If you check out here you will notice that Alfresco is listed at the number one project on the Red Hat Exchange. So maybe their downloads are three-times higher because Red Hat advertises for them for free. I dunno about you, but I would won't believe the results until they adjust for that (i.e. "Where did you hear about Alfresco?").
Wow, that was the most biased article that I have read in a long time. The summary, for those that didn't RTFA, they pretty much say avoid all the things that make a web master's life difficult; it was from a website perspective and not from the user. Anyhow, it is not worth the read and definitely is not news.
Actually, it is worse than that. The problem is that RIAA could go to prove that it is filing frivolous lawsuits by doing dropping cases where people fight the case. It would be really damaging in court if RIAA sues, and the defendant counter-sues alleging that the case is frivolous and cites 50 cases where RIAA drops the case because the defendant hired a lawyer. Might go to help the RICO claim, too.
I think the overall answer to your question is that many, not all, of those who post on Slashdot lack maturity of thought and understanding of the complex questions. Many people have knee-jerk reactions and don't take the the time to critically evaluate their positions and to see the logical holes in their arguments. And many people are too blinded to see the reasons why things are the way they are. If they did, then I think that Slashdot would be a better forum.
But like you I am too tired to say much of anything else.
Oh I did. I had the case escalated on the last return.
And that is where things feel apart. I told the lady that I had three prior returns and that I would like a new computer. She pushed for me to get the computer serviced, at which point I insisted that it be replaced. That is when I received a computer that had a dead pixel on the LCD, extensive cosmetic damage (deep gouges out of the top) missing components, slower hard drive, worse video card and had stability problems out of the box. The performance hit was so high that booting Windows (which I don't run) took nearly three times longer. The escalation manager told me the only option was to have one of the computers repaired -- I had to send both of them back and they would fix one of them.
The part that really irked me was that the first repair caused all the other repairs. The first go around, they had to fix the power jack. Then when I got it back, the video card went on the fritz, so they replaced the motherboard and the screen. After that, the computer had severe power issues, and the fans and CPU was replaced. When I got it back from that, it started having power problems where the computer would fall asleep terminally when it would be closed. The one that the computer is back to HP for right now is the video card gets corrupted when the system is under load, and will randomly run off.
I did ask for a buy back, but was told they wouldn't because the laptop was more than 90 days old on the first repair. I have tried everything, but because I was a student for the first 4 repairs, and they knew it, they wouldn't give me service.
Well to throw my two cents in -- I just sent my HP back for the 5th (yes, 5th time) in the last year. The best part was around time four, I asked for a new computer. Sure they said. But what I got was some-one else's reject. It has worse problems than the one I was trying to replace. Now I own a Sony VAIO, and am very happy...except for the fact that VT is disabled.
I realize that I will most likely be modded down for this post, but oh well...
I can think of two reasons why it might be on Slashdot. The first being that Reddit.com cover it yesterday. And as of right now it is holding as 2nd place for the hottest topic.
The second reason is probably related to online sources from MSNBC, Slashdot, Reddit and other forums, as well as the New York Times best selling list that have included elements of anti-religion and anti-god media. Reading Slashdot's tone on some articles, those who defend faith and faith-based beliefs are modded down, while those that advocate atheism or include anti-faith commentary are treated somehow as the insightful ones in the forum. At least, two books, #7, Richard Dawkins book, and #17, A Letter to a Christian Nation, have atheist overtones. Right now, generally speaking those with faith are thought of as uneducated and unenlightened.
To answer your question, I believe that the editors included it because, the general tone of Slashdot is anti-religion.
Well, then again the Justice department announced today that they are getting their fingers in to pie. Seems like Dunn doesn't have to worry about just California, but now the Feds.
This would be a civil matter, so a default judgmenet means that the plantif gets what they were asking for, subject to the judges approval. Civil courts do not deal in the absolutes with the mild gray areas of guilty or not guilty. Rather they deal with liable or not liable. If you are in a criminal proceding and you are found not guilty, it does not go to say that you are not civilally liable for the criminal act that you have been found not guilty of, and potentially vice versa. For example, OJ Simpson was found not guilty but was found liable for murder.
