Not that SCO has a leg to stand on concerning copyright issues, but SCO is now desperate to amend their complaint once again to say this is a contract dispute with copyright issues, which they feel would allow them to ignore the New York requirement (I assume because copyright violations are a federal issue).
Another funny thing is (one thing among the thousand funny things in the SCO case), that if SCO managed to convince the court (or jury) that their version of derivative works is the correct version (and thereby gain control over IBM's code), the Monterey contract also has this provision in it:
2.0 OWNERSHIP AND LICENSES:
(a) Joint Ownership
All IBM and SCO jointly created Project Work shall be jointly owned by SCO and IBM, including ownership of associated copyrights or confidential information. Each party shall be free in all respects to exercise or dispose of any or all of its ownership rights in the jointly
created Project Work without accounting to the other party.
So, wouldn't the same interpretation of derivative works mean that IBM would now have control over UNIX Ware, etc., source (assuming SCO is using code developed as part of the Monterey project in their own products as they have the right to do), as well as negate SCO's copyright claim to IBM's AIX and Dynix code at the same time (per SCO's logic, AIX and Dynix would then be a "derivative" of the project Monterey code, which IBM has joint ownership of, and therefore unrestricted ownership rights to their own AIX and Dynix code)? One has to wonder where it all ends...
Of course, the above conjecture simply points out the ridiculous nature of SCO's definition of derivative works...
Yes, I know it really doesn't make a difference, especially when you can already replace the file's default icon with a custom icon and make it look like anything you want...the statement just tickled my laugh spot after all the talk about security.
Re:I'd be willing to wait until 2007...
on
Longhorn Preview
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I understand the wish but don't hold your breath...Longhorn is about boosting sales above all else, just like every other Windows version that has ever been published. Just look at this "interview"...
"the search mechanism is similar to the Spotlight feature in Apple Computer's Mac OS X Tiger, which goes on sale later this month"
"Microsoft would delay Longhorn over quality concerns, but is unlikely to let individual features hold up its release. That could mean some further trimming around the edges if things fall behind."
"...he did say the company expects Longhorn to drive PC sales. "This product has something for everybody."
In the end, guess what comes first, security or sales?
The Longhorn advantage?
on
Longhorn Preview
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
The fact that Microsoft has had to work hard to try and catch up to OSX's level of security is a Longhorn advantage? Wonder if they made it yet....
Made me laugh: "...document icons are no longer a hint of the type of file, but rather a small picture of the file itself." Now there's a security enhancement. The user will have no clue as to what it will do when they double-click the icon...(not that they ever worried about it anyway).
"As with Windows XP Service Pack 2, security remains at the forefront of Microsoft's development efforts." Right. And it's been proven, after 5 years, how rock solid XP security is...
So, anyone want to bet on how many "critical" system compromising security issues will be found before Longhorn SP1 comes out?
Ads used to be links with an eye catching phrase (such as "Click here for a chance to win a new laptop computer!"). After a while, the advertiser decided there weren't enough clicks being generated, so along came banner ads. Next came moving banners. Still not enough clicks so next are ads on the sides of the page (as well as the top). Then (probably) the invention of the pop-up ad, then pop-under ad. Next jiggly ads (initially unnerving if you lived in California, I'm sure). Then came ads that follow your mouse pointer. Next delayed pop-up ads (they pop up after 30 seconds on the page). Next, "impossible to back arrow, lock the user to a full page ad for 30 seconds" ad. Then came scroll down from the menu bar ads. Pop up a new widow when you leave the site ads. Full screen movie ads. Screeching sound and obnoxious movie ads. "You must click through three full screen ads before you can get to the real web page" ads. Damn it, the user STILL didn't click on my ad, what is he, BLIND?!?!?!?!?!?
Oh, don't forget to squeeze in a little content on the little bit of unused space left on the page while we're at it...after all, we are a content provider...
I understand your point. Your comment, like many others on this article, is depicting the other occupants as an "early warning system". However, most of the people I've ridden with don't shout with alarm as I weave around like a drunk driver as we converse (they may shout right before I hit something, not that it's all that useful by that time). So to say that occupants warn a driver right before a potential accident ignores the primary identification of a drunk driver, e.g. weaving around while driving (which was the "worse than" comparison made in the report). The comparison may be accurate but the suggested cause of "active participation" as the defining difference of a cell phone conversation is still unlikely in my mind.
"Actively participating in the conversation" is unlikely to be the root cause, assuming the study's conclusions aren't bogus (a big assumption in my mind). If it were so, then you would see the same bad driving whenever someone had a conversation with other occupants of the car, since I would think they would be just as "actively participating" with those occupants as they do on a phone call.
