So, is Linus going to put out an advisory that there may be some random explit in the Gimp that allows user level access to hackers?
If we were paying $200/copy for Linus' work, I bet he would.
Kinda silly eh?
The only thing that's silly is dismissing quality controls for paid products on the grounds that we don't expect the same standards from completely free products.
You get what you pay for: Microsoft is overcharging. How many millions of American 401(k) investment dollars has Bill Gates run off with? How many millions has Linux run off with? We have a right to expect more from Bill. We paid for it.
Please back up your assertion that this is "bordering" on criminally neglient.
Yes, yes. We all know how apologists will assert to their death that there is no negligence or violation of expected product quality unless there's death and dismemberment.
Microsoft has been charging money for a product which has demonstrated it's ability to be substandard for over a decade. Open source software, at the very worst, is on par AND it gives customers infinite flexibility.
On the other hand, I didn't pay $199 per copy of "The Gimp" and, as a condition of my use of said software, it clearly tells me that I am free to modify the code to my liking. Thus, I don't feel that "The Gimp" and the "GTK" projects owe me merchantability. Microsoft (on the other hand) I do feel owes me - at least - merchantability to perform as advertised...
This is also my final point of contention when people attack the security vulnerabilities in open source software.
I didn't pay $200 for it, I can assume responsibility for keeping it patched and secure. But jay-HEE-zus, if I pay $200 for something, I expect them to fix it before every script kiddie with a Google hit can poison it!
What always confuses me, as an outsider, is why so often in discussions about the political system in America, the opinions of the 'founding fathers' are invoked as a standard by which the current situation can be gauged in terms of its democratic legitimacy. Who cares what they thought, or what their purposes were in setting up obscure systems like the electoral college?
It's about context. The founding fathers never intended for the federal government to have a direct impact on the individual lives of American citizens. The federal republic was to be a microgovernment with very small and specific duties. All other aspects of governance were to be left to the states and localities. In this system of a micro federal republic the concept of an electoral college is very logical and reasonable. Only the elitist members of the electoral college are intimately familiar with the systems which make up the responsibility of the federal executive officer. His job was never to be one which would directly involve the affairs of everyday citizens.
Fast forward 200 years and our federal republic is quite obviously outside of the scope of its original inception. The federal republic now routinely involves itself in laws and policies which directly affect common citizens on a daily basis. Many people, therefore, feel that they should have more of a voice in choosing the federal executive officer who holds so much power to influence their daily lives.
Personally I feel the founding fathers had it right. The federal government is not well suited to do the things that it does. It is about selecting the right tool for the job. The operation of our federal government is similar to taking a one yard long adjustable crescent wrench (for use on farm tractors and airplanes) and winding it down to fine tune a 10-speed bicycle derailleur. The federal government should concern itself only in providing assistance for the states to conglomerate but at no time should it write the rules for those states to conglomerate by. Within US borders the federal government should be a mediator. It should only act as an enforcer in pursuit of federal or interstate felonies. Outside the US borders the federal government has the legitimate duty of representing our interests abroad though the extent to which they've amassed a standing/rotating/viscuous/vacuous/ephemeral army is quite questionable as well.
People who talk about the founding fathers are often campaigning to preserve the true republic. As things stand now we have a democratically elected communist state. Given the amount of control the federal government has over the GDP directly (federal budget) and indirectly (regulatory), the federal government serves more as a redistribution system than as a republic.
What's the point... the turn out for voting is always at an all time low... the system is flawed... we need a better system to elect people to power
When two children are fighting, as is often the case when Republicans and Democrats continually debate distraction issues, it is never a good idea to voice support of one child over the other. This will only escalate the argument, involve other children as the opponents build their support groups, and otherwise cause further problems such as animosity and childish pouting. All of these things can be seen in both the Democrat and Republican camps.
When two children are fighting the best thing to do is to send both of them to separate rooms. Take priveleges away from both of them. Let both of them know that such behavior is unacceptable, will not be tolerated, and further bickering will only result in further abrogation of priveleges.
how would you like it if your boss gave you a timely drop in salary
Ask the people who lost their IT jobs to work at McDonald's. Ask the tens of thousands who were laid off in the pharmaceutical industry to take jobs at 75% their former pay
Do you honestly think the PC gaming market is big enough to push Congress
The suggestion for levels of computers coming from the world's largest software manufacturer can only men to include a political aspect. It would be naive to think otherwise. It's a long term business plan, not a short term sales gimmick.
