Listen, let's not confuse domain squatting - the act of sitting on a company's domain name waiting for them to want to build a web site - with the legitimate secondary market for domain names.
The former was a big problem "in the old days" as companies were trying to get to the web and found someone squatting on their name. This has been largely solved in the courts now, and few companies are making their first move to the web anymore anyway.
The secondary market for domains though is completely legit. I buy domain names that I expect to have value, whether I intend to use them or not, and then sell them to others when they want to use them. It's no different than you buying a piece of land and then someday selling it to someone who wants to build a shopping mall on it. You weren't squatting on the land, you just didn't know what (if) you were going to do with it. You paid for it, paid the taxes over the years and then sold it.
That's just the free market...don't like it, don't shop there.
The program will enable customers who purchase qualifying HP PCs to enjoy the benefits of a new Windows-based PC immediately and receive a free(1) upgrade to Windows 7 when it becomes available in October...
(1) Shipping and handling fees may apply depending on retailer/reseller.
In the demo on their site there's a blue arrow you can drag to resize the graphic. It's awkward but it does solve the problem.
http://www.passwindow.com/demo/index.html/
> I think the lesson propagated here is that you should sneak your patents into standards > you are supposedly helping with, as no harm will come to you from your misdeed.
No, I don't think so. The lesson to be learned here is that standards organizations should require full disclosure of relevant patents by all their members, and require them to forfeit future royalties if anything was omitted.
Perhaps Rambus took advantage of the situation and should've acted in a more ethical manner. But the court hasn't released the hounds and doomed all future standards.
> most of the time I just try and make sure my websites look alright in the various > Linux based browsers I have around, including Lynx fo course) [snip] > As a developer, I shall continue to ignore IE
This may be the most absurd thing I've ever seen modded +5 on Slashdot...and that's saying a lot. How in the world could a serious developer - especially a web developer - ignore IE? That's 90%+ of your visitors. Have you actually done any web development? It's not like IE just skews the colors a little or changes the font when it misbehaves...if you're not prepared for it the entire layout can be scrambled to hell.
Sure, I agree with some of your complaints about it but that swirly little "e" is right down in the Dock on my Mac...so I can fire it up in Fusion to test whatever I'm working on. IE 8, 9, 10, whatever, it's gonna be that way for a long time yet.
> So now you're hypervisor OR the OS it's running may get hacked
The avenues of attack against a hypervisor number far less than those against a guest OS...and should be zero behind a proper perimeter.
One thing no one mentioned in the article is that virtualization provides a great opportunity for intrusion detection. I haven't seen it implemented by anyone yet (admittedly I haven't been looking) but the concept at least allows for software running at the hypervisor level that could detect misbehaving or compromised guests. Surely something like that would be an increase in security since it would be running outside of the guest OS and not vulnerable to attack itself.
Strictly speaking, you're right...but people don't commonly make a distinction between the root and tld servers. TFA certainly didn't. And since Verisign has both roots and com/net they certainly have the information the article's talking about. You have to read that article very literally to think they're only talking about queries that hit the root.
Yeah, but real paper is easier yet on my eyes, also readable in sunlight and uses no power at all once it's printed.
Let's say an "e-paper tablet" comes on the market for...what...$500? I can buy 80,000 sheets of paper for the same price. I could use 50 sheets a day, every day, for FOUR YEARS and still come out ahead.
Maybe I'm missing something, but don't we already have a means of displaying digital documents? Can someone explain to me the point of distributing an "e-subscription" on "e-paper" when most people are spending more and more of their time on computers?
Novel, yes. Useful, I don't know...but I can buy more paper than I'll need in an entire year for $30 at Staples.
> I can tell you now, it's more like $200 per user when you've got just 80-100 users. > And that drops further as you add more users.
So...what? That doesn't make the argument any more compelling. Even at $100k, or even $50k, it's just a big line item that the airline derives absolutely no value from. Where would the payback come from on an investment in MS Office? Are people going to fly Competitor Airlines because they offer Genuine Microsoft Office instead of StarOffice? Or might they pick the one that's going where they want, when they want, with a decent rate? It's just a convenience item for travelers and as long as it works (and frankly even if it doesn't) then the airline has met their objectives.
Unless MS is flat giving it to them as some sort of...advertising?...then I just can't see it. And if they were going to go down that road, you can be damn sure the systems it was running on wouldn't be Linux.
