All the code you wrote however you own, so you'd probably just write your own routine and finish things off in this case.
"How do you know that the open source you are looking at actually is the one running in your device?"
Since you umm have the source, you compile it and either image the device with your copy or you compare md5's or some such?
"How do you know that the compiled code, assuming it is compiled correctly, wasn't altered in the transfer to the device?"
Same way?
"How do you know the other onboard chips aren't built with a backdoor, patching, hooking or circumventing whatever code is put in the device?"
Simple, you require the hardware be open as well as the source. Keeping inferior technology alive by keeping advancements that belong to the human species rather than those who happen to discover them FIRST (rarely is something only discovered once ever)secret is a buisness model which needs to be ended. All products should be completely open before hitting the market, forcing companies to continue to innovate and advance their products to stay ahead.
First this is a load, not all games are structured this way. And games don't influence anything but games, this has been shown time and time again and yet people keep coming back trying to claim games are brainwashing people this way or that way. The truth is that people who ALREADY have certain mindsets and ideas are drawn to certain types of games. Games do not make people murderers or encourage them to shoot people. Rather people who are inclined to shoot other people are likely to be playing shooters and graphic killing style games if they play video games.
Second. Let's pretend for a moment that this were true. How exactly is this a bad thing? Games are brainwashing people to have individual thought as opposed to joining in groups of hot out of the mold idiots who follow the crowd and are therefore easier to herd?
We take care of the technical needs of many schools throughout the area and every one of them wants web content filtering.
We typically setup squid and squidguard for them and grab blacklists from a regional database the schools put together.
The first thing you can't help but notice is that it sucks. Even with the various schools additions it doesn't block much of what it should and blocks quite a bit it shouldn't. All of the same problems come into play with these hardcoded blacklists that come into play with spam.
So I'm wondering, is there any filter for squid (or another linux based web proxy) which uses a more intelligent method such as bays?
Do you have any idea how much more it costs to send 20 robotic missions before the manned mission, instead of settling for a couple robotic missions.
Knowing that the robots have basically already told us what they are going to and just send the manned mission from the get? We are far far more cautious than we need to be for a manned mission on the robotic missions. Most of those dollars you speak of already going into redudant testing we don't really need to do. NASA is notorious for it.
I could go into the various experiments, etc, etc, etc, that human being could perform, the improvision factor and such. But I won't.
The robot is in many ways like an automatated spam detection method, there are good ones, there are bad ones. And a 5yr old could a better job than the best of them cleaning out my inbox in the morning.
A person or a robot is one question, but there is surely no question we need intelligence up there to take a good hands on close up look. And human intelligence still vastly surpasses software or hardware AI at this point.
Surely this would make good reference material for voice recognition systems?
To try to be fair, lets take a look at this whole bundling with the OS issue. I think where we get confused is by calling windows an Operating system, there is an operating system in there but lets not forget that an operating system is a kernel and doesn't even include a way to interact with that kernel (ie shell, gui, etc). Nobody is really claiming that Microsoft should be forced to only distribute the operating system.
The windows operating system is equivelent to the linux operating system, the main place to go if you want just the linux operating system is kernel.org. No, what we are really talking about here is the Microsoft windows distributions and there is nothing wrong with Microsoft bundling all the software they want with them even if they are a monopoly. The real problem is having all those applications install by default. The default install should include only system level applications (ie the kernel, c libraries, shell and gui, basic set of standard utils for managing files and directories).
There is nothing wrong with them including all their apps in their distribution if they wanted to, so long as they don't default them in the install. There is no reason to deny them the right to include their browser on the cd, media player, etc. The justification for going this far is that they are a monopoly and I think it would be far enough in this corner of the issue, have a quarterly review of what they want to install by default by a panel which includes various experts from the industry (expert not measured in which fortune 500 they work for, but rather by expertise, Linus Torvalds for instance should be on the panel).
Their api's, protocols, filesystems, and formats of course should be fully published on the internet as well as all new api's and communications protocols at any point in time for the rest of eternity that their market share in desktop operating systems exceeds 40%, if they go under it and come back up to 40% everything kicks in again. Of course all their api's and protocols, filesystems, and formats cannot be patented and are rendered into the public domain upon creation.
The fine should be at least to the two of 200 billion as a rough estimate of illegitimate gains from their actions, payable in sums of 1billion per year us dollar equiv (adjusted to factor inflation) payable to a non-profit organization which will use it to fund open-source development. Some system would need to be implemented to get input on what the world needs unlocked from proprietary hands most.
Anyone else think this would be a FAIR and PROPER way of handling this that would actually have some effect if actively enforced?