In a criminal case there is no such equivalent to a default judgement, becuase of the 5th, 6th and 14th amendment for due process. Unlike other countries, a court cannot try you for a crime if you are not there for the trial. If you fail to show up to court, you get a bench warrent issued for your arrest and you will wait for you day in court in a jail cell. If this was a criminal case (although if it was, then the computer would have been siezed), then it would have been obstruction of justice and maybe destroying evidence.
It is also important to note that some offense have both civil and criminal offenses. For example copyright infringment CAN be both criminal or civil. If you commit a criminal offense the offended can bring a civil suit against you for the criminal act.
The problem with an ad-supported operating system is that people expect the computer to work. And when they sit down to do their taxes, balance the check book or write an email they do not want to be hindered with ads about the latest tax, accounting software or email client that is available. Sure, this model may have some people who will do it. Heck, the reason I watch so little TV is because of the ads (and yes I know about Tivo), and the last thing that I want is to be attacked with ads while using the computer; I use the computer when I want to be entertained as is, why would I voluntarily invite it on to my computer? This is just the realization of ad folks that people are starting to spend inordinate amounts of time on the computer and they want to encrouch on where people are spending time. AOL is switching to an ad context, and they are going to offer free service. I think that many people would happily pay for an operating system just to avoid the ads.
Besides how much do you want to bet that an ad-supported OS would make the malware guys overly happy? Think about it. If a malware guy could take over the ad-subsystem on Windows, then the user might not even know it. So instead of getting reputable ads they start getting penis enhancment products and the like.
In information managmenet there is an idea called perfect secracy -- it means that something secrecy is so safe that only those who should have access do and those who shouldn't, don't.
The problem is that the cost and expertise to create something perfectly secret is way too expensive as to make perfect secrecy impossiable.
This lead to the idea of something being near perfectly secret, or the idea that if something is not securely secret, it can be like it if it protected in such a way that by time someone broke in, it wouldn't matter anyway. (i.e. you encrpyt a file with criminal evidence using a cypher, by the time the police crack it, the statute of limitations has passed; or business plans sent over the internet, by the time the competition cracks it, the plans are not relative)
This is why governments and companies don't really care if it will take 512 years or 1 million years to break encryption. If under current technology and the foreseeable technology, it can't be feasably broken, then it is as-good-as perfectly secret. That is the idea behind encryption. Sure you can get close, but trying to achieve perfect secrecy is going to be hard. Right now under AES you get something like 2^120 operatations before you have the possiability of obtaining a collision against a 128 bit key. So sure, you can throw a couple thousand computers at something, but the chance of breaking it is slim. Just in trying to generate the same hash as a password used, you could potentially generate enough data that would be equivalent to 2.5 times all the information stored on the internet, or about 256 exabytes. But AES is a strong, and considered secure, algorythmn that has not had a break other than side channel attacks.
Like the parent post stated, it would take a long time if using AES. And as far as us mortals are concerned, right now, anything encrypted with AES is perfectly secure.
So look at there method on the Satelite, it was weak, and I would argue not really encryption at all, more like a protocol.
A whole lot of a good a backdoor will do if the organization is using point-to-point encrpytion. I mean, just think about what will happen if this becomes common place? Organizations that want to keep the government out will simply migrate to IPV6 which encrypts everything by default. How would this work with Microsoft's idea of encrypting traffic to and from servers and other computers when they join a domain? Frankly, if someone has something to hide, it won't be that difficult to keep them out by using encryption technology. If I was a system admin with a router like this, I would implement some sort of point-to-point and broadcast level encryption.
When I turned 18 in high school, although nearly 8 years ago, I was forced to waive my rights to my parents and school in order to graduate.
We had something called Student Rights and Responsabilities. In that document I was required to sign it, have my parents sign it and then return it to school. If I did not sign the document I would be fined $60 a day for every day that I did not return it passed the due date. Further, I could not go in and cross off things that I did not like.
The reason that I had problems with it was principle. I did not want to waive nearly all constitutional protections, i.e. 4th, 5th, and 14th. But in order to graduate I had to pay with some of my constitutional rights.
