Intend to cause harm or not, he did break security. And this wasn't SCO's website, it was a fucking lab! I cannot realy understand the decision taken in this case.
They could at the very least fine him for downloading and/or sharing copyrighted material. Not that I am pro-RIAA (far from it!), it's just that we've seen people fined for less than that in the US. Now that judge just looks dumb.
On the other hand, I always find it stupid when someone hacks into a computer, tells the company there's a security flaw, and then gets busted for being a major terrorist malicious hacker.
Now it's the other way around. What he did was malicious (he did not inform the lab of any security breach after he hacked in), and he downloaded music and movies, which is the uttermost heretic act anyone can commit these days.
Weird.
Re:Lets hope that the result is progress
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 1
Are you saying your simply happy with the status quo of Google?
No. I say I'm happy that Google BROKE the status quo of other inferior search engines.
I am not against progress, and I am not saying Google is perfect... But compare Google to what we've known before, and yes, it's "da shit", as I said myself earlier.
Besides, the annooying tendency Microsoft has to do everything half-assed makes me believe we should not expect anything "great" from them. YES, YES, YES! I KNOW most people might end up using MS's "search engine". But that doesn't make it better. My point is that Google's algorithm brings me results I am looking for, while MS will bring most like me return me their sponsored results.
And to those who said I was bashing MS, you just didn't get my point, or maybe I wasn't clear enough. The fact that MS dominates the market shows that alternatives are still missing something -- but that doesn't mean Microsoft is successful in everything it does.
I would welcome any serious alternative to Google -- I am just saying that this idea from MS is entirely aimed at keeping their monopoly. Their search engine will not help me get any better results.
Google is da shit (for now). Period =)
Re:Lets hope that the result is progress
on
Google v. Microsoft
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Google staff themselves have already shown much progress with little or no serious competition. Their search engine has nothing to do with the old yahoo and altavista that were returning 50% advertisement and 49% uninteresting results.
And sincerely, I doubt Microsoft will come up with anything more efficient that Google.
Progress? That's Google's job. Competition? Microsoft is no competition in this area. Google wins by having a well-thought search system that beats anything else.
I was rather refering to the average person who uses the internet than to myself. I understand the flaws in IE, but many people don't or simply don't know that there are problems with IE, and that there are alternatives.
But try to tell your boss or Mom, or anybody who has just started to use a computer, that they should stop using IE and lose their bookmarks and learn to use a new browser instead.... Yes, it IS hard for some people, and that sort of people most probably chosed to use Windows (if they chosed at all) because it is shipped with almost everything they need.
So, since people are paying for this, I would blame Microsoft for allowing such flaws to reach the shelves. Swithing to another browser is a solution, but it's like leaving your new car on the side of the road because the alternator stopped functioning. Yes, you should have bought the Lexus and not the Lada... but many internet users are not geeks and don't know about these things. They just expect their stuff to work. That was my point....;)
That's insightful? For practical, personnal or other various reasons, people will keep using it anyway. Besides, when you pay for a product, you expect it to be working correctly and to be secure, so you use it. Period.
The present invention overcomes the limitations of the prior art by providing a method, apparatus and business system that allow a user to quickly communicate online with a member of a particular business, professional or other group regardless of whether the member has an internet presence (e.g. e-mail address or website) and without the user needing to know or find the internet address for the recipient.
He's already refereing to prior art, and it actualy seems his "idea" is a bit different from what we already use and know.
The patented system would allow someone to write directly to some professional without knowing his email address. It would be a simpler system than to have to use a search engine and then search an email on the website to communicate.
I must agree this is a very subtle difference and the guy's interpretation is stupid. However, just because of that, I am vey curious to see how the lawsuits turn out.
Gosh. Weren't they supposed to provide evidence for their case against IBM first? What evidence do they have now against Novell? Will we know only next year when yet another judge gives SCO more time to prove their point?
Then elevators should sue restaurants, stores and hospital lobbies for copyright infringement.
Seriously, you are right though. Elevator music now refers to any bad music playing in public places. And elevators don't play music no more. The only sound you hear in an elevator is people coughing, trying to find out who let that smelly fart out.