1. Establish a level system for computers. 2. Establish a certification system, which includes hardware compatibility specs, for the levels. 3. Begin the process of selecting the ordained hardware suppliers. 4. Using the game consoles as an example, show that production lines producing integrated systems are more profitable. 5. Begin producing more integrated desktops. While integrated desktops have not dominated the market in the past, the combined effect of the level system and the existing technology on the game console production lines will make integrated desktops much more attractive from a corporate finance point of view. 6. Ensure that the marketing and political department lobbies Congress to require all government computer purchase contracts have a minimum level, which only qualifies through the use of a Microsoft approved DRM BIOS and an integrated mobo from a producer who signs contracts only with Microsoft approved hardware vendors.
I understand that the/. crowd likes to debate things in terms of it's merit/flaws over the course of the next 5 minutes but you people really need to start thinking ahead. If a person represents government or any company of more than 20 people, then the only topics which they discuss are topics which are MAJOR BUSINESS PLANS. If you want to really know what's going on, you MUST THINK how the topic will be used over the course of at least 10, if not 20 years.
Is this going to be like blackboxing cars for insurance companies?
Business insurance rates will receive discounts for retailers who sell only certified computers which conform to the level system as it (will be) can be shown that certified level computers have fewer hardware defects, returns, or warranty claims. Vendors therefore will seek out distributors who only deal in level certified computing systems. As with all certification and standardization it will be much easier to certify the level of the computer if all the hardware is integrated. Manufacturers will now control the add-on industry--they will select who gets the contracts for DVD ROMS, CD ROMS, vid cards, audio cards, network cards. It will be easy to wheedle a BIOS chip into the level certification and standardization. Major retailers will only carry at least level X computers as an assurance of product quality, and of course only the latest MS patented DRM will qualify for level X certification.
Oh bless me. I can see the wonderful corruption, backstabbing, price fixing, and political graft already.
If there is a standardized convention, if you will, then levels will be similar across the board and not vary wildly from manufacturer to manufacturer
Ah yes. I can see it now. Large companies will be able to shift the blame for bad coding to insufficient hardware. In the clamor for overall product quality the politicians will establish a certification system. With hardware certification will come lockin and subsidy similar to automobile or airplane manufacturers.
Say goodbye to modular cards and customizable desktops. You will take what the industry wants to shove down your throat and you will like it.
Plus i dont think theres a need for the law anyway, i think 99% of theses hosts require you to list valid information by ICANN and if they dont inforce it they can loose there hosting business?? Am i correct?? I am not 100% sure of this
I think you are correct but it's much easier to offload the penalties on individual users than to start a Registrar vs. ICANN war. Registrars are businesses (grain of salt) backed by investments and attorneys.
Nowadays, the Constitution is routinely ignored by the government except when it serves the interest of those in power to invoke it
Agreed.
Unfortunately, most people are far to apathetic and self-centered to make a stand.
What a crock. Standing in the food line at the Salvation Army because you decided to "make a stand" gets old real quick. We cannot demand that our government abide by the Constitution for two reasons: 1) We're too far down the wrong road, and 2) The size 16 authoritarian boot is quite adept at kicking our butts.
The prevailing rebuke from those in power is always,"If you don't like it then you're free to leave." Those of us with the foolishness to actually try leaving find out first hand how homeless shelters and food lines work. To add insult to injury, when we return, we have no finances, no vehicle, and are piled under a mound of debt.
The real problem isn't false information in WHOIS databases. The real problem was allowing every stock broker with a geek relative to set up a registrar. I don't remember there being a Constitutional right to have a domain name.
In the beginning the internet was ruled (for the most part) by technology people, for technology people. The technology people did a reasonable job keeping their own arena in check. Wall Street showed up when they saw potential dollar signs. The technology people held back, forcing Wall Street to jump through hoops and hurdles to come up with funding and learn the jargon and the ways of computer science. This was wholly unacceptable to Wall Street as it was standing in the way of the technology bubble which would make them extraordinarily rich. Wall Street worked diligently through Congress to use public tax money (namely 401k funding) to subsidize the explosion of companies in the internet sector who both provided the equipment (personal computers, Windows support), the services (ISPs), and the content (web sites) for the web. As more people swamped to the network they learned about domain name registration and everyone wanted to be cool and have one. Domain name registration was no longer NSF subsidized and Wall Street quickly realized that being a registrar was a profitable endeavor. I feel that domain name registration should have remained subsidized to force the politicians to consider the result of their actions. I pay tax money. What's changed between now and '92?
The real problem is not the pollution of WHOIS databases. The real problem was the underhanded pillaging of public tax money to bring everyone, good/bad/indifferent, to the open network. If left to its own methods the computing industry would have evolved much more productively. There would never have been a complete sanitation (USENET trolls, a little spam) but the signal to noise ratio would have been preserved as much higher.
