OK, "security is top priority". As a security professional I think it's good that they've woken up.
However, I'd really like to know what are they going to DO about it, apart from the traditional "we'll train our programmers". This is a key question especially considering that they have millions of code lines written before security was any kind of priority.
I predict no radical changes to the number of discovered Microsoft software security flaws in the short term.
They have been saying that for the past few years. I know it looks like we haven't been "seeing" any progress as more and more vulnerabilities are uncovered in XP and IE. We do have to keep in mind, though, that that stuff was already written before it was discovered what a security nightmare it was and this big "Security is our top priority" pledge. There's too much existing poorly-thought-out code base to just fix it. We will have to wait and see with their Longhorn release if they have really written it from correct, security-conscious design principles to evaluate if there is actual change behind the big talk.
Again, Google is our friend. This phrase was originally written by Thomas Jefferson, in a letter(full text in that link). It was referring to the clause you mention to try to describe what that meant. So, to sum it up, that phrase was written down by one of our "forefathers" as a commentary on it, but was not, technically, in the Constitution.
In 2001 Mr. Young, Mrs. Wyatt and an assortment of other well-paid school administrators, defined the new number-one priority for teaching mathematics, as documented in the curriculum benchmarks, "Respect for Human Differences - students will live out the system wide core of 'Respect for Human Differences' by demonstrating anti-racist/anti-bias behaviors."
That sounds pretty fundamentalist to me.
You are not very familiar with the jargon and euphemisms used in the political arena. That language about "human differences" and "anti-bias" is actually the liberal position about promoting alternative lifestyles. The part about anti-bias deals with the aspect that anyone who expresses their belief that some choices are right or wrong is accused of bias, hate speech, intolerance, etc. That kind of twisting has turned the word "tolerance" into a one-way joke, where liberal ideas are to be promoted, while conservative ones are banned.
You're hardly a representative sample. Here in LA, I pay $60 for 3 Mbps download and 384 kbps upload (sucks for bittorrent). The fastest available service is Speakeasy DSL at 6 Mbps download and 768 kbps upload, but that costs $110 per month (and I'm considering it). Elsewhere it's worse, and of course in the country you're lucky to get broadband at all for any price.
The part that is frustrating me is that we have had these 1Mbps broadband connections for $40 or $50 a month for years. Over the last decade, the speed/price options keep going up but I'm not seeing any of it getting cheaper.
I really don't feel a need for a lot of bandwidth. I just want an always-on connection, faster than dialup (1Mbps would be fine), and a price of about $20 or less. I hate paying $45 a month for my cable internet, but the DSL in Boise Idaho is through Qwest and turns out to be the same price. Dialup prices have gone down toward $10 a month, so why isn't there a sweet spot for a low-end broadband between the $10 and $40 price points?
Napster needs to offer no DRM, fast downloads, no annoying and invasive advertising in the middle of the movies or anything, and a wide selection. If they can't do it, someone else will. Frankly though, I don't have much hope for them doing the right thing.
"You've been living in a dream world, Neo." No DRM==No content. The MPAA will not license to anyone who would distribute it without DRM. That's just reality, friend.
Sports has accidental injuries. I guess we can't watch anything being shown live because someone could fall and tear a knee ligament. We see people get injured in the Olympics too, but I guess we shouldn't watch that either because it's sports, huh?
Anyway, in response to "What on TV is more violent?" I would mention the cop shows that show people being beaten, shot, and killed. Since this discussion is focused on the effects it would have on children, I should bring up the point that there is a difference between accidental injury and purposefully attacking someone with the intent to hurt them. You don't want to teach them that it's OK to fight with someone and punch them if they feel angry.
Why don't you try using modern technology to block the stuff from being displayed on your television? For example, the V-Chip. Note on that page that there is a category for content only suitable for people 17 years or older, ostensibly adults. Why, then, can we not show that kind of content on broadcast television?
