>> In other words, if they were more concerned about security and not "the bottom line" they would have hired a firm with a better track record to run the website.
And how many times had the sites been hacked in the past? What was the track record they hired? And who had a better track record there?
>>As usual they probably cut corners to get "to the market" as soon as possible.
'probably cut corners'? And where do you get this from?
But it doesn't display the page in a window in my application, and how do I interact with the page that is displayed?
If all I wanted to do was popup some page and forget about it ShellExectute would work, but often I need to interact with the page once it is displayed or have it as part of my window.
So you are saying that Microsoft should not allow home users to log in as root? So Microsoft should retain full control of these computers for doing updates and installing programs?
And since I only log in as me, the only damage that can be done are to the files that I have created. It won't be able to delete the files that Admin(Microsoft) installed on my computer.
>> Windows 3 comes out and interest grows. About this time DR-DOS starts to make in-roads with a smaller memory footprint and better tools.
But isn't this the problem? By the time Microsoft is moving towards Windows with everything the others in the marketplace are just starting to "make in-roads". It's a little too late to be a better DOS when DOS is starting to die.
So they got a contract through friends (very common in business, especially with a company the size of Microsoft (very small) dealing with a company the size of IBM (very large) at the time), kept some rights to the program they were selling (again very common for small software shops to try and keep the rights to something to resell parts if they can), and just kept selling it. More then 10 years later they replace this system with another and the replacement becomes a monopoly.
IBM got OS/2, they had their fingers in the development of it from the start. Now if IBM could not (or would not) make OS/2 a viable shipping platform how can we lay that on Microsoft? There is no way Microsoft should be able to stop IBM from doing anything it wants, IBM is just too big to believe otherwise.
Have shady deals gone down through the years? Yep, no doubt. Was there luck in the timing? For sure, they could not have done it 3 years earlier, or 3 years later. Had to be done right then or it would not have worked.
A lot of people pay a yearly subscription to drive their car.
It is called leasing.
And for a lot of people it is cheaper then buying. May not be everyone that comes out ahead with it, but many do.
It could be more like setting off a camera flash in the cockpit while taking off or landing. The flash won't hurt him, but if he can't see for critical seconds or jerks the wheel or who know what else, that could.
>> The Internet is considered a public network, where everyone can assume it is OK unless specifically blocked.
Is this a legal ruling, or just how we would want it to be?
Do things like the sassar worm change this? Do they have implicit access to your computer? How about a web indexing robot? What are the rules as to what does or does not have implicit access.
I didn't read the article, this is/. after all. But from the comments posted I gather that the court was ruling that access is more like the physical rules.
If you are walking down a street and see a building with a door in it. Have you been implicitly granted access to the inside of that building? It's not a simple yes or no answer. It depends on several factors, is it a business area, are there signs advertising something (and what is the wording on the signs), and so on.
I know of no legal ruling that would make the internet any different. (But there very well could be)
I am not saying the ruling is how we want it, but we do end up living with the legal rulings and not just how we would like them.
IF they look at the clicks on an unsubscribe link they will probably take you off the list.
BUT I suspect that most of them just ignore the clicks. They DO NOT care if the email address is valid or not. It costs nothing to send to a bad address, and someday it might belong to someone.
>> If someone's great-grandson wants to live like Grandpa the Inventor, then great-grandson should become an inventor. That encourages creativity.
Something I have never understood. This seems to imply, and has been stated pretty explicitly in other places, that not allowing us to re-use someone elses work stiffles creativity.
Why does it promote more "creativity" for us to copy the work then it would to force us to come up with new ideas?
If forcing the great-grandson to become an inventor encourages creativity, then wouldn't the same thing (forcing others to become the inventors instead of the new owners) apply to everyone else?
Slashdot Mirror
>> In other words, if they were more concerned about security and not "the bottom line" they would have hired a firm with a better track record to run the website.
And how many times had the sites been hacked in the past? What was the track record they hired? And who had a better track record there?
>>As usual they probably cut corners to get "to the market" as soon as possible.
'probably cut corners'? And where do you get this from?
But it doesn't display the page in a window in my application, and how do I interact with the page that is displayed?
If all I wanted to do was popup some page and forget about it ShellExectute would work, but often I need to interact with the page once it is displayed or have it as part of my window.
I think I can guess your age.
You didn't live through the 70's and 80's when you think we all had all that spare time.
I think it is safe to say that Americans are spending a lot more money now on entertainment then they ever have in the past.
Video games? Movies? New car at 16? Cable TV? Cell Phones? Trips to Disney?
Right, we had all sorts of time for that. I had all sorts of spare money for these things.
And as soon as they raise the price we will accuse them of gouging us. We have them now!
>> The user has to go out of their way to install the unsafe widget, which, at the end of the day, is a matter for user training.
And we have proven with Windows that the users would never go out of their way to install something!
>> A Windows beta version was coded to randomly crash on DR-DOS
Do you have any links describing this? I remember the message that came up, but have never heard of code to randomly crash on DR-DOS.
So you are saying that Microsoft should not allow home users to log in as root? So Microsoft should retain full control of these computers for doing updates and installing programs?
And since I only log in as me, the only damage that can be done are to the files that I have created. It won't be able to delete the files that Admin(Microsoft) installed on my computer.
Why does something about sound like a problem?