So now, according to SCO's way of thinking, Microsoft is not respecting the American copyrights since it is not charging for its product. It'd be funny to see SCO sue MS over this:p
I believe what Adobe has done (can't scan money) is totaly legitimate and justified. It does NOT violate our rights in any way. It is annoying, granted. But we must understand that they have to protect themselves.
In a world where ISPs get sued because they allow music to be copied over the internet, Adobe may very well be first on the list to be sued over any random reason because some kid did something with their highly powerful software. They're not that dumb after all. They're proably just getting their as covered BEFORE anything bad happens.
Besides, if you realy want to scan a dollar bill, and if you have the intelligence required to properly operate Photoshop, you've got to be wise enough to think of a way to scan whatever you want... Adobe does not violate your rights. You STILL have that right to buy ANOTHER software.
I always wondered why company never before used some small markings on the film to identify screener movies found on the net. They should do that, instead of hoping to sue each and everyone of file sharers.
Yes. For instance, I've learned that "FAQ" actualy means "Frequently Asked Questions". And also that their FAQ was written with Microsoft Word, the well-known, very flexible, simple-code generating and highly non-frustrating web-design application.
Can this problem also affect Word, Excell and Outlook? One of our client called this morning to report slower-than-normal applications. And their problems had nothing to do with the server, which was apparently running fine...
Is it somehow related to Verisign's expired certificate?
What it will prevent, or at least reduce, are road blocks, spike strips and high speed chases.
I understand those are very good intentions. But does the end justify the means? How long before this device would be abused?... or hacked into to cause traffic jams or accidents?
This whole idea makes laws near-useless, because the idea that citizens have the duty to respect the law is being turned into a mechanism where you cannot do anything else than what the laws allow. And we all know we have little or no control over what laws are voted/accepted/written by our governments.
Like you said yourself, this will also create new problems, since breaking this or that law is now impossible. We might very well see people shooting instead of fleeing...
Somehow, I feel a bit scared about this new thing. Just as if these companies would have even more control over what I do and see from my PC. Sounds paranoid, but it's not like no one was trying to spy on us (cough cough gator cough).
Now my question is, will we have any opportunity to buy hardware we can trust from independent companies in the future? Hardware that allows full privacy and control over the computer?
I understand there are already some alternatives, like other architectures than Intel's, and other OSes than Windows. But being in the website-design/computer graphics thing, I am (unfortunately) better served with Windows.
I feel concerned about all this but I depend on their stuff, and most "ordinary" PC users probably don't care. So it's easy to impose whatever-ware on that type of user. I am wondering if there's any way to avoid being spied on, to avoid being sued for what I do on my computer, and to keep control of my computer if such "monopolisticaly"-engineered devices become standard.
This is totaly Insightful! People too often complain about outsourcing, yet don't seem to understand that no job is actualy "lost". It simply goes to someone else.
When one loses his/her job to outsourcing, someone else has just got a new job. In the end, a geek will be working for a company. Period.
Actualy, it should read: they would be the first to be removed. RealPlayer PLUS ad/spywares that come along with it. That is, if you could even find a way to remove them.
Yeah. You're right. There should only be iTunes. And only Microsoft. And just GM cars. All 'round the world. Yeah baby! Screw Jay & Silent Bob, we already have Cheech & Chong. Ha, and screw Nintendo too - Intellivision did it first. And oh man, do I miss the high-rates long distance calls. Those were the days. Fuck the small telcos.
Slashdot Mirror
Intend to cause harm or not, he did break security. And this wasn't SCO's website, it was a fucking lab! I cannot realy understand the decision taken in this case.
They could at the very least fine him for downloading and/or sharing copyrighted material. Not that I am pro-RIAA (far from it!), it's just that we've seen people fined for less than that in the US. Now that judge just looks dumb.
On the other hand, I always find it stupid when someone hacks into a computer, tells the company there's a security flaw, and then gets busted for being a major terrorist malicious hacker.