This is an interesting approach in one respect -- Google actually has the money to be able to pursue anti-trust claims. Think about it. Every other group, personal or entitty that usually pursues an anti-trust claim is usually too small to do anything about it. If the Telcos decide on doing discriminating against Google, then Google can make a case and probably win some of them. If I was a Telco, I might think about playing nice.
No, he had his son taken away because he was advocating a criminal lifestyle, associated with an organization advocating a criminal life sytle AND he had a conviction which made the child treat crediable. If he had been sent to jail for it, then it would have been a violation. Losing his wife, job, and child is not a violation.
The Freedom of Speech means that you can speak and not be sent to jail or be persecuted by the government. But that right ends when it starts to affect other people, especially minors. Advocating something that is criminal when there is a potential victem in your home can be grounds to remove the potential victem. And since a child is in a situation that would make it hard to impossiable to leave, makes it much worse. If you advocated wife battering, your wife could effectively leave you with. A child can not; at least not with out experiencing some of the effects.
Many people think that the Freedom of Speech is absolute when it is not. It has never meant that you could speak and thereby threaten or imply a direct or indirect threat on someone. Free speach is not regulated when it comes to political matters.
Under your absolute interpetation, then it is okay for the polygamist in Utah to marry teenagers and for them to have many wifes citing religious privelage. Under your assesment of the Freedom of Speech, it is okay to take child porn pictures. Under your belief in Freedom of Association, it is okay for someone to join Al Quida as long as you don't do anything subversive.
What is important about the freedoms is to protect people when they speak politically.
How about 14th and 6th Amendment protections. The right to due process is one of the major pivot points for criminal defense. A lot of people get off because their due process was violated. What I wonder if this will be challenged based on the fact that the statute allows for a police officer to gather evidence via video and audio, but disallows someone being investigated from recording and collecting damaging information about police misconduct. The police will argue that they should not be subject to being recorded because it would create a burden of paroania. However, the issue that I see is that by the statute in NH, you cannot gather evidence including audio at all unless you meet some strict rules.
Yet, the real issue is that law may very well not apply in this case. If you are involved in the conversation, then you are not intercepting the conversation. Note that the law says that a person must willfully intercept. Frankly, standing on your door step telling the police to get lost is not intercepting a police conversation. If you read the law, it seems to imply that hearing a conversation and relating it to another, is illegal under this statute (think writing an email about a conversation you had...technically it would be illegal under NH law.)
So I guess that this will end up getting dropped. Whether or not the guy was being a jerk to the police is irrelative. The point is that a person should have the right to record evidence of police misconduct on their own property.
There was a proof of concept virus that has the ability to use the ACPI interface to take over the BIOS.
If you could that virus with the root kit that uses virtualization, the computer is now completely hosed. The only way to fix it is to flash the BIOS, and if it first takes over the BIOS and prevents the warning dialogs then virtualizes the OS, you now have an incrediably powerful malware that can only be stopped when it is run on the computer. If you don't detect the malware out the gate, then you may or may never know that you have a problem.
The problem that computer security is having is that the people that can develop this stuff are not stupid. And it is rather hard to forecast what is going to happen with out knowing what the malware people are planning on.
Essentially this problem is going to result in the implementation of signed code for anything that runs outside of a very limited sandbox. Frankly, I think that we are going to see an era of virtualized everything -- where the hardware runs a hypervisor, with a master kernel, and everything else runs in the context of a virtual machine that groups simular resources. Unsigned code would then be run inside of its own virtual machine using a microkernel that links to the master kernel. Or something like that.
Slashdot Mirror
If you check out here you will notice that Alfresco is listed at the number one project on the Red Hat Exchange. So maybe their downloads are three-times higher because Red Hat advertises for them for free. I dunno about you, but I would won't believe the results until they adjust for that (i.e. "Where did you hear about Alfresco?").
Wow, that was the most biased article that I have read in a long time. The summary, for those that didn't RTFA, they pretty much say avoid all the things that make a web master's life difficult; it was from a website perspective and not from the user. Anyhow, it is not worth the read and definitely is not news.
