The password never gets sent to the server, though. That's the key difference. You get a challenge sent to you, and if you can use your private key to sign the challenge, you are allowed access.
You can copy your public key all over the place without compromising your password this way. Your password never leaves the local host.
Hmm, sounds like a 180 compared to how he blew off the whole siliconvalley.com "roundtable". I was interested in hearing how he defended Microsoft's position, except he never addressed any of the issues, really...
Everything you point out here (the CD-R piracy tax, copy-protected CDs, etc.) is quite intrusive and nasty. It probably should be banned as it really does interfere with fair use.
However, it has absolutely nothing to do with the crackdown on actual illegal activity, which is what this whole article and thread is about. The way to go about protecting your assets is to prosecute those who are doing illegal things with them.
Take a look at the domains that were the most-infected -- they were, by and large, cable modem providers, and the study concludes that home and small business users (read: Microsoft's target market for most of their products) were responsible for most of the worm's spread.
It's really disturbing to think that the Internet's stability rests on the shoulders of these people, half of whom probably don't even understand the concept of keeping up-to-date with security patches.
The ironic thing is that this tide is probably being held back by the fact that in order to "legitimately" run a server off a broadband connection, you generally have to pay through the nose, meaning that those who don't have a vested interest or Daddy's money need not apply.
I suggest, corporate dealth penalties - government-enforced breakups of any corporation over a certain
size.
Well, now, I'm all for a corporate death penalty -- but for being a certain size? Come on. To draw your parallel back, you might as well execute anyone rich enough to have a home that costs more than $100,000.
I say, if a corporation is convicted of breaking a serious law, then give them the lethal injection -- dissolve them completely. Don't break them up, that's just silly.
Erm, that's like saying that I don't take any losses for taxes except perhaps that my salary isn't quite as competitive as a result.
I beg to differ on both counts. I'm no friend of Adobe or anyone who acts as they did, but raising prices to cover taxes does not mean you are not effectively paying said taxes. It just means that the economy as a whole hurts more because of those higher taxes.
In the case of your first two examples, I don't see what the problem is, really. Obviously Philip Morris is not a trustworthy source for lung cancer information and Microsoft not a trustworthy source for open source information, but that does not make the hits any less valid. I wasn't aware that search engines were supposed to return truthful information (and in a lot of cases, truth is a pretty gray area anyway); they are just supposed to return hits for the terms I specified.
The third example is exactly what I think search engines should be doing, though.:-) (yes, that is humor...)
And what, may I ask, is wrong with that? I fail to see how higher placement without a big red line that says "this placement was paid for" (which would most certainly result in the search engines' fees being lowered due to reduced demand) constitutes "deceptive advertising". Come on, people, they're not claiming that a paid ad that pops up on "britney spears n00d" can cure cancer!
Why does it matter if someone paid for higher placement or not? If the higher placement results in items that the user of the earch engine finds useful, then no harm done. If it results in complete hogwash being promoted to the top, then the search engine loses credibility (ergo revenue), which no search engine is interested in doing.
Nader is just doing what he's done all his life -- making sure that business in general will collapse under the weight of a ten-foot-high stack of regulations. Why he is doing this is really not something I care to speculate on.
My thoughts exactly. My first instinct was, "oh, they're talking about 'Ask Slashdot', or worse, the blathering that is always attached to a 'Your "Rights" Online' story..."
Many large companies employ lawyers to work independently to protect what they believe to be their
intellectual property, with the lawyers basically being self-funding.
If this is indeed what has happened here, I guarantee that Adobe has now heard of it, and if the lawyers are acting against their interests, they will put a stop to it quickly (although probably quietly, to avoid a PR issue). The next few days will be telling.
Hey, at least Slashdot is good for something, causing a media circus when you need one:-)
I'd say less than 50%, but I have to agree with you. The Microsoft groupie at the ISP I used to work at and I would always have shouting matches whenever he thought we should put the latest and greatest IE on our install CD and have it be the exclusive option. He won out, and tech support would have to deal with it utterly destroying several machines.
To this day I have a machine that will run quite well (for Windows):-) if installed with 98lite, but if you put standard Windows 98 on it, either with IE4 or SE with IE5, the machine will bluescreen and fry. Without IE, the machine is fine...
We could argue little bits and pieces of how the election did or did not go wrong for the next few weeks; conspiracies and legitimate claims abound. But it would miss my original point. The original poster was trying to claim that Bush's election was illegitimate solely because of Gore's higher popular vote count, or at least that's all he chose to say. I was pointing out the rather obvious: that he had an axe to grind and that was why he chose to blame Bush for his particular problem-of-the-day in the first place.