Actually you are right, and that does address my main point. I had forgotten that there was a V-Chip that can filter based on the show rating systems. I don't have kids so this hasn't been an issue I've had to deal with yet. So yes, broadcast channels should be able to show all those categories of shows if: 1. The V-chip detects the rating of each show. and 2. The broadcasters stay within the classification of the rating they have advertised for each program.
The 2nd point addresses the Super Bowl thing, where that kind of occurrence may have been fine for the later night, MA rated shows, but for something not rated as such, that should probably run with a few second delay so the network can control that.
Do you feel all big and mature now? Good. Let's continue with the discussion, shall we?
US television is incredibly violent, and no one complains that that will hurt children.
Maybe you just haven't been paying attention to it. Lots of people complain about how violent TV shows are and don't let their kids watch it. Violence can also have some negative effects on children. Violence wasn't the topic being discussed though, so I just hadn't addressed it. I wasn't saying it was perfectly all right.
If you think it's okay to show violence on TV -- in this case, actual violence, where grown men beat the living tar out of each other, and we witness injuries live -- why do you think you should win out over what the parent thinks is appropriate to show on TV?
You're trying to categorize sports as being TV violence? That's a bit of a stretch.
Just because you have no moral standards doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't have them either. There is a reason why television systems are intentionally divided into broadcast spectrum(free and censored) and special-delivery content like cable(not free and not as censored).
I've heard your analogy before from others that, "X happens in real life, therefore we should show it to our children on TV." and it still doesn't hold water. Sure, a lot of things happen in real life--child abuse, domestic violence, etc. but I don't think it's appropriate to show everything that happens in real life to kids. A line has to be drawn somewhere. I don't think "Desperate Housewives", to use your example, would be appropriate for my kids either, but that is a decision that parents can make based on what type of show it is. The post you were responding to was making the point that parents should have been able to judge from the expected content of a televised football game and were instead given something outside of those bounds.
If you want to show your kids "sex, drugs and rock-'n'-roll" as you say, then you are free to do that in the movies you rent or stuff you watch at home on cable, or whatever. I wouldn't want to prohibit you from doing so, but broadcast television is not the place for that.
Going beyond the financial institutions topic that everyone has been bringing up, I worked on a team that did the Y2K evaluation and fixing for a steel mill here in the U.S. As you mention "big machines running custom software", that was definitely the case there. They had lots of dangerous equipment there--furnaces that went up to thousands of degrees and such that were largely controlled by computer programs mostly written in FORTRAN. That was the kind of stuff that never gets changed or upgraded. The motto is, "If it has worked fine for the past 30 years, we don't want to mess with it until we have to."
Speaking of this, here is a humor story about Y2K.
There was an aging COBOL programmer, who for years had been looked down upon by his colleagues who were skilled in client/server, C++, HTML, Java, etc. He eventually got his own back, because Y2K came along, and he found his skills were in great demand as a Y2K analyst. He had to work long hours, but his daily rates were very high, so he made loads of money.
After a couple of years, he was burnt out. He got to the stage where he'd see lines of COBOL float past whenever he shut his eyes, and he had regular nightmares about the year 2000. One day, he saw an advert for a cryogenics company. He contacted them, and they assured him they could put him in cryogenic suspension until after the year 2000. The process was very expensive, but he reasoned he could afford it, so he agreed to it. He really looked forward to waking up in the year 2001 so that he could put the year 2000 behind him and get on with the rest of his life.
He was anaesthetized, and the next thing he knew, he was waking up in the cryogenic chamber. The room seemed much more high-tech than he remembered, and it was full of very excited looking people saying things like "he's still alive", "we've done it" and "it's a miracle". One of the technicians explained that the cryogenic equipment hadn't been Y2K compliant, and they'd only just been able to override the equipment to wake him up. In fact, he'd been asleep for several thousand years. The technician said there was someone very important who wished to speak to him.