Actually, it is worse than that. The problem is that RIAA could go to prove that it is filing frivolous lawsuits by doing dropping cases where people fight the case. It would be really damaging in court if RIAA sues, and the defendant counter-sues alleging that the case is frivolous and cites 50 cases where RIAA drops the case because the defendant hired a lawyer. Might go to help the RICO claim, too.
The FSS's problem with the deal is that it means that Novell is saying that Linux is not free.
Forgive my obvious stupidity, but doesn't putting any restriction, including the GPL make the software not free?
And no, I am not trying to troll. I just can't figure out why this is such a hot issue.
And what about Groupwise? Last time I loaded that up, it sure looks like something that can compete with Exchange.
I think the overall answer to your question is that many, not all, of those who post on Slashdot lack maturity of thought and understanding of the complex questions. Many people have knee-jerk reactions and don't take the the time to critically evaluate their positions and to see the logical holes in their arguments. And many people are too blinded to see the reasons why things are the way they are. If they did, then I think that Slashdot would be a better forum.
But like you I am too tired to say much of anything else.
Oh I did. I had the case escalated on the last return.
And that is where things feel apart. I told the lady that I had three prior returns and that I would like a new computer. She pushed for me to get the computer serviced, at which point I insisted that it be replaced. That is when I received a computer that had a dead pixel on the LCD, extensive cosmetic damage (deep gouges out of the top) missing components, slower hard drive, worse video card and had stability problems out of the box. The performance hit was so high that booting Windows (which I don't run) took nearly three times longer. The escalation manager told me the only option was to have one of the computers repaired -- I had to send both of them back and they would fix one of them.
The part that really irked me was that the first repair caused all the other repairs. The first go around, they had to fix the power jack. Then when I got it back, the video card went on the fritz, so they replaced the motherboard and the screen. After that, the computer had severe power issues, and the fans and CPU was replaced. When I got it back from that, it started having power problems where the computer would fall asleep terminally when it would be closed. The one that the computer is back to HP for right now is the video card gets corrupted when the system is under load, and will randomly run off.
I did ask for a buy back, but was told they wouldn't because the laptop was more than 90 days old on the first repair. I have tried everything, but because I was a student for the first 4 repairs, and they knew it, they wouldn't give me service.
Well to throw my two cents in -- I just sent my HP back for the 5th (yes, 5th time) in the last year. The best part was around time four, I asked for a new computer. Sure they said. But what I got was some-one else's reject. It has worse problems than the one I was trying to replace. Now I own a Sony VAIO, and am very happy...except for the fact that VT is disabled.
I realize that I will most likely be modded down for this post, but oh well...
I can think of two reasons why it might be on Slashdot. The first being that Reddit.com cover it yesterday. And as of right now it is holding as 2nd place for the hottest topic.
The second reason is probably related to online sources from MSNBC, Slashdot, Reddit and other forums, as well as the New York Times best selling list that have included elements of anti-religion and anti-god media. Reading Slashdot's tone on some articles, those who defend faith and faith-based beliefs are modded down, while those that advocate atheism or include anti-faith commentary are treated somehow as the insightful ones in the forum. At least, two books, #7, Richard Dawkins book, and #17, A Letter to a Christian Nation, have atheist overtones. Right now, generally speaking those with faith are thought of as uneducated and unenlightened.
To answer your question, I believe that the editors included it because, the general tone of Slashdot is anti-religion.
If you read the article, Microsoft is calling one of their's a design decision. I love those undocumented features...
Well I guess I better brush up on my Doublethink.
Freedom is slavery
Ignorance is strength
What was that other one....
oh yeah,
War is peace
Well I guess we are all strong, free and at peace, now that we have our Ministry of Truth
Well, then again the Justice department announced today that they are getting their fingers in to pie. Seems like Dunn doesn't have to worry about just California, but now the Feds.
This would be a civil matter, so a default judgmenet means that the plantif gets what they were asking for, subject to the judges approval. Civil courts do not deal in the absolutes with the mild gray areas of guilty or not guilty. Rather they deal with liable or not liable. If you are in a criminal proceding and you are found not guilty, it does not go to say that you are not civilally liable for the criminal act that you have been found not guilty of, and potentially vice versa. For example, OJ Simpson was found not guilty but was found liable for murder.