Speculating, as is my habit to do on topics I know nothing about, I would think one possibility for such results would be the cell phone user/driver gets lost in the virtualness of the experience (i.e. picturing in one's mind the person you are speaking to) and thereby allows their attention to wander away from the reality of the road.
Great idea if you are in the hard drive business...
Seriously, though, the root problem would not be addressed in this way. Need to make Linux maintenance foolproof for mum & dad (which, I realize, is a lot tougher and more time consuming than swapping a hard drive).
No doubt my ignorance showing through but I am surprised there isn't a central repository for all kernel bugs, security or otherwise, already. Else, wouldn't there be a lot of "reinventing the wheel" going on?
Oh I don't know...when I was in the military, our rule of thumb was that anything that was officially released to the public about military developments was at least 20 years out of date. It that's a good estimate then if you imagine where computers will be in 20 years quantum computing isn't that far fetched...speculating is fun, isn't it...
(just ignore those MIB agents standing right behind you)
Ah...that explains why my XP system does spooky things sometimes...
There's no sympathy in corporateville...
on
Fansubbers Under Fire
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
The ultimate goal of large content providers is to create a world where they take you money each and every time you view their content. NO EXCEPTIONS!
No doubt some people go too far in their fansubbing, but on the other hand it is very rare indeed that a corporation will be or even can be reasonable (think of how their stockholders would react to a corporation allowing unauthorized copying of their content).
That is why the law must provide the balance. If you think that there ought to be a reasonableness to this kind of thing the I recommend that you make your feelings known. Support the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
One thing I know for sure, if we do nothing then eventually we will live in a world where you have to pay every time you read your kid a bedtime story.
Assuming you have access and the system will allow it, computers are fast enough these days to try every possible combination of an 8 character password, regardless of it's difficulty for a human to guess. An 8 character password is NOT secure anymore. It takes a minimum of 20 characters these days to be reasonably secure.
No, the requirement does not make for more security.
I, like everyone else on the planet, work to make things easier for me and to hell with security. A new password every 90 days means people will design a password that passes the requirements but is easy to remember when you have to change it. For example, my last job required at least an 8 character password with at least two numbers and one case change, and you could not reuse passwords for at least 5 changes. So my first password was Th1s1smE. Anyone want to guess what my next password was after the first 90 days?
Anybody with half a mind (and you KNOW who you are) would run through the likely possibilities quickly enough.
My opinion: It would be better to provide a tool that would allow a user to rate a password which would let them come up with a password that passes a minimum quality requirement, a password that they could remember without writing it down, and then require it to be changed less frequently (like once per year). And, equally important, provide a second, different authentication mechanism to support the password security (a hardware token system would be one example, biometrics would be another, a prearranged "callback" mechanism would be a third, there are many others).
Beside, my experience with gaming a requirement like this is that users tend to mess up their password frequently and end up with their password set back to a known default (assuming the admins provide such a default, which in of itself is a very bad security decision). And so sometimes a policy like this will actually provide less security, because at any given time there will be a relatively high percentage of user accounts which are set to a known password. Years ago, I personally demonstrated this situation with one of the VP's of the company I worked for by going through the ID's of the senior managers until we found one using the default password.
So, long story short, changing passwords frequently does not automatically mean better security. But we all knew that, right?
9 km/s is the static speed you must be moving if you stop applying thrust. In other words, when you stop applying thrust, you'd better be going 9 km/s or faster or the Earth will eventually pull you back.
Your example of moving up 1 inch per day (do you work for NASA, mixing measurement systems like that, now really!) implies that you continue to accellerate enough to maintain your position (i.e. you do not allow yourself to fall back that one inch) until you move up further.
The boundary is three dimensional, that's true. It is expected that the interstellar wind pretty much dominates in the plane of the galaxy, meaning the actual shape of the solar boundary should be quite oblong. Also, the plane of the solar system is not lined up with the galactic plane and the solar plane "wobbles" in a circle every 31 million years or so, so the interaction of the solar wind and the galactic wind, i.e. the definition of the solar boundary, changes constantly.
The reason humankind explores the solar system on a plane (not the kind with wings, although Airplane II: The Sequel comes to mind) is because most scientists are interested in the planets and other stuff floating out there, and so we tend to visualize of the solar system as a disc. Plus, spacecraft constantly use the planetary gravitational boost effect to save on fuel and once you get outside of the plane of the solar system, you lose that option.