My employer uses SecureID for their dialup. I've managed to get quite good at waiting for the next SecureID token change, quickly modifying the chatscript file, and then initiating the dialup sequence. One of these days I'm going to explore using miniterm to manually atdt my employer, manually enter the login info, and then initiate the pppd from another shell.
I don't know if AOL ever made a Linux client. I never cared for AOL.
How long until the AOL service department implements a policy for allowing users into their accounts when they've lost the SecureID, or their spouse accidentally took it with them, or they're on a business trip and left it at home? I see this being a perfect route for social engineering of unauthorized access.
Isn't there a law someplace about knowingly compromising someone's computer for use without their explicit consent? Sabotage, or stalking, or just plain theft?
Over the first six months, the number of monitored bot networks rose to more than 30,000, from fewer than 2,000.
This is like saying that there's an increase in monitoring car dealerships which steal cars to resell to car rental agencies. Can we repo the cars which are within US borders? Are _ALL_ of the botnet owners somehow in other countries?
With a significant portion of internet traffic running through Virginia shouldn't it be a pretty basic task to monitor and shut these down? I acknowledge that it would take time, and manpower, and some forensic skill but clearly it can't be impossible.
The EULA defense has held up pretty well. The only way to call an EULA into question is if it involves death or dismemberment. Outside the realm of physical human mutilation it seems the concept of product quality and false advertising holds no water once the product is purchased. I guess they get around false advertising by carefully not including any real information in any advertisements.
Living in a world with Microsoft is like living in a world composed entirely of beautiful women--who are all 100% psychotic. Oh wait...
Slashdot Mirror
When one of our guests went over the limit, it crashed the whole store
640k of purchases is enough for anyone.
So, is Linus going to put out an advisory that there may be some random explit in the Gimp that allows user level access to hackers?
If we were paying $200/copy for Linus' work, I bet he would.
Kinda silly eh?
The only thing that's silly is dismissing quality controls for paid products on the grounds that we don't expect the same standards from completely free products.
You get what you pay for: Microsoft is overcharging. How many millions of American 401(k) investment dollars has Bill Gates run off with? How many millions has Linux run off with? We have a right to expect more from Bill. We paid for it.
Please back up your assertion that this is "bordering" on criminally neglient.
Yes, yes. We all know how apologists will assert to their death that there is no negligence or violation of expected product quality unless there's death and dismemberment.
Microsoft has been charging money for a product which has demonstrated it's ability to be substandard for over a decade. Open source software, at the very worst, is on par AND it gives customers infinite flexibility.
On the other hand, I didn't pay $199 per copy of "The Gimp" and, as a condition of my use of said software, it clearly tells me that I am free to modify the code to my liking. Thus, I don't feel that "The Gimp" and the "GTK" projects owe me merchantability. Microsoft (on the other hand) I do feel owes me - at least - merchantability to perform as advertised...
This is also my final point of contention when people attack the security vulnerabilities in open source software.
I didn't pay $200 for it, I can assume responsibility for keeping it patched and secure. But jay-HEE-zus, if I pay $200 for something, I expect them to fix it before every script kiddie with a Google hit can poison it!
What always confuses me, as an outsider, is why so often in discussions about the political system in America, the opinions of the 'founding fathers' are invoked as a standard by which the current situation can be gauged in terms of its democratic legitimacy. Who cares what they thought, or what their purposes were in setting up obscure systems like the electoral college?
It's about context. The founding fathers never intended for the federal government to have a direct impact on the individual lives of American citizens. The federal republic was to be a microgovernment with very small and specific duties. All other aspects of governance were to be left to the states and localities. In this system of a micro federal republic the concept of an electoral college is very logical and reasonable. Only the elitist members of the electoral college are intimately familiar with the systems which make up the responsibility of the federal executive officer. His job was never to be one which would directly involve the affairs of everyday citizens.
Fast forward 200 years and our federal republic is quite obviously outside of the scope of its original inception. The federal republic now routinely involves itself in laws and policies which directly affect common citizens on a daily basis. Many people, therefore, feel that they should have more of a voice in choosing the federal executive officer who holds so much power to influence their daily lives.
Personally I feel the founding fathers had it right. The federal government is not well suited to do the things that it does. It is about selecting the right tool for the job. The operation of our federal government is similar to taking a one yard long adjustable crescent wrench (for use on farm tractors and airplanes) and winding it down to fine tune a 10-speed bicycle derailleur. The federal government should concern itself only in providing assistance for the states to conglomerate but at no time should it write the rules for those states to conglomerate by. Within US borders the federal government should be a mediator. It should only act as an enforcer in pursuit of federal or interstate felonies. Outside the US borders the federal government has the legitimate duty of representing our interests abroad though the extent to which they've amassed a standing/rotating/viscuous/vacuous/ephemeral army is quite questionable as well.
