Seriously, I haven't seen any natural-language software reach the point where I would trust it with medical information.
Would you rather have it outsourced to someone overseas who your doctor met on the Internet? That more-or-less happened here. The person can't be held responsible.
US authorities would have a hell of a time finding them, and, if they did, there's not much they could do anyway. Do you still think this person is more reliabile than computer software? I don't think either is reliable enough.
But honestly, travelling that fast, if anything went wrong you're toast. Turn a little bit to the wrong side, and suddenly you've lost a wing from the shock.
You can bet someone said the same thing when the Wright Brothers put a plane in the air. They're testing this; they're not putting it into production. We still have a lot to learn, and this is a big step in the right direction.
Good luck to the fine men and women at NASA. We'll be watching.
Do you know the requirements for this system? Do you know what type of gear this is? Do you know how it is assembled?
Maybe your "simple solution" would cause 100 other problems. You should do some research before you decide how NASA engineers should do their job. Or at least before you tell the rest of the world how they should do their job.
The IT professionals in the Microsoft Office commercials sure look happy! Maybe we should all try using MS Office.
Oh wait. The lack of compatibility with open source software (and their own previous versions) is one of the reasons we are all unhappy. Here's to false advertising.
I don't understand this comment. "Get their money back"?
It goes something like this.
1) Pay Lockheed & Boeing to get the bird in the sky.
2) Tax Lockheed & Boeing.
3) Tax the income of the employees of Lockheed & Boeing.
4) Tax this money again when they buy stuff (sales tax).
etc. etc. etc.
If I had to guess, the only money the US is actually losing (dollars leaving the country) on this project is for the fuel and maybe some titanium (or other raw materials). AFAIK, both Boeing and Lockheed are still 99% US-based.
They have completely thrown off the commercial channels in the past while engaging in military activities in a region by jiggering with the output to cause the locations to be off.
Although I've heard, and certainly believe, that it's possible for the US to screw up GPS, I've never heard of them actually doing it.
Do you have some reference for this? I'd be very interested to see more information about these incidents. In particular, I'd like to see what President (I'd assume the decision would be made by the commander-in-chief) allowed it and if he explained his reasoning to the public.
Although I've heard of the European Union (EU) trying to come up with their own positioning system, I've never heard anything about the US trying to disrupt this.
Do you have a reference please, or did you come up with this on your own?
Third party ring tones and games, etc for cell phones are passe now. So are "performance chips" for engine control modules.
Until a trojan leans the mixture out at 100% throttle and 2 minutes later you have a dead engine...A lot of these "performance chips" decrease engine life (substantially) already. Putting the fuel injector tables in the hands of customers will do a little to help the guys who know what they're doing...and a lot to help the automobile service industry.
Cell phones maybe not as bad. But I do foresee a virus that makes everyone's phone ring at the same time. Wouldn't that be interesting.
Re:Not smart to sue your customers
on
Hack This, Please
·
· Score: 1
He's saying the code should be readily accessible.
Either inside the product or on the company website.
I mean to say that the law cited has many, many, many interpretations. Sure, it wasn't intended to stop websites from giving out cookies, but someone could interpret that way.
Until there's a case to make a precedent, it's hard to tell what the law means, and how it will be used.
you have no right screwing someone for $10k for something that took you 10 minutes to produce
Actually...you do. If it takes me 10 minutes and I charge $10k, you can bet your ass someone else will do it and charge $9k. This will continue to happen until the price reaches the cost of production (actually, not quite, because it's not exactly a 100% competitive market).
If no one else chooses to produce it and sell it for cheaper, then I have every right to sell it for $10k.
If you don't think it's "fair trade", then don't buy it.
The real criminal is the company that charges $100 for the latest game knowing that it will sell at that price for no other reason than a carefully socially engineered populance.
I don't know where you live, but in most places I know this is definitely NOT a crime.
I can write a text game that's 100 lines of code and charge $10,000 for a license if I want. If you don't think it's worth it, code it yourself or buy it from someone else. Just because it cost me $10 to make it and I'm selling it for $10,000 does not give anyone the right to steal it from me.
You need to be able to adapt if you want to stay alive in this world. The United States has been along for so many years because of the "necessary and proper" clause which allows the government to adapt to a changing world.
Clearly Novell is taking the hint. They're aware of the fact that the world is going Open Source, and they're willing to deal with it. If they ensure a good relationship with the open source community now, they'll be rewarded with success for years to come. If they distance themselves from the open source community, like SCO, then they will make more money in the short term but be ousted in the long term.
Novell is a good organization that has been around since the beginning (or, at least, for a long time). I, for one, hope they continue to be around and keep up the good work.
They didn't tell anyone until a patch was available. Note that the vulnerability was announced Wednesday, and it included a link for the patch (openssl-0.9.7d) when it was released.
It's fairly reasonable to assume that the developers knew of the vulnerability some time before the new version became available.
I think it's good practice to do this if you can develop the new version fast enough. Announcing it early is only inviting someone to exploit it. I doubt anyone will fix the vulnerability themselves and put it into production before the official release comes out.
In other news, Microsoft has announced a new competition for who can send out the most spam mail in a 24-hour period...