Pretty cool. We are about to transition into the age of interstellar exploration, at least technically speaking, once the Voyager 1 probe "officially" cross into interstellar space. The actual boundary shifts in relation to the activity of the sun and so this new satellite should help determine (among other things) when Voyager has crossed over.
Interesting note: The Pioneer/Voyager probes illustrate the space exploration concept that the later you leave, the sooner you get there...
The opponent's AI would not know what mine was saying. I'm not talking about a chat system. I'm talking about the program watching the game and developing insights that would be useful to me. In this example, if a player frequently took one path over another, I might not notice but the AI should. That's the sort of thing that AI's ought to be real good at, at least once we get to real AI. (of course, by that time the AI will take over the world and there will be no more game play).
Slashdot Mirror
Not that SCO has a leg to stand on concerning copyright issues, but SCO is now desperate to amend their complaint once again to say this is a contract dispute with copyright issues, which they feel would allow them to ignore the New York requirement (I assume because copyright violations are a federal issue).
Another funny thing is (one thing among the thousand funny things in the SCO case), that if SCO managed to convince the court (or jury) that their version of derivative works is the correct version (and thereby gain control over IBM's code), the Monterey contract also has this provision in it:
2.0 OWNERSHIP AND LICENSES:
(a) Joint Ownership
All IBM and SCO jointly created Project Work shall be jointly owned by SCO and IBM, including ownership of associated copyrights or confidential information. Each party shall be free in all respects to exercise or dispose of any or all of its ownership rights in the jointly created Project Work without accounting to the other party.
So, wouldn't the same interpretation of derivative works mean that IBM would now have control over UNIX Ware, etc., source (assuming SCO is using code developed as part of the Monterey project in their own products as they have the right to do), as well as negate SCO's copyright claim to IBM's AIX and Dynix code at the same time (per SCO's logic, AIX and Dynix would then be a "derivative" of the project Monterey code, which IBM has joint ownership of, and therefore unrestricted ownership rights to their own AIX and Dynix code)? One has to wonder where it all ends...
Of course, the above conjecture simply points out the ridiculous nature of SCO's definition of derivative works...
Duct Tape -- never leave home without it.
Yes, I know it really doesn't make a difference, especially when you can already replace the file's default icon with a custom icon and make it look like anything you want...the statement just tickled my laugh spot after all the talk about security.
I understand the wish but don't hold your breath...Longhorn is about boosting sales above all else, just like every other Windows version that has ever been published. Just look at this "interview"...
"the search mechanism is similar to the Spotlight feature in Apple Computer's Mac OS X Tiger, which goes on sale later this month"
"Microsoft would delay Longhorn over quality concerns, but is unlikely to let individual features hold up its release. That could mean some further trimming around the edges if things fall behind."
"...he did say the company expects Longhorn to drive PC sales. "This product has something for everybody."
In the end, guess what comes first, security or sales?
Ah, Microsoft, always good for a laugh...
The fact that Microsoft has had to work hard to try and catch up to OSX's level of security is a Longhorn advantage? Wonder if they made it yet....
Made me laugh: "...document icons are no longer a hint of the type of file, but rather a small picture of the file itself." Now there's a security enhancement. The user will have no clue as to what it will do when they double-click the icon...(not that they ever worried about it anyway).
"As with Windows XP Service Pack 2, security remains at the forefront of Microsoft's development efforts." Right. And it's been proven, after 5 years, how rock solid XP security is...
So, anyone want to bet on how many "critical" system compromising security issues will be found before Longhorn SP1 comes out?
Ads used to be links with an eye catching phrase (such as "Click here for a chance to win a new laptop computer!"). After a while, the advertiser decided there weren't enough clicks being generated, so along came banner ads. Next came moving banners. Still not enough clicks so next are ads on the sides of the page (as well as the top). Then (probably) the invention of the pop-up ad, then pop-under ad. Next jiggly ads (initially unnerving if you lived in California, I'm sure). Then came ads that follow your mouse pointer. Next delayed pop-up ads (they pop up after 30 seconds on the page). Next, "impossible to back arrow, lock the user to a full page ad for 30 seconds" ad. Then came scroll down from the menu bar ads. Pop up a new widow when you leave the site ads. Full screen movie ads. Screeching sound and obnoxious movie ads. "You must click through three full screen ads before you can get to the real web page" ads. Damn it, the user STILL didn't click on my ad, what is he, BLIND?!?!?!?!?!? Oh, don't forget to squeeze in a little content on the little bit of unused space left on the page while we're at it...after all, we are a content provider...