I've always felt since day 1 of using Linux that about half of the kernel output was ego-stroking, and very little useful information. It made the whole thing feel less like a unified project and more like a haphazard collection of little bits and pieces.
I hope the opportunity will also be taken to give everything a more unified look, a la commercial UNIX and *BSD kernels; it will certainly make finding what you're looking for in the dmesg much easier rather than having to sift through rabble.
Once George Bush got into the White
House (by getting 539,947 fewer votes than Al Gore)
Aha! You're one of those bitter people who doesn't like the electoral college when it doesn't support their candidate of choice. Your motivation is coming into focus.
Give us all a break, and a little credit, eh? The decision was entirely proper given Jackson's impropriety or appearance thereof. Your attempt to villify a man you clearly hate by blaming him for something he did not accomplish is pathetic, at best.
Smart tags, the.NET initiative, more restrictive EULAs, leased software, and the Linux bashing are
just the tip of the iceberg. It is only going to get worse over the next three and a half years.
The fire and brimstone you want to rain down on us here is really an incredibly small thing compared to sitting idly by when judges don't do their job correctly, like Jackson did not when he acted with impropriety. A justice system we can trust is much more important.
So I can blame any bad judicial decision in 1992-2000 on Clinton? Cool, because there were a lot of rather activist decisions in those times that (I feel) had nothing to do with justice; now I have a scapegoat. (Hey, it's the childish/ignorant way!) It's a lot easier to blame a figurehead, isn't it?
Okay, I'll repeat my question -- how does doing anything to the Justice Department lead an Appeals Court to vacate a decision in an already-closed case?
At least the court
trial gave us a few years where MSFT had to behave, so we could help spread the good word in a fairer
playing field.
Ouch, I don't like that line of thinking.
I'd like to believe that we take court actions for wrongdoing, not that we take court actions to "give other people a chance". That's a bit of judicial activism, if you ask me./p
Slashdot Mirror
The password never gets sent to the server, though. That's the key difference. You get a challenge sent to you, and if you can use your private key to sign the challenge, you are allowed access.
You can copy your public key all over the place without compromising your password this way. Your password never leaves the local host.
Hmm, sounds like a 180 compared to how he blew off the whole siliconvalley.com "roundtable". I was interested in hearing how he defended Microsoft's position, except he never addressed any of the issues, really...
Everything you point out here (the CD-R piracy tax, copy-protected CDs, etc.) is quite intrusive and nasty. It probably should be banned as it really does interfere with fair use.
However, it has absolutely nothing to do with the crackdown on actual illegal activity, which is what this whole article and thread is about. The way to go about protecting your assets is to prosecute those who are doing illegal things with them.
Take a look at the domains that were the most-infected -- they were, by and large, cable modem providers, and the study concludes that home and small business users (read: Microsoft's target market for most of their products) were responsible for most of the worm's spread.
It's really disturbing to think that the Internet's stability rests on the shoulders of these people, half of whom probably don't even understand the concept of keeping up-to-date with security patches.
The ironic thing is that this tide is probably being held back by the fact that in order to "legitimately" run a server off a broadband connection, you generally have to pay through the nose, meaning that those who don't have a vested interest or Daddy's money need not apply.
Disturbing all around, really...
Looking at my dictionary... flip flip flip flip flip... ahh, here it is:
Microsoft
No, I think his grammar is OK.
You know, I really didn't mean $100,000; I meant $1,000,000. (My poor mother...) :-)
Well, now, I'm all for a corporate death penalty -- but for being a certain size? Come on. To draw your parallel back, you might as well execute anyone rich enough to have a home that costs more than $100,000.
I say, if a corporation is convicted of breaking a serious law, then give them the lethal injection -- dissolve them completely. Don't break them up, that's just silly.
Erm, that's like saying that I don't take any losses for taxes except perhaps that my salary isn't quite as competitive as a result.
I beg to differ on both counts. I'm no friend of Adobe or anyone who acts as they did, but raising prices to cover taxes does not mean you are not effectively paying said taxes. It just means that the economy as a whole hurts more because of those higher taxes.
Err, not really. See:
In the case of your first two examples, I don't see what the problem is, really. Obviously Philip Morris is not a trustworthy source for lung cancer information and Microsoft not a trustworthy source for open source information, but that does not make the hits any less valid. I wasn't aware that search engines were supposed to return truthful information (and in a lot of cases, truth is a pretty gray area anyway); they are just supposed to return hits for the terms I specified.