A large screen that filled most of one wall lit up, and a man appeared on the screen. He explained he was the President of the Earth. He said that the world was at peace, that famine and disease were a thing of the past, mankind had colonized the planets and that it was a great time to be alive. He said they were very excited that they'd been able to revive him.
The programmer said he could understand their excitement, seeing as he'd been asleep for so long. The president said, "Oh no, it's not that at all. It's going to be the year 10,000 in a couple of years time, and you're the last COBOL programmer left alive".
Remember, in their fantasy world each illegal copy is retail price lost.
Hmm, so if I have a copy of one of their movies on my hard drive and I make a duplicate of it on my hard drive, they lose another sale? Wow, now we know how to bankrupt them!;)
I throw down the gauntlet to you to name a non-profit/charity type organization that is entirely on Linux.
The Free Software Foundation?
You should not have been rewarded with a mod point for that. The FSF is an organization whose purpose is to use Linux, rather than provide help to anyone. That is why I said "non-profit/charity" organization, rather than just a non-profit. You were ignoring the question, which was about beneficial charities like the Red Cross, Salvation Army, American Way, etc. that are trying to help people. They don't exist for Linux; they exist to help people, so your response is meaningless. IHBT.
I like the FSF, and I think it's a great thing, but remember the original discussion. The guy was talking about not giving to this charity because they don't use Linux for all their systems. I was making the point that you probably won't find any charities that do, so don't hold back donations from helping people just because whatever organization is trying to help doesn't have the resources or knowhow to convert their systems to Linux.
Yeah, I noticed that. Users are up to 2,374 now, but here is something interesting to note from the ranking statistics. Points Generated should be closely related to Results Returned, but Points are related to the relative strength of the machine. The Slashdot team ranking higher in Points over Results seems to indicate that the average machine on this Slashdot team is more powerful than most other teams.
Their health care system, infant mortality rate and many other markers for "good life" are better than USA:-).
I'm not surprised if many countries have lower infant mortality rates than the US because the US does so many abortions that it kills (ha) that statistic.
Let's back up and look at the big picture. What's the argument here? That it should be illegal to link to illegal material? In other words, that it should be illegal to say "There is illegal activity going on at such-and-such location"? Obviously that entirely cripples the ability to report crimes, and is ridiculous, so lets confine this to the internet.
That gives me a really interesting idea. Let's say that you design a site called "piratewatch" or something that is for "reporting copyright infringement", which "reports" links to torrent files. You can clearly state on the site that this information is provided to assist the authorities in stopping this infringement. Now, they have officially represented themselves on the "good side" in reporting illegal activity. It is obviously against the purpose of their site to use it for any personal infringement. Now what reasoning could the MPAA give for trying to stop them?
You work for a non-profit organization and it's shelling out contribution money for Microsoft products? You are wasting money that has been given to you in good faith by countless people. Christ, remind me never to give money to your wasteful organization. I'll save my money for a group that doesn't turn my contributions over to an illegal monopoly.
I'm mad at you and mad at the mod who marked you insightful. Someone already replied to you about the aspect of most people and organizations not knowing about Linux, but I throw down the gauntlet to you to name a non-profit/charity type organization that is entirely on Linux. This is just flamebait at best and a lame excuse to justify your refusal to donate to charity at worst.
Heh, I work in a large cube farm, and I thought we had a big air circulation system in the ceiling that ran all the time until one day when maintenance was fixing something in the ceiling, and pulled down one of the hissing speakers, saying, "What is this?" It actually works really well.
Slashdot Mirror
But there really IS a wookie!! :)
Again, Google is our friend. This phrase was originally written by Thomas Jefferson, in a letter(full text in that link). It was referring to the clause you mention to try to describe what that meant. So, to sum it up, that phrase was written down by one of our "forefathers" as a commentary on it, but was not, technically, in the Constitution.