"(The word "non-discriminatory" is absent in the english translation, but present in other languages). So according to this Microsoft has not right to sell their API specification too much expensive.
."
If they charge too much for their network API, Samba people should be able to attack microsoft because the price is not reasonable and is discriminating against open source project"
First there is nothing in the ruling which actually spells that out. Which means in 7yrs or so when this ruling goes into effect, Microsoft will have to blatantly violate the ruling (read anything less than $4bil per copy of software which uses the API isn't worth taking them back to court over). The concern for samba isn't about paying for access to the api, it's royalties Microsoft will charge on a per copy basis for any software which uses said api. And once said api is readily available and they can charge royalties for it they don't have to maintain a trade secret and it won't matter if samba is an independently coded implementation of the API, microsoft can still sue for royalties.
"Also about the WMP-free version : "However, Microsoft must refrain from using any commercial, technological or contractual terms that would have the effect of rendering the unbundled version of Windows less attractive or performing. In particular, it must not give PC manufacturers a discount conditional on their buying Windows together with WMP."
so Microsoft cannot sell WMP-free only 2$ cheaper than other versions.
And Microsoft cannot force websites to put content in WMV format only, because that will make WMP version more attractiv than the WMP-free version
That's not what it says at all, it says very vaguely that microsoft "must refrain from using any commercial, technological or contractual terms that would have the effect of rendering unbundled versions of Windows less attractive or performing."
Ideally this would mean they can't only make it $2 cheaper, in reality it means a whole lot of nothing. It's vague enough that Microsoft can fight it off everytime someone attempts to enforce it unless it's the one example they gave. As a result they won't try to enforce it unless it's the one example they gave and possibly not even then.
"And Microsoft cannot force websites to put content in WMV format only, because that will make WMP version more attractiv than the WMP-free version."
That's a bit of a stretch, actually making a case you can win against microsoft's lawyers trying to connect anything that doesn't explictly mean contracts regarding bundled/non-bundled copies of windows is hopless/damn near impossible. Common snese and legal sense have nothing to do with one another, you should infer things, the legal ruling mean just what it says and does not have enough force to enforce what it implies, only what it spells out and only then if it's extremely blatant, extremely public, and concerns a huge amount of $$$.
Note: IANAL, I'm an american and I don't think anybody would argue that it's our citizens who have the most lubricant caked on our bums from previous microsoft reemings.
"No one force you to use the DMZ. If that is not what you meant, I'd sure like to know because this didn't make much sense to me."
You are aware that most of the hardware firewalls permit ALL outbound traffic by default and allow all traffic in that is initiated from inside the firewall?
"Useless, if they can get to the BIOS it usually means that they have physical access. This means that they can just pull a quick jumper, or use something like CMOSRAM.EXE to wipe all the existing settings (and password)."
Of course, as soon as they get through all the physical security I've mentioned and somehow get a disk in. And of course without security personel noticing.
1. Whether you like it or not, firewall and open up what you need, that's both inbound and outbound, do NOT get a linksys router or other silly piece of hardware that believes in the concept of "trusted" interface. Be sure to have it NAT, although never get the impression that NAT is security in itself.
2. Dedicate purpose, do not use one machine to fill multiple roles, instead use different systems for different tasks and run firewalls on each that are configured for just what traffic needs to go in and out on that machine. If you MUST use a machine for multiple roles then take it off the network and transfer data as needed using removable media.
3. You may need windows, but be sure you aren't using it for anything you don't need to, anything that can be done on a secured linux or BSD system should be.
4. Use secure passwords but use passwords you can remember as well, even a shit password is better than a 200 random character password that you end up taping to your monitor. But don't use a shit password either, just come up with a decent scheme, l33t script is good for coming up with secure passwords and change them often (daily or weekly depending on the system).
5. Use both filesystem compression and encryption in windows, for files that need to be more PGP them with a strong passphrase which is also changed often.
6. Files which aren't changed often should be encrypted, moved to removable media and then locked in a safety deposit box. For medium term data that needs to be more readily available consider an offsite encrypted storage drive, make sure you connect to it through an encrypted link and make sure you do NOT keep information for accessing this on pc's or written down anywhere. For absolute emergencies keep a physical handwritten (don't type it or you've already defeated the point) copy of the information you need in a safty deposit box.
7. Make sure all data is eradicated from the pc drives on a regular basis. What i find useful is to have a machine that is dedicated to zeroing drives and keep base images. Having extra drives and hotswap ide bays helps make this convient. Cycle drives so that in the morning you have a clean set of imaged drives for the pc's.
8. At the end of the day all files which are accessed on a VERY regular basis and aren't suitable for the above should be moved to removable media that is at least locked in a safe.