People who talk about the founding fathers are often campaigning to preserve the true republic. As things stand now we have a democratically elected communist state. Given the amount of control the federal government has over the GDP directly (federal budget) and indirectly (regulatory), the federal government serves more as a redistribution system than as a republic.
he sat frozen for over a half hour
I guess being independently wealthy has its priveleges, huh?
When the space shuttle Colombia exploded we took nearly half of the day to watch the footage over and over and talk and grieve about it.
When the WTC was attacked most of us lamented the horrible occurence and, within 15 minutes, were back to work under the hostile eye of the managers.
What's the point... the turn out for voting is always at an all time low... the system is flawed... we need a better system to elect people to power
When two children are fighting, as is often the case when Republicans and Democrats continually debate distraction issues, it is never a good idea to voice support of one child over the other. This will only escalate the argument, involve other children as the opponents build their support groups, and otherwise cause further problems such as animosity and childish pouting. All of these things can be seen in both the Democrat and Republican camps.
When two children are fighting the best thing to do is to send both of them to separate rooms. Take priveleges away from both of them. Let both of them know that such behavior is unacceptable, will not be tolerated, and further bickering will only result in further abrogation of priveleges.
Do not vote. It only encourages them.
My account was just upgraded today. I've had it since '96.
who in turn got it from the Reagan crowd with their idiotic 'trickle-down' policies
My favorite anecdote: "There's no trickle-down if the net flow is up."
Bush has embraced "corporate national socialism", and abandoned the working class
The way things are going, I'd like to abandon the working class as well. Is there a HOWTO on Linuxdoc.org for how to do it?
how would you like it if your boss gave you a timely drop in salary
Ask the people who lost their IT jobs to work at McDonald's. Ask the tens of thousands who were laid off in the pharmaceutical industry to take jobs at 75% their former pay
To them, it's all the same.
Do you honestly think the PC gaming market is big enough to push Congress
/. crowd likes to debate things in terms of it's merit/flaws over the course of the next 5 minutes but you people really need to start thinking ahead. If a person represents government or any company of more than 20 people, then the only topics which they discuss are topics which are MAJOR BUSINESS PLANS. If you want to really know what's going on, you MUST THINK how the topic will be used over the course of at least 10, if not 20 years.
The suggestion for levels of computers coming from the world's largest software manufacturer can only men to include a political aspect. It would be naive to think otherwise. It's a long term business plan, not a short term sales gimmick.
1. Establish a level system for computers.
2. Establish a certification system, which includes hardware compatibility specs, for the levels.
3. Begin the process of selecting the ordained hardware suppliers.
4. Using the game consoles as an example, show that production lines producing integrated systems are more profitable.
5. Begin producing more integrated desktops. While integrated desktops have not dominated the market in the past, the combined effect of the level system and the existing technology on the game console production lines will make integrated desktops much more attractive from a corporate finance point of view.
6. Ensure that the marketing and political department lobbies Congress to require all government computer purchase contracts have a minimum level, which only qualifies through the use of a Microsoft approved DRM BIOS and an integrated mobo from a producer who signs contracts only with Microsoft approved hardware vendors.
I understand that the
What can't I change on this thing?
Because there are no bolts or screws on an integrated desktop where everything is hard soldered together?
Is this going to be like blackboxing cars for insurance companies?
Business insurance rates will receive discounts for retailers who sell only certified computers which conform to the level system as it (will be) can be shown that certified level computers have fewer hardware defects, returns, or warranty claims. Vendors therefore will seek out distributors who only deal in level certified computing systems. As with all certification and standardization it will be much easier to certify the level of the computer if all the hardware is integrated. Manufacturers will now control the add-on industry--they will select who gets the contracts for DVD ROMS, CD ROMS, vid cards, audio cards, network cards. It will be easy to wheedle a BIOS chip into the level certification and standardization. Major retailers will only carry at least level X computers as an assurance of product quality, and of course only the latest MS patented DRM will qualify for level X certification.
Oh bless me. I can see the wonderful corruption, backstabbing, price fixing, and political graft already.
If there is a standardized convention, if you will, then levels will be similar across the board and not vary wildly from manufacturer to manufacturer
Ah yes. I can see it now. Large companies will be able to shift the blame for bad coding to insufficient hardware. In the clamor for overall product quality the politicians will establish a certification system. With hardware certification will come lockin and subsidy similar to automobile or airplane manufacturers.