The third example is exactly what I think search engines should be doing, though. :-) (yes, that is humor...)
And what, may I ask, is wrong with that? I fail to see how higher placement without a big red line that says "this placement was paid for" (which would most certainly result in the search engines' fees being lowered due to reduced demand) constitutes "deceptive advertising". Come on, people, they're not claiming that a paid ad that pops up on "britney spears n00d" can cure cancer!
Why does it matter if someone paid for higher placement or not? If the higher placement results in items that the user of the earch engine finds useful, then no harm done. If it results in complete hogwash being promoted to the top, then the search engine loses credibility (ergo revenue), which no search engine is interested in doing.
Nader is just doing what he's done all his life -- making sure that business in general will collapse under the weight of a ten-foot-high stack of regulations. Why he is doing this is really not something I care to speculate on.
Heh, Macrovision says it's not discernible.
Funny that Macrovision's video "protection" is quite discernible...
I hope you're trying to be funny.
Regardless, there are probably lots of silly people out there who think you can't run GPL apps on a BSD system; that is complete and utter bullshit.
Whether it's a good idea or not is another story entirely.
My thoughts exactly. My first instinct was, "oh, they're talking about 'Ask Slashdot', or worse, the blathering that is always attached to a 'Your "Rights" Online' story..."
You could always ldd file | grep kde, y'know.
Hear, hear!
While we're at it, how about projects that start out their names with "GNU", but aren't really part of GNU; they just use the GPL?
If this is indeed what has happened here, I guarantee that Adobe has now heard of it, and if the lawyers are acting against their interests, they will put a stop to it quickly (although probably quietly, to avoid a PR issue). The next few days will be telling.
Hey, at least Slashdot is good for something, causing a media circus when you need one :-)
Did they do the same thing for IE?
Just because you can't type 100wpm doesn't mean the rest of us can't. Geeze.
I'd say less than 50%, but I have to agree with you. The Microsoft groupie at the ISP I used to work at and I would always have shouting matches whenever he thought we should put the latest and greatest IE on our install CD and have it be the exclusive option. He won out, and tech support would have to deal with it utterly destroying several machines.
To this day I have a machine that will run quite well (for Windows) :-) if installed with 98lite, but if you put standard Windows 98 on it, either with IE4 or SE with IE5, the machine will bluescreen and fry. Without IE, the machine is fine...
Okay, this is rapidly becoming tangential, but...
We could argue little bits and pieces of how the election did or did not go wrong for the next few weeks; conspiracies and legitimate claims abound. But it would miss my original point. The original poster was trying to claim that Bush's election was illegitimate solely because of Gore's higher popular vote count, or at least that's all he chose to say. I was pointing out the rather obvious: that he had an axe to grind and that was why he chose to blame Bush for his particular problem-of-the-day in the first place.
I've always felt since day 1 of using Linux that about half of the kernel output was ego-stroking, and very little useful information. It made the whole thing feel less like a unified project and more like a haphazard collection of little bits and pieces.
I hope the opportunity will also be taken to give everything a more unified look, a la commercial UNIX and *BSD kernels; it will certainly make finding what you're looking for in the dmesg much easier rather than having to sift through rabble.
Aha! You're one of those bitter people who doesn't like the electoral college when it doesn't support their candidate of choice. Your motivation is coming into focus.
Give us all a break, and a little credit, eh? The decision was entirely proper given Jackson's impropriety or appearance thereof. Your attempt to villify a man you clearly hate by blaming him for something he did not accomplish is pathetic, at best.
The fire and brimstone you want to rain down on us here is really an incredibly small thing compared to sitting idly by when judges don't do their job correctly, like Jackson did not when he acted with impropriety. A justice system we can trust is much more important.
So I can blame any bad judicial decision in 1992-2000 on Clinton? Cool, because there were a lot of rather activist decisions in those times that (I feel) had nothing to do with justice; now I have a scapegoat. (Hey, it's the childish/ignorant way!) It's a lot easier to blame a figurehead, isn't it?
Okay, I'll repeat my question -- how does doing anything to the Justice Department lead an Appeals Court to vacate a decision in an already-closed case?
Ouch, I don't like that line of thinking.
I'd like to believe that we take court actions for wrongdoing, not that we take court actions to "give other people a chance". That's a bit of judicial activism, if you ask me./p