9. No wireless access, at all, ever.
10. Keep systems and software updated.
11. All email should be handled on systems which are not running windows. Seriously evaluate where email is needed and where it's not, all email should be run through a linux gateway scanner, running something like a combination of amavisd+clamav+postfix(or really most anything but sendmail).
12. Where you do have windows systems make sure they have a/v software on them, and that not all have the same a/v software, I find a combination of pc-cillan and avg works well, this way if the machines are on the network and one is infected, obviously it's a/v software didn't catch the virus, but the other might.
13. If a virus should be detected this should be a red light issue and require all systems on the physically connected network be pulled off the network immediately, all drives be put in a secure offline non-windows systems and scanned, and working files be transferred off and encrypted. The systems in question should be reimaged immediately and only then can the safely scanned data be put back on them and work resumed. (It's a bitch but neccesary).
14. On the systems themselves make rigorous use of filesystem permissions, registry manipulation, anything else in your bag of tricks.
15. Bios password the systems, prevent floppy booting, etc, change these passwords regularly.
16. Physically lock the systems, installing small magnetic relays that trip a buzzer when the system is opened in addition to locks doesn't hurt either.
17. Double up security with biometric d
That's it, this is slashdot so where I'd otherwise let this go, I have to be anal and reem you.
"Firebird, I mean, Thun... Firefox"
What you really wanted to say here was:
"Phoenix, I mean, Firebir... Firefox"
Thunderbird is the email app and still called Thunderbird AFAIK.
Your right there, we are stretched pretty thin, but it's not trying to occupy iraq, it's trying to occupy iraq and continue to occupy the rest of the world.
Nonetheless, either way it's the same result in a sudden decisive attack, we can't assemble our forces fast enough.
If I'm a contract killer with 20million in the bank from past murders, and I make an average of 100k a year. Your prosecuting me for the murders I've commited and darn, I wasn't able to convince you to accept coupons in lieu of the one grand fine. I guess I'd live with it yeah ;)
As for picking some random chump and slapping a grand on them, it's done all the time, it's called a tax break. This is just proof it doesn't cost much more to buy a license to kill.
I dunno, I prefer to consider the fact that the top technical talent in the world finds Microsoft's products (basically, all of them) to be inferior to most of the competiting products in each category to be a reasonable blow against that argument. But please come again.
That's all fine and dandy but you shouldn't profit from breaking the law (ideally ever) particulary when caught and convicted. If Microsoft made 1 trillion dollars by breaking the law, the MINIMUM fine for the crime should be 1 trillion 1, whether that bankrupts microsoft or not is irrelevant.
And the real number is more like 100billion, which would be a reasonable fine, they simple lose the profit they made breaking the law. Having already spent some of their illgotten gains is their own problem. Now 100billion of course wouldn't bankrupt microsoft who already has something to the tune of 80billion in cash reserves. But it would cause them to have to restructure and liquidate assets, it would be a blow to their buisness but not a death blow. A mere 600mil isn't even a sneeze.
If I make $10/minute, and save 10minutes by speeding to work, that's $100. Now lets say I get a ticket everyday for $50 (this is showing a concept, dont' pull out the anal details like the time it takes to get the ticket). I'm still profiting by $50/day by breaking the law. As long as I come out ahead, why the hell would I stop?
This is more like a tax than a fine, the EU is saying they want a cut.
While I'd have to agree concerning the US air defense, it's rather pathetic. You are quite mistaken about he naval power.
At all times the US literally has EVERY point on the globe within strike range from it's ships. We have carriers out the arse, they aren't something you can readily dismiss, the US has almost as much in naval air power as it's entire airforce.
As for friendly airbases... you do realize that "sending peacekeepers and helping to establish a democratic government" translates to haha suckers we've conquered another territory and come out smelling like roses. When you bear that in mind and take a look at the globe you'll quickly realize we've "aided" very very strategic positions throughout asia and the middleeast particularly.
Now I realize your European missles don't go very far very accurately, but with current NAVAL missle technology here in the US we can hit within 50ft anywhere in europe from 1/3rd of the way across the globe. The land launched missles can go farther yet. We can take out your bases sitting back in asia with little or no trouble. The other thing to consider is that for quite some time the bulk of US naval (actual ship I mean) investment has been in subs. We have hundreds of them scouring the oceans (all of them) at all times ready to strike.
There is no such thing as a US vessel that isn't stocked to carry on at sea for less than 2yrs with rationing in an emegency situation and subs go for 2yrs routinely without stopping to port and thats without wartime rations.
Don't be a fool on this topic, our naval power is our military power. It's the only branch of our military which legally can be maintained indefinately in time of peace and those writting the budget know it. As a result the navy has it's own navy, air force (carriers, angels, stealths, among others), and army (seals, marines).