Say goodbye to modular cards and customizable desktops. You will take what the industry wants to shove down your throat and you will like it.
IANAL
EULA
couldn't a corporation hold microsoft liable for damages incurred to an unpatched system?
No.
The headline says that new graduates are earning highers salaries. Since we're not new graduates, we're still getting shafted.
It's always nice to see the guy right out of college get hired in for more cash than I'm making with 10 years of experience.
Plus i dont think theres a need for the law anyway, i think 99% of theses hosts require you to list valid information by ICANN and if they dont inforce it they can loose there hosting business?? Am i correct?? I am not 100% sure of this
I think you are correct but it's much easier to offload the penalties on individual users than to start a Registrar vs. ICANN war. Registrars are businesses (grain of salt) backed by investments and attorneys.
Nowadays, the Constitution is routinely ignored by the government except when it serves the interest of those in power to invoke it
Agreed.
Unfortunately, most people are far to apathetic and self-centered to make a stand.
What a crock. Standing in the food line at the Salvation Army because you decided to "make a stand" gets old real quick. We cannot demand that our government abide by the Constitution for two reasons: 1) We're too far down the wrong road, and 2) The size 16 authoritarian boot is quite adept at kicking our butts.
The prevailing rebuke from those in power is always,"If you don't like it then you're free to leave." Those of us with the foolishness to actually try leaving find out first hand how homeless shelters and food lines work. To add insult to injury, when we return, we have no finances, no vehicle, and are piled under a mound of debt.
The real problem isn't false information in WHOIS databases. The real problem was allowing every stock broker with a geek relative to set up a registrar. I don't remember there being a Constitutional right to have a domain name.
In the beginning the internet was ruled (for the most part) by technology people, for technology people. The technology people did a reasonable job keeping their own arena in check. Wall Street showed up when they saw potential dollar signs. The technology people held back, forcing Wall Street to jump through hoops and hurdles to come up with funding and learn the jargon and the ways of computer science. This was wholly unacceptable to Wall Street as it was standing in the way of the technology bubble which would make them extraordinarily rich. Wall Street worked diligently through Congress to use public tax money (namely 401k funding) to subsidize the explosion of companies in the internet sector who both provided the equipment (personal computers, Windows support), the services (ISPs), and the content (web sites) for the web. As more people swamped to the network they learned about domain name registration and everyone wanted to be cool and have one. Domain name registration was no longer NSF subsidized and Wall Street quickly realized that being a registrar was a profitable endeavor. I feel that domain name registration should have remained subsidized to force the politicians to consider the result of their actions. I pay tax money. What's changed between now and '92?
The real problem is not the pollution of WHOIS databases. The real problem was the underhanded pillaging of public tax money to bring everyone, good/bad/indifferent, to the open network. If left to its own methods the computing industry would have evolved much more productively. There would never have been a complete sanitation (USENET trolls, a little spam) but the signal to noise ratio would have been preserved as much higher.
My employer uses SecureID for their dialup. I've managed to get quite good at waiting for the next SecureID token change, quickly modifying the chatscript file, and then initiating the dialup sequence. One of these days I'm going to explore using miniterm to manually atdt my employer, manually enter the login info, and then initiate the pppd from another shell.
I don't know if AOL ever made a Linux client. I never cared for AOL.
How long until the AOL service department implements a policy for allowing users into their accounts when they've lost the SecureID, or their spouse accidentally took it with them, or they're on a business trip and left it at home? I see this being a perfect route for social engineering of unauthorized access.
All it does is make an attack "more" difficult, but nowhere near impossible
It also makes Linux dialup (chatscripts) darn near impossible.
Isn't there a law someplace about knowingly compromising someone's computer for use without their explicit consent? Sabotage, or stalking, or just plain theft?
Over the first six months, the number of monitored bot networks rose to more than 30,000, from fewer than 2,000.
This is like saying that there's an increase in monitoring car dealerships which steal cars to resell to car rental agencies. Can we repo the cars which are within US borders? Are _ALL_ of the botnet owners somehow in other countries?
With a significant portion of internet traffic running through Virginia shouldn't it be a pretty basic task to monitor and shut these down? I acknowledge that it would take time, and manpower, and some forensic skill but clearly it can't be impossible.
I know that no defense is necessarily bulletproof
The EULA defense has held up pretty well. The only way to call an EULA into question is if it involves death or dismemberment. Outside the realm of physical human mutilation it seems the concept of product quality and false advertising holds no water once the product is purchased. I guess they get around false advertising by carefully not including any real information in any advertisements.
Living in a world with Microsoft is like living in a world composed entirely of beautiful women--who are all 100% psychotic. Oh wait...