I bet he ran out of arrows making that map.
and even when you're not wrong...
I understand your point. Your comment, like many others on this article, is depicting the other occupants as an "early warning system". However, most of the people I've ridden with don't shout with alarm as I weave around like a drunk driver as we converse (they may shout right before I hit something, not that it's all that useful by that time). So to say that occupants warn a driver right before a potential accident ignores the primary identification of a drunk driver, e.g. weaving around while driving (which was the "worse than" comparison made in the report). The comparison may be accurate but the suggested cause of "active participation" as the defining difference of a cell phone conversation is still unlikely in my mind.
Speculating, as is my habit to do on topics I know nothing about, I would think one possibility for such results would be the cell phone user/driver gets lost in the virtualness of the experience (i.e. picturing in one's mind the person you are speaking to) and thereby allows their attention to wander away from the reality of the road.
Seriously, though, the root problem would not be addressed in this way. Need to make Linux maintenance foolproof for mum & dad (which, I realize, is a lot tougher and more time consuming than swapping a hard drive).
No doubt my ignorance showing through but I am surprised there isn't a central repository for all kernel bugs, security or otherwise, already. Else, wouldn't there be a lot of "reinventing the wheel" going on?
(just ignore those MIB agents standing right behind you)
Ah...that explains why my XP system does spooky things sometimes...
No doubt some people go too far in their fansubbing, but on the other hand it is very rare indeed that a corporation will be or even can be reasonable (think of how their stockholders would react to a corporation allowing unauthorized copying of their content). That is why the law must provide the balance. If you think that there ought to be a reasonableness to this kind of thing the I recommend that you make your feelings known. Support the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
One thing I know for sure, if we do nothing then eventually we will live in a world where you have to pay every time you read your kid a bedtime story.
Assuming you have access and the system will allow it, computers are fast enough these days to try every possible combination of an 8 character password, regardless of it's difficulty for a human to guess. An 8 character password is NOT secure anymore. It takes a minimum of 20 characters these days to be reasonably secure.
I, like everyone else on the planet, work to make things easier for me and to hell with security. A new password every 90 days means people will design a password that passes the requirements but is easy to remember when you have to change it. For example, my last job required at least an 8 character password with at least two numbers and one case change, and you could not reuse passwords for at least 5 changes. So my first password was Th1s1smE. Anyone want to guess what my next password was after the first 90 days?
Anybody with half a mind (and you KNOW who you are) would run through the likely possibilities quickly enough.
My opinion: It would be better to provide a tool that would allow a user to rate a password which would let them come up with a password that passes a minimum quality requirement, a password that they could remember without writing it down, and then require it to be changed less frequently (like once per year). And, equally important, provide a second, different authentication mechanism to support the password security (a hardware token system would be one example, biometrics would be another, a prearranged "callback" mechanism would be a third, there are many others).
Beside, my experience with gaming a requirement like this is that users tend to mess up their password frequently and end up with their password set back to a known default (assuming the admins provide such a default, which in of itself is a very bad security decision). And so sometimes a policy like this will actually provide less security, because at any given time there will be a relatively high percentage of user accounts which are set to a known password. Years ago, I personally demonstrated this situation with one of the VP's of the company I worked for by going through the ID's of the senior managers until we found one using the default password.
So, long story short, changing passwords frequently does not automatically mean better security. But we all knew that, right?
Your example of moving up 1 inch per day (do you work for NASA, mixing measurement systems like that, now really!) implies that you continue to accellerate enough to maintain your position (i.e. you do not allow yourself to fall back that one inch) until you move up further.
The reason humankind explores the solar system on a plane (not the kind with wings, although Airplane II: The Sequel comes to mind) is because most scientists are interested in the planets and other stuff floating out there, and so we tend to visualize of the solar system as a disc. Plus, spacecraft constantly use the planetary gravitational boost effect to save on fuel and once you get outside of the plane of the solar system, you lose that option.
Interesting note: The Pioneer/Voyager probes illustrate the space exploration concept that the later you leave, the sooner you get there...
You can set Firefox to do this for you automatically...
Yeah, but that would be OK, cause thta is exactly the AI response that would be cool (for both).
There's always Java...
The opponent's AI would not know what mine was saying. I'm not talking about a chat system. I'm talking about the program watching the game and developing insights that would be useful to me. In this example, if a player frequently took one path over another, I might not notice but the AI should. That's the sort of thing that AI's ought to be real good at, at least once we get to real AI. (of course, by that time the AI will take over the world and there will be no more game play).