>> Windows 3 comes out and interest grows. About this time DR-DOS starts to make in-roads with a smaller memory footprint and better tools.
But isn't this the problem? By the time Microsoft is moving towards Windows with everything the others in the marketplace are just starting to "make in-roads". It's a little too late to be a better DOS when DOS is starting to die.
So they got a contract through friends (very common in business, especially with a company the size of Microsoft (very small) dealing with a company the size of IBM (very large) at the time), kept some rights to the program they were selling (again very common for small software shops to try and keep the rights to something to resell parts if they can), and just kept selling it. More then 10 years later they replace this system with another and the replacement becomes a monopoly.
IBM got OS/2, they had their fingers in the development of it from the start. Now if IBM could not (or would not) make OS/2 a viable shipping platform how can we lay that on Microsoft? There is no way Microsoft should be able to stop IBM from doing anything it wants, IBM is just too big to believe otherwise.
Have shady deals gone down through the years? Yep, no doubt. Was there luck in the timing? For sure, they could not have done it 3 years earlier, or 3 years later. Had to be done right then or it would not have worked.
>> or did it for financial gain
I thought there was a password stealing part of the code he modified? Something where he could get back on their computers and get it?
Or am I thinking of another person who got caught?
And do those OS's test the hardware to make sure it will restart after a shutdown?
It's more then just will the OS keep running, it is also will the hardware live through a power cycle.
A lot of people pay a yearly subscription to drive their car. It is called leasing. And for a lot of people it is cheaper then buying. May not be everyone that comes out ahead with it, but many do.
I will agree with that.
But I think the fix is to change what someone gets for drugging and raping. I mean 1-2 years for it? More like 10-20 in my mind.
They don't have to harm the pilot.
It could be more like setting off a camera flash in the cockpit while taking off or landing. The flash won't hurt him, but if he can't see for critical seconds or jerks the wheel or who know what else, that could.
>> I haven't used 16 bit integers since the early 90's,
....
And didn't I read that this system was about 15 years old?
Little bit of 16 bit integer math and
So you are the one that used the 16 bit integers in this!
>> Check the number of transactions against MAX_INT and fire an alarm if equal...
And maybe shutdown the system so it doesn't cause any problems?
Gee.... sounds like just what they did.
That is true for about 5% of the population.
The other 95% wouldn't know the difference and it would just confuse them all the more.
>> The Internet is considered a public network, where everyone can assume it is OK unless specifically blocked.
/. after all. But from the comments posted I gather that the court was ruling that access is more like the physical rules.
Is this a legal ruling, or just how we would want it to be?
Do things like the sassar worm change this? Do they have implicit access to your computer? How about a web indexing robot? What are the rules as to what does or does not have implicit access.
I didn't read the article, this is
If you are walking down a street and see a building with a door in it. Have you been implicitly granted access to the inside of that building? It's not a simple yes or no answer. It depends on several factors, is it a business area, are there signs advertising something (and what is the wording on the signs), and so on.
I know of no legal ruling that would make the internet any different. (But there very well could be)
I am not saying the ruling is how we want it, but we do end up living with the legal rulings and not just how we would like them.
So if I go to your home and try the door to see if you will let me in, if the door is unlocked that is granting explicit permission to enter?
Granted it may not be smart to leave your door unlocked, but I don't think that is explicitly granting permission.
Different then the internet? A lot of access is to "Home Page".
>> Why would a spammer ignore a "good" address?
My point is more the other side of this.
Why would a spammer care about a "good" address?
It costs them nothing to send a single piece of spam to an address. (or a 1000 to the same address)
So they can do more work and "verify" good address, or do nothing and use them all.
The "good" addresses are worth nothing more then the bad ones, so why seperate them out?
Wrong. You are getting spam, you just use multiple email addresses to filter it.
I also have email addresses that have never received spam, but that doesn't mean spam isn't being sent to me.
>> Update that address and send em more!
I really don't think this happens.
IF they look at the clicks on an unsubscribe link they will probably take you off the list.
BUT I suspect that most of them just ignore the clicks. They DO NOT care if the email address is valid or not. It costs nothing to send to a bad address, and someday it might belong to someone.
>> If someone's great-grandson wants to live like Grandpa the Inventor, then great-grandson should become an inventor. That encourages creativity.
Something I have never understood. This seems to imply, and has been stated pretty explicitly in other places, that not allowing us to re-use someone elses work stiffles creativity.
Why does it promote more "creativity" for us to copy the work then it would to force us to come up with new ideas?
If forcing the great-grandson to become an inventor encourages creativity, then wouldn't the same thing (forcing others to become the inventors instead of the new owners) apply to everyone else?
>> but how does one prove they didn't?
Huh? That seems like a pretty easy one. Produce the CD and key that came with it. Having a sales receipt would probably help too.
How do you prove you didn't steal anything?
What am I missing?
But I'm just a user of the website. I don't have any control over the HTML that it sends me.
I just want to view the information on the website.
I have choices, several that won't let me view it, and one that does.
Guess who wins.
When the several decide that they will also show me the information then I can re-evaluate the choice.
But I just want to see it, I don't care if the HTML is valid. But one helps me as a user, and the others tell me too bad.
And, would you believe that none of the browsers control what the web site sends me either?
>> Every decision you make is simply stupid.
Wish my stupid decisions would give me enough money to buy Time-Warner.