I really don't feel a need for a lot of bandwidth. I just want an always-on connection, faster than dialup (1Mbps would be fine), and a price of about $20 or less. I hate paying $45 a month for my cable internet, but the DSL in Boise Idaho is through Qwest and turns out to be the same price. Dialup prices have gone down toward $10 a month, so why isn't there a sweet spot for a low-end broadband between the $10 and $40 price points?
I can't believe you actually found an article on /. where that game is on topic.
Sports has accidental injuries. I guess we can't watch anything being shown live because someone could fall and tear a knee ligament. We see people get injured in the Olympics too, but I guess we shouldn't watch that either because it's sports, huh?
Anyway, in response to "What on TV is more violent?" I would mention the cop shows that show people being beaten, shot, and killed. Since this discussion is focused on the effects it would have on children, I should bring up the point that there is a difference between accidental injury and purposefully attacking someone with the intent to hurt them. You don't want to teach them that it's OK to fight with someone and punch them if they feel angry.
1. The V-chip detects the rating of each show. and
2. The broadcasters stay within the classification of the rating they have advertised for each program.
The 2nd point addresses the Super Bowl thing, where that kind of occurrence may have been fine for the later night, MA rated shows, but for something not rated as such, that should probably run with a few second delay so the network can control that.
Maybe you just haven't been paying attention to it. Lots of people complain about how violent TV shows are and don't let their kids watch it. Violence can also have some negative effects on children. Violence wasn't the topic being discussed though, so I just hadn't addressed it. I wasn't saying it was perfectly all right.You're trying to categorize sports as being TV violence? That's a bit of a stretch.
Just because you have no moral standards doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't have them either. There is a reason why television systems are intentionally divided into broadcast spectrum(free and censored) and special-delivery content like cable(not free and not as censored).
I've heard your analogy before from others that, "X happens in real life, therefore we should show it to our children on TV." and it still doesn't hold water. Sure, a lot of things happen in real life--child abuse, domestic violence, etc. but I don't think it's appropriate to show everything that happens in real life to kids. A line has to be drawn somewhere. I don't think "Desperate Housewives", to use your example, would be appropriate for my kids either, but that is a decision that parents can make based on what type of show it is. The post you were responding to was making the point that parents should have been able to judge from the expected content of a televised football game and were instead given something outside of those bounds.
If you want to show your kids "sex, drugs and rock-'n'-roll" as you say, then you are free to do that in the movies you rent or stuff you watch at home on cable, or whatever. I wouldn't want to prohibit you from doing so, but broadcast television is not the place for that.
Geez, that's crazy. I saw the same thing. "Ya know, Tux always seemed like such a nice penguin."
After reading the summary and then even the comments here, I'm still looking for the button to switch Slashdot back to English.
Speaking of this, here is a humor story about Y2K.
I like the FSF, and I think it's a great thing, but remember the original discussion. The guy was talking about not giving to this charity because they don't use Linux for all their systems. I was making the point that you probably won't find any charities that do, so don't hold back donations from helping people just because whatever organization is trying to help doesn't have the resources or knowhow to convert their systems to Linux.
Yeah, I noticed that. Users are up to 2,374 now, but here is something interesting to note from the ranking statistics. Points Generated should be closely related to Results Returned, but Points are related to the relative strength of the machine. The Slashdot team ranking higher in Points over Results seems to indicate that the average machine on this Slashdot team is more powerful than most other teams.
No, I don't think it's figured into the statistics. It was social commentary.
Whoa! OK, that is truly awesome. I thought polar bears were the only predators the penguins had. Well, other than MS :)
Penguins eaten by the seals??? Those must have been larger and more vicious seals than the ones we have here on Earth.
That's funny, but really sad in that it is true.
Heh, I work in a large cube farm, and I thought we had a big air circulation system in the ceiling that ran all the time until one day when maintenance was fixing something in the ceiling, and pulled down one of the hissing speakers, saying, "What is this?" It actually works really well.