In a criminal case there is no such equivalent to a default judgement, becuase of the 5th, 6th and 14th amendment for due process. Unlike other countries, a court cannot try you for a crime if you are not there for the trial. If you fail to show up to court, you get a bench warrent issued for your arrest and you will wait for you day in court in a jail cell. If this was a criminal case (although if it was, then the computer would have been siezed), then it would have been obstruction of justice and maybe destroying evidence.
It is also important to note that some offense have both civil and criminal offenses. For example copyright infringment CAN be both criminal or civil. If you commit a criminal offense the offended can bring a civil suit against you for the criminal act.
I can't agree with you more.
The problem with an ad-supported operating system is that people expect the computer to work. And when they sit down to do their taxes, balance the check book or write an email they do not want to be hindered with ads about the latest tax, accounting software or email client that is available. Sure, this model may have some people who will do it. Heck, the reason I watch so little TV is because of the ads (and yes I know about Tivo), and the last thing that I want is to be attacked with ads while using the computer; I use the computer when I want to be entertained as is, why would I voluntarily invite it on to my computer? This is just the realization of ad folks that people are starting to spend inordinate amounts of time on the computer and they want to encrouch on where people are spending time. AOL is switching to an ad context, and they are going to offer free service. I think that many people would happily pay for an operating system just to avoid the ads.
Besides how much do you want to bet that an ad-supported OS would make the malware guys overly happy? Think about it. If a malware guy could take over the ad-subsystem on Windows, then the user might not even know it. So instead of getting reputable ads they start getting penis enhancment products and the like.
Exactly.
In information managmenet there is an idea called perfect secracy -- it means that something secrecy is so safe that only those who should have access do and those who shouldn't, don't.
The problem is that the cost and expertise to create something perfectly secret is way too expensive as to make perfect secrecy impossiable.
This lead to the idea of something being near perfectly secret, or the idea that if something is not securely secret, it can be like it if it protected in such a way that by time someone broke in, it wouldn't matter anyway. (i.e. you encrpyt a file with criminal evidence using a cypher, by the time the police crack it, the statute of limitations has passed; or business plans sent over the internet, by the time the competition cracks it, the plans are not relative)
This is why governments and companies don't really care if it will take 512 years or 1 million years to break encryption. If under current technology and the foreseeable technology, it can't be feasably broken, then it is as-good-as perfectly secret. That is the idea behind encryption. Sure you can get close, but trying to achieve perfect secrecy is going to be hard. Right now under AES you get something like 2^120 operatations before you have the possiability of obtaining a collision against a 128 bit key. So sure, you can throw a couple thousand computers at something, but the chance of breaking it is slim. Just in trying to generate the same hash as a password used, you could potentially generate enough data that would be equivalent to 2.5 times all the information stored on the internet, or about 256 exabytes. But AES is a strong, and considered secure, algorythmn that has not had a break other than side channel attacks.
Like the parent post stated, it would take a long time if using AES. And as far as us mortals are concerned, right now, anything encrypted with AES is perfectly secure.
So look at there method on the Satelite, it was weak, and I would argue not really encryption at all, more like a protocol.
Except for that pesky Eve, that likes to do man in the middle. If the system allows for someone to step into the middle, then it can be compromised.
Ah, I learned about social-engineering attacks in my security class....so this is what they were talking about....
A whole lot of a good a backdoor will do if the organization is using point-to-point encrpytion. I mean, just think about what will happen if this becomes common place? Organizations that want to keep the government out will simply migrate to IPV6 which encrypts everything by default. How would this work with Microsoft's idea of encrypting traffic to and from servers and other computers when they join a domain? Frankly, if someone has something to hide, it won't be that difficult to keep them out by using encryption technology. If I was a system admin with a router like this, I would implement some sort of point-to-point and broadcast level encryption.
Turning 18 means nothing.
When I turned 18 in high school, although nearly 8 years ago, I was forced to waive my rights to my parents and school in order to graduate.