> The summary says any content that is intended to be available to the public, > which email pretty much never is...I just don't trust some entity I have no > control over to host these sorts of things.
No, but you trust other entities you have no control over to transmit them right? The only time I ever have complete control over the entire channel, end to end, of a message transmission is here in the office...and even that's only if the recipient is in the office with me. Obviously if you're using Google Mail for something then you've already resigned yourself to this.
Placing information that's "particularly personal" or "business critical" on the Internet is dicey to say the least, and the terms of service of my mail host are way down the list of my concerns.
> TFA says that the systems run Microsoft Office, not StarOffice
Yeah, the two articles don't agree on that. But the system is based on the Panasonic eX2 which is Linux by all accounts. And simple math (500+ seats times $299 per office license) tells you a single plane would have an IT cost roughly equivalent to that of a mid-sized company.
I hate to spoil all the wild speculation that I'm sure is coming about sabotage, corporate meddling and such...but TFA says "somewhere between Montville, Ohio and Cleveland". Montville and the areas around it (where I live) are in the absolute middle of nowhere. The ratio of hillbillies-with-guns to things-to-use-for-target-practice is fairly high out here. It's not like someone was down in a manhole aiming at a fiber installation...more likely the beer cans fell down and the feller kept shootin' em.
Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
Re:did yall check the whois for groklaw?
on
SCO Vs. Groklaw
·
· Score: 2, Informative
That's the service GoDaddy uses when you chose "Make this domain private". They hold the registration and then just forward all the e-mail (and US mail too I believe) to whatever they have on record for you.
All it takes is someone with time to set it up, run it, and somehow make where the money is going transparent to the donors.
I've got yor first $20 right here.
Slashdot Mirror
Listen, let's not confuse domain squatting - the act of sitting on a company's domain name waiting for them to want to build a web site - with the legitimate secondary market for domain names.
The former was a big problem "in the old days" as companies were trying to get to the web and found someone squatting on their name. This has been largely solved in the courts now, and few companies are making their first move to the web anymore anyway.
The secondary market for domains though is completely legit. I buy domain names that I expect to have value, whether I intend to use them or not, and then sell them to others when they want to use them. It's no different than you buying a piece of land and then someday selling it to someone who wants to build a shopping mall on it. You weren't squatting on the land, you just didn't know what (if) you were going to do with it. You paid for it, paid the taxes over the years and then sold it.
That's just the free market...don't like it, don't shop there.
Looking at HP's press release (for example), it's not all that hidden.
http://www.hp.com/hpinfo/newsroom/press/2009/090625xa.html/
The program will enable customers who purchase qualifying HP PCs to enjoy the benefits of a new Windows-based PC immediately and receive a free(1) upgrade to Windows 7 when it becomes available in October...
(1) Shipping and handling fees may apply depending on retailer/reseller.
In the demo on their site there's a blue arrow you can drag to resize the graphic. It's awkward but it does solve the problem. http://www.passwindow.com/demo/index.html/
> I think the lesson propagated here is that you should sneak your patents into standards
> you are supposedly helping with, as no harm will come to you from your misdeed.
No, I don't think so. The lesson to be learned here is that standards organizations should require full disclosure of relevant patents by all their members, and require them to forfeit future royalties if anything was omitted.
Perhaps Rambus took advantage of the situation and should've acted in a more ethical manner. But the court hasn't released the hounds and doomed all future standards.
> Hello, are you stupid, people?
Haven't dropped in on the /. Apple section in a while, huh?
I've always found something like this or this is pretty effective.
> most of the time I just try and make sure my websites look alright in the various
> Linux based browsers I have around, including Lynx fo course)
[snip]
> As a developer, I shall continue to ignore IE
This may be the most absurd thing I've ever seen modded +5 on Slashdot...and that's saying a lot. How in the world could a serious developer - especially a web developer - ignore IE? That's 90%+ of your visitors. Have you actually done any web development? It's not like IE just skews the colors a little or changes the font when it misbehaves...if you're not prepared for it the entire layout can be scrambled to hell.
Sure, I agree with some of your complaints about it but that swirly little "e" is right down in the Dock on my Mac...so I can fire it up in Fusion to test whatever I'm working on. IE 8, 9, 10, whatever, it's gonna be that way for a long time yet.
> So now you're hypervisor OR the OS it's running may get hacked
The avenues of attack against a hypervisor number far less than those against a guest OS...and should be zero behind a proper perimeter.