Each team will be allowed 48 hours to hack the hell out of every machine on the planet, followed by a 24 hour period when the mailing must actually occur.
If you're a Viacom stock holder, wouldn't you like them to "arbitrarily" raise their rates if they believe it will make them more money?
If they have so much control over the market, we should be looking for anti-trust violations and legal action. Viacom isn't going to just "be nice." And they owe it to their shareholders not to just be nice and charge lower rates.
Slashdot Mirror
Would you rather have it outsourced to someone overseas who your doctor met on the Internet? That more-or-less happened here. The person can't be held responsible.
US authorities would have a hell of a time finding them, and, if they did, there's not much they could do anyway. Do you still think this person is more reliabile than computer software? I don't think either is reliable enough.
You can bet someone said the same thing when the Wright Brothers put a plane in the air. They're testing this; they're not putting it into production. We still have a lot to learn, and this is a big step in the right direction.
Good luck to the fine men and women at NASA. We'll be watching.
I'm sure no one would mind if I stole both cars so I could try them each out. I'll buy them if I like them. I swear.
Maybe your "simple solution" would cause 100 other problems. You should do some research before you decide how NASA engineers should do their job. Or at least before you tell the rest of the world how they should do their job.
Oh wait. The lack of compatibility with open source software (and their own previous versions) is one of the reasons we are all unhappy. Here's to false advertising.
Get over the ambiguous wording.
It goes something like this.
1) Pay Lockheed & Boeing to get the bird in the sky.
2) Tax Lockheed & Boeing.
3) Tax the income of the employees of Lockheed & Boeing.
4) Tax this money again when they buy stuff (sales tax).
etc. etc. etc.
If I had to guess, the only money the US is actually losing (dollars leaving the country) on this project is for the fuel and maybe some titanium (or other raw materials). AFAIK, both Boeing and Lockheed are still 99% US-based.
Although I've heard, and certainly believe, that it's possible for the US to screw up GPS, I've never heard of them actually doing it.
Do you have some reference for this? I'd be very interested to see more information about these incidents. In particular, I'd like to see what President (I'd assume the decision would be made by the commander-in-chief) allowed it and if he explained his reasoning to the public.
Do you have a reference please, or did you come up with this on your own?
They don't actually think that people who customize software by modifying the code are bad...
Until a trojan leans the mixture out at 100% throttle and 2 minutes later you have a dead engine...A lot of these "performance chips" decrease engine life (substantially) already. Putting the fuel injector tables in the hands of customers will do a little to help the guys who know what they're doing...and a lot to help the automobile service industry.
Cell phones maybe not as bad. But I do foresee a virus that makes everyone's phone ring at the same time. Wouldn't that be interesting.
Either inside the product or on the company website.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/data/1/rec_imgs/321_si _trailer_edit.jpg
I mean to say that the law cited has many, many, many interpretations. Sure, it wasn't intended to stop websites from giving out cookies, but someone could interpret that way.
Until there's a case to make a precedent, it's hard to tell what the law means, and how it will be used.
Actually...you do. If it takes me 10 minutes and I charge $10k, you can bet your ass someone else will do it and charge $9k. This will continue to happen until the price reaches the cost of production (actually, not quite, because it's not exactly a 100% competitive market).
If no one else chooses to produce it and sell it for cheaper, then I have every right to sell it for $10k.
If you don't think it's "fair trade", then don't buy it.
My website must be responsible for unauthorized modification of data on a computer.
Get real.
I don't know where you live, but in most places I know this is definitely NOT a crime.
I can write a text game that's 100 lines of code and charge $10,000 for a license if I want. If you don't think it's worth it, code it yourself or buy it from someone else. Just because it cost me $10 to make it and I'm selling it for $10,000 does not give anyone the right to steal it from me.
Clearly Novell is taking the hint. They're aware of the fact that the world is going Open Source, and they're willing to deal with it. If they ensure a good relationship with the open source community now, they'll be rewarded with success for years to come. If they distance themselves from the open source community, like SCO, then they will make more money in the short term but be ousted in the long term.
Novell is a good organization that has been around since the beginning (or, at least, for a long time). I, for one, hope they continue to be around and keep up the good work.
It's fairly reasonable to assume that the developers knew of the vulnerability some time before the new version became available.
I think it's good practice to do this if you can develop the new version fast enough. Announcing it early is only inviting someone to exploit it. I doubt anyone will fix the vulnerability themselves and put it into production before the official release comes out.
So maybe they have advertisements while you're reading the forecast? Nothing says it has to include spyware.
By your logic, Slashdot probably installs spyware on our machines too!
Oh good...I'm not the only one that restarts sendmail when I'm drunk...
Sounds like a good bet to me. That'll teach all you people who think NATs will save everything. Get a firewall, some AV, and some real security.
Maybe because they don't have a clue what you're talking about...
How about some details or a link?
Each team will be allowed 48 hours to hack the hell out of every machine on the planet, followed by a 24 hour period when the mailing must actually occur.
Prizes are yet to be determined.
If they have so much control over the market, we should be looking for anti-trust violations and legal action. Viacom isn't going to just "be nice." And they owe it to their shareholders not to just be nice and charge lower rates.