We had something called Student Rights and Responsabilities. In that document I was required to sign it, have my parents sign it and then return it to school. If I did not sign the document I would be fined $60 a day for every day that I did not return it passed the due date. Further, I could not go in and cross off things that I did not like.
The reason that I had problems with it was principle. I did not want to waive nearly all constitutional protections, i.e. 4th, 5th, and 14th. But in order to graduate I had to pay with some of my constitutional rights.
The other thing that I would recommend would be to use the OSS sandboxie. It places IE in a sandbox, hence the name, to prevent infection problems.
This is an interesting approach in one respect -- Google actually has the money to be able to pursue anti-trust claims. Think about it. Every other group, personal or entitty that usually pursues an anti-trust claim is usually too small to do anything about it. If the Telcos decide on doing discriminating against Google, then Google can make a case and probably win some of them. If I was a Telco, I might think about playing nice.
No advocating a criminal lifestyle is fine. It is when that advocation and past performance leads to a crediable threat to another person.
No, he had his son taken away because he was advocating a criminal lifestyle, associated with an organization advocating a criminal life sytle AND he had a conviction which made the child treat crediable. If he had been sent to jail for it, then it would have been a violation. Losing his wife, job, and child is not a violation.
The Freedom of Speech means that you can speak and not be sent to jail or be persecuted by the government. But that right ends when it starts to affect other people, especially minors. Advocating something that is criminal when there is a potential victem in your home can be grounds to remove the potential victem. And since a child is in a situation that would make it hard to impossiable to leave, makes it much worse. If you advocated wife battering, your wife could effectively leave you with. A child can not; at least not with out experiencing some of the effects.
Many people think that the Freedom of Speech is absolute when it is not. It has never meant that you could speak and thereby threaten or imply a direct or indirect threat on someone. Free speach is not regulated when it comes to political matters.
Under your absolute interpetation, then it is okay for the polygamist in Utah to marry teenagers and for them to have many wifes citing religious privelage. Under your assesment of the Freedom of Speech, it is okay to take child porn pictures. Under your belief in Freedom of Association, it is okay for someone to join Al Quida as long as you don't do anything subversive.
What is important about the freedoms is to protect people when they speak politically.
Maybe not.
How about 14th and 6th Amendment protections. The right to due process is one of the major pivot points for criminal defense. A lot of people get off because their due process was violated. What I wonder if this will be challenged based on the fact that the statute allows for a police officer to gather evidence via video and audio, but disallows someone being investigated from recording and collecting damaging information about police misconduct. The police will argue that they should not be subject to being recorded because it would create a burden of paroania. However, the issue that I see is that by the statute in NH, you cannot gather evidence including audio at all unless you meet some strict rules.
Yet, the real issue is that law may very well not apply in this case. If you are involved in the conversation, then you are not intercepting the conversation. Note that the law says that a person must willfully intercept. Frankly, standing on your door step telling the police to get lost is not intercepting a police conversation. If you read the law, it seems to imply that hearing a conversation and relating it to another, is illegal under this statute (think writing an email about a conversation you had...technically it would be illegal under NH law.)
So I guess that this will end up getting dropped. Whether or not the guy was being a jerk to the police is irrelative. The point is that a person should have the right to record evidence of police misconduct on their own property.
Well yes and no.
There was a proof of concept virus that has the ability to use the ACPI interface to take over the BIOS.
If you could that virus with the root kit that uses virtualization, the computer is now completely hosed. The only way to fix it is to flash the BIOS, and if it first takes over the BIOS and prevents the warning dialogs then virtualizes the OS, you now have an incrediably powerful malware that can only be stopped when it is run on the computer. If you don't detect the malware out the gate, then you may or may never know that you have a problem.
The problem that computer security is having is that the people that can develop this stuff are not stupid. And it is rather hard to forecast what is going to happen with out knowing what the malware people are planning on.
Essentially this problem is going to result in the implementation of signed code for anything that runs outside of a very limited sandbox. Frankly, I think that we are going to see an era of virtualized everything -- where the hardware runs a hypervisor, with a master kernel, and everything else runs in the context of a virtual machine that groups simular resources. Unsigned code would then be run inside of its own virtual machine using a microkernel that links to the master kernel. Or something like that.