Our special forces, particularly the seals, are the most elite units in the world to top it all off, as demonstrated in the gulf war when iraq lost kuwait entirely thanks to a single seal team taking out their communications.
Quite frankly I find my country to be the greediest, most hypocritical, corrupt, and evil nation in the world... but make no mistake, we got where we are today by having really damn big guns. (That and the fact that nobody would attack us on the simple merit of us being the only nation to use nukes in combat and that after the fact we armed a few hundred submarines with them and positioned them so they can nuke any point in the world repeatedly within a few minutes).
Glad to hear it. We change the default homepage and search page on every pc we sell.
Do a bit more digging, for as little as $200 you can get rank preference for your page.
*sighs*
Once again I must point out, the first two have already happened, MSN is both the default search and the default homepage and IS integrated into IE! all have been true since the release of IE 4 over 6yrs ago!
I hate MS as much as the next guy. But they can't exactly just set this as the default in IE and win the war like the majority of posters seem to be saying.
Why not? They've done it with media player, IE, etc etc. Well they can't because they've been doing it for over 6yrs already and google rose to the top with MSN search as the default homepage and search in IE already!
Install IE, open the browser, up pops the MSN search page. You think just because they make a new search engine and start pointing to it as the default rather than MSN it's going to suddenly kill google?
I might have agreed 6yrs ago, but now having seen that at no time since they made it the default page with IE 4 in win98 has MSN EVER been the top search engine.. I'm afraid history has already shown otherwise sorry guys.
Lets talk about how they cleaned up the search results for Xfree86 and linux and such before making this announcement (check em) and how they will undoubtedly bring the scewed results back if they succeed and become top search dog.
The MSN homepage has been the default IE homepage since IE4 and win98. This is hardly a new card MS will be playing, google has been beating their primary tactic for a very long time now.
First I'd like to say I'm disappointed I found no other posts like this or mirrors. Second I'd like to say how disappointed I am that after 3yrs of slashdot I finally sold my soul and signed up for NYT only to discover there is NO DAMN VIDEO CLIP!!!!
--Begin Article--
TOKYO, March 14 - Toyota has unveiled a humanoid robot that walks, waves its arms and bows. And, as if that were not enough, it also plays the trumpet.
The four-foot-tall robot, introduced last week, is a prototype for what Toyota says will be a series of autonomous machines that it hopes to build over the next two decades to serve as personal assistants, aides for the elderly and laborers. Toyota also displayed a rolling robot and showed film of a pair of robotic legs that its engineers designed to carry a disabled person.
Toyota is the second Japanese car company to build a humanoid robot. Honda introduced its first walking robot in 1996. Its latest version, called Asimo, can dance, recognize familiar faces and answer simple questions. Sony also unveiled a small humanoid robot last year.
Toyota acknowledges that it is unlikely to turn a profit building robots anytime soon, but the program highlights its engineering-oriented culture and willingness to invest in projects that may not pay off for decades.
"We just started developing the technology, so we don't have any plan to make a business,'' Fujio Cho, Toyota's president, told reporters on Thursday. "However, in the long run, I think we will have chances to commercialize the technology.''
Mr. Cho also said that Toyota expected motion sensors and other advanced technologies developed for robots to have automotive applications, particularly in computer systems designed to sense, and avoid, impending accidents.
Toyota's robot, developed over two and a half years, whirred loudly as it walked slowly on stage at a news conference, carrying a brass trumpet in one hand. At center stage, it turned to face the crowd, put the trumpet to its artificial lips and played a rendition of "When You Wish Upon a Star.'' The walking robot was later joined on stage by a rolling counterpart and the two played a lively duet of "Trumpeter's Holiday.''
Developing artificial lips flexible enough to play a trumpet was a major engineering challenge, according to Mr. Cho. Toyota said it built the trumpet-playing robot to serve as an entertainer at the 2005 World Exposition in Aichi, where Toyota has its world headquarters.
Toyota declined to say how much the robot cost, but years of record profits and growing global sales have given Toyota vast resources to invest in new technologies.
So far, even the most advanced humanoid robots have only a few practical applications. Honda leases its walking robot to museums and department stores, where it greets visitors, but the company has no plans to sell it.
Nearly all robotic applications are in factories, where they are used to automate production and perform tasks that are difficult for humans.
The Japan Robot Association predicts that the robot market, now about $4 billion, could grow to as much as $14 billion in 2010.
--End Article--
"it's the most hyped up mission in the last decade, it would be about as publicized as the average military satalite launch is"
Ok, you had me before and after this one. But if I'm following you correctly your saying this is only so publicized due to it's being so publicized?