Now it's the other way around. What he did was malicious (he did not inform the lab of any security breach after he hacked in), and he downloaded music and movies, which is the uttermost heretic act anyone can commit these days.
Weird.
Are you saying your simply happy with the status quo of Google?
No. I say I'm happy that Google BROKE the status quo of other inferior search engines.
I am not against progress, and I am not saying Google is perfect... But compare Google to what we've known before, and yes, it's "da shit", as I said myself earlier.
Besides, the annooying tendency Microsoft has to do everything half-assed makes me believe we should not expect anything "great" from them. YES, YES, YES! I KNOW most people might end up using MS's "search engine". But that doesn't make it better. My point is that Google's algorithm brings me results I am looking for, while MS will bring most like me return me their sponsored results.
And to those who said I was bashing MS, you just didn't get my point, or maybe I wasn't clear enough. The fact that MS dominates the market shows that alternatives are still missing something -- but that doesn't mean Microsoft is successful in everything it does.
I would welcome any serious alternative to Google -- I am just saying that this idea from MS is entirely aimed at keeping their monopoly. Their search engine will not help me get any better results.
Google is da shit (for now). Period =)
Google staff themselves have already shown much progress with little or no serious competition. Their search engine has nothing to do with the old yahoo and altavista that were returning 50% advertisement and 49% uninteresting results.
And sincerely, I doubt Microsoft will come up with anything more efficient that Google.
Progress? That's Google's job. Competition? Microsoft is no competition in this area. Google wins by having a well-thought search system that beats anything else.
Yes, I am biased. Google is "da shit" =)
I was rather refering to the average person who uses the internet than to myself. I understand the flaws in IE, but many people don't or simply don't know that there are problems with IE, and that there are alternatives.
;)
But try to tell your boss or Mom, or anybody who has just started to use a computer, that they should stop using IE and lose their bookmarks and learn to use a new browser instead.... Yes, it IS hard for some people, and that sort of people most probably chosed to use Windows (if they chosed at all) because it is shipped with almost everything they need.
So, since people are paying for this, I would blame Microsoft for allowing such flaws to reach the shelves. Swithing to another browser is a solution, but it's like leaving your new car on the side of the road because the alternator stopped functioning. Yes, you should have bought the Lexus and not the Lada... but many internet users are not geeks and don't know about these things. They just expect their stuff to work. That was my point....
DON'T use IE!
That's insightful? For practical, personnal or other various reasons, people will keep using it anyway. Besides, when you pay for a product, you expect it to be working correctly and to be secure, so you use it. Period.
The present invention overcomes the limitations of the prior art by providing a method, apparatus and business system that allow a user to quickly communicate online with a member of a particular business, professional or other group regardless of whether the member has an internet presence (e.g. e-mail address or website) and without the user needing to know or find the internet address for the recipient.
He's already refereing to prior art, and it actualy seems his "idea" is a bit different from what we already use and know.
The patented system would allow someone to write directly to some professional without knowing his email address. It would be a simpler system than to have to use a search engine and then search an email on the website to communicate.
I must agree this is a very subtle difference and the guy's interpretation is stupid. However, just because of that, I am vey curious to see how the lawsuits turn out.
"Novell has made false statements with the intent to cause customers and potential customers to not do business with SCO."
... threatening and suing your OWN customers didn't do any damage to your reputation. Sheesh. Drugs are bad, hmmkay?
Yeeeaahh. Like
Gosh. Weren't they supposed to provide evidence for their case against IBM first? What evidence do they have now against Novell? Will we know only next year when yet another judge gives SCO more time to prove their point?
Why is the secret service involved?
Yes... I thought it was the RIAA's job to raid houses.
we'd be able to refuel them from Mar's own materials
With a Mr. Fusion?
Then elevators should sue restaurants, stores and hospital lobbies for copyright infringement.
Seriously, you are right though. Elevator music now refers to any bad music playing in public places. And elevators don't play music no more. The only sound you hear in an elevator is people coughing, trying to find out who let that smelly fart out.
the most experienced internet users spend an average of 15.8 hours online per week
I read "offline" the first time. I thought it was an okay average...