One thing no one mentioned in the article is that virtualization provides a great opportunity for intrusion detection. I haven't seen it implemented by anyone yet (admittedly I haven't been looking) but the concept at least allows for software running at the hypervisor level that could detect misbehaving or compromised guests. Surely something like that would be an increase in security since it would be running outside of the guest OS and not vulnerable to attack itself.
> Also, you should never assume that someone posting on /. has read TFA. ;)
Ain't that the truth. Honestly, the article wasn't very clear...they said "root nameservers" but they sure implied com/net.
Strictly speaking, you're right...but people don't commonly make a distinction between the root and tld servers. TFA certainly didn't. And since Verisign has both roots and com/net they certainly have the information the article's talking about. You have to read that article very literally to think they're only talking about queries that hit the root.
> it doesn't seem like many requests would actually be getting through
When the caching server misses on a request, it forwards the request upstream...ultimately ending up at one of the root servers.
> Apple needs hit them where it hurts, the wallet.
We're talking about Greenpeace here. Hitting them where it hurts means pulling Phish from iTunes.
You must take really long bathroom breaks if you need that much reading material with you...
Yeah, but real paper is easier yet on my eyes, also readable in sunlight and uses no power at all once it's printed.
Let's say an "e-paper tablet" comes on the market for...what...$500? I can buy 80,000 sheets of paper for the same price. I could use 50 sheets a day, every day, for FOUR YEARS and still come out ahead.
Maybe I'm missing something, but don't we already have a means of displaying digital documents? Can someone explain to me the point of distributing an "e-subscription" on "e-paper" when most people are spending more and more of their time on computers?
Novel, yes. Useful, I don't know...but I can buy more paper than I'll need in an entire year for $30 at Staples.
> So - did I miss something, or did everyone else not RTFA?
You're new here, aren't you?
> I can tell you now, it's more like $200 per user when you've got just 80-100 users.
> And that drops further as you add more users.
So...what? That doesn't make the argument any more compelling. Even at $100k, or even $50k, it's just a big line item that the airline derives absolutely no value from. Where would the payback come from on an investment in MS Office? Are people going to fly Competitor Airlines because they offer Genuine Microsoft Office instead of StarOffice? Or might they pick the one that's going where they want, when they want, with a decent rate? It's just a convenience item for travelers and as long as it works (and frankly even if it doesn't) then the airline has met their objectives.
Unless MS is flat giving it to them as some sort of...advertising?...then I just can't see it. And if they were going to go down that road, you can be damn sure the systems it was running on wouldn't be Linux.
> The summary says any content that is intended to be available to the public,
> which email pretty much never is...I just don't trust some entity I have no
> control over to host these sorts of things.
No, but you trust other entities you have no control over to transmit them right? The only time I ever have complete control over the entire channel, end to end, of a message transmission is here in the office...and even that's only if the recipient is in the office with me. Obviously if you're using Google Mail for something then you've already resigned yourself to this.
Placing information that's "particularly personal" or "business critical" on the Internet is dicey to say the least, and the terms of service of my mail host are way down the list of my concerns.
> TFA says that the systems run Microsoft Office, not StarOffice
Yeah, the two articles don't agree on that. But the system is based on the Panasonic eX2 which is Linux by all accounts. And simple math (500+ seats times $299 per office license) tells you a single plane would have an IT cost roughly equivalent to that of a mid-sized company.
I think the smart money's on StarOffice here...
I hate to spoil all the wild speculation that I'm sure is coming about sabotage, corporate meddling and such...but TFA says "somewhere between Montville, Ohio and Cleveland". Montville and the areas around it (where I live) are in the absolute middle of nowhere. The ratio of hillbillies-with-guns to things-to-use-for-target-practice is fairly high out here. It's not like someone was down in a manhole aiming at a fiber installation...more likely the beer cans fell down and the feller kept shootin' em. Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
> go check out http://domainsbyproxy.com/ ;)
>
> awesome..
That's the service GoDaddy uses when you chose "Make this domain private". They hold the registration and then just forward all the e-mail (and US mail too I believe) to whatever they have on record for you.
Most registrars have something similar.
> And there's no rule that says you need to be honest on the Internet.
And it's a good thing too..otherwise we wouldn't have anyone left writing article summaries for Slashdot.
All it takes is someone with time to set it up, run it, and somehow make where the money is going transparent to the donors. I've got yor first $20 right here.
Now that's funny. Come on, someone with mod points...
Looks like the South Park gang was right after all.