And actualy, I think the it's the time we spend offline that socialy affects us. I mean, how can your friends contact you if you're not on MSN??
So now, according to SCO's way of thinking, Microsoft is not respecting the American copyrights since it is not charging for its product. It'd be funny to see SCO sue MS over this :p
I believe what Adobe has done (can't scan money) is totaly legitimate and justified. It does NOT violate our rights in any way. It is annoying, granted. But we must understand that they have to protect themselves.
In a world where ISPs get sued because they allow music to be copied over the internet, Adobe may very well be first on the list to be sued over any random reason because some kid did something with their highly powerful software. They're not that dumb after all. They're proably just getting their as covered BEFORE anything bad happens.
Besides, if you realy want to scan a dollar bill, and if you have the intelligence required to properly operate Photoshop, you've got to be wise enough to think of a way to scan whatever you want... Adobe does not violate your rights. You STILL have that right to buy ANOTHER software.
I always wondered why company never before used some small markings on the film to identify screener movies found on the net. They should do that, instead of hoping to sue each and everyone of file sharers.
SCO has interesting FAQ
Yes. For instance, I've learned that "FAQ" actualy means "Frequently Asked Questions". And also that their FAQ was written with Microsoft Word, the well-known, very flexible, simple-code generating and highly non-frustrating web-design application.
How insightful.
Can this problem also affect Word, Excell and Outlook? One of our client called this morning to report slower-than-normal applications. And their problems had nothing to do with the server, which was apparently running fine...
Is it somehow related to Verisign's expired certificate?
Speculators do.
So we can expect many, many speculators/investors to dump their stocks on the 10th of January... How would that affect SCOX?
I just tried to make myself a cup of coffee, but the coffee machine is not working. It seems slow... very slow...
/. my machine! Damn yous!
Hey wait. You can't
What it will prevent, or at least reduce, are road blocks, spike strips and high speed chases.
... or hacked into to cause traffic jams or accidents?
I understand those are very good intentions. But does the end justify the means? How long before this device would be abused?
This whole idea makes laws near-useless, because the idea that citizens have the duty to respect the law is being turned into a mechanism where you cannot do anything else than what the laws allow. And we all know we have little or no control over what laws are voted/accepted/written by our governments.
Like you said yourself, this will also create new problems, since breaking this or that law is now impossible. We might very well see people shooting instead of fleeing...
Somehow, I feel a bit scared about this new thing. Just as if these companies would have even more control over what I do and see from my PC. Sounds paranoid, but it's not like no one was trying to spy on us (cough cough gator cough).
Now my question is, will we have any opportunity to buy hardware we can trust from independent companies in the future? Hardware that allows full privacy and control over the computer?
I understand there are already some alternatives, like other architectures than Intel's, and other OSes than Windows. But being in the website-design/computer graphics thing, I am (unfortunately) better served with Windows.
I feel concerned about all this but I depend on their stuff, and most "ordinary" PC users probably don't care. So it's easy to impose whatever-ware on that type of user. I am wondering if there's any way to avoid being spied on, to avoid being sued for what I do on my computer, and to keep control of my computer if such "monopolisticaly"-engineered devices become standard.
don't install anything trackable in your car
Thanks. I just removed my license plate!
New jobs will replace the old ones lost
This is totaly Insightful! People too often complain about outsourcing, yet don't seem to understand that no job is actualy "lost". It simply goes to someone else.
When one loses his/her job to outsourcing, someone else has just got a new job. In the end, a geek will be working for a company. Period.
it would be the first to be removed.
Actualy, it should read: they would be the first to be removed. RealPlayer PLUS ad/spywares that come along with it. That is, if you could even find a way to remove them.
Yeah. You're right. There should only be iTunes. And only Microsoft. And just GM cars. All 'round the world. Yeah baby! Screw Jay & Silent Bob, we already have Cheech & Chong. Ha, and screw Nintendo too - Intellivision did it first. And oh man, do I miss the high-rates long distance calls. Those were the days. Fuck the small telcos.
Ever heard of competition?