It's a challenge to find a non-Apple translucent window that isn't just a snippet of desktop wallpaper pasted in the background.
Window translucency is hardly original. Not even gradiated transparency - the MMO game EVE allows you to set your window transparency to anywhere from 0% to 100% on a 10% graduation. That's just the first example I could think of (I've been on an EVE binge lately), there's at least a dozen more.
I quote the following (bolding added for emphasis):
"It was recently brought to our clients' attention that a program called "PlayFair" had been developed, which decoded our clients' protected AAC files, converting them to unencrypted files allowing them to be played and distributed in an unrestricted manner. This is contrary to our clients' terms and conditions governing availability of the service and is causing
them enormous potential loss of revenue and reputation. Not only that, the PlayFair program is against the express provisions of our Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957 and you are equally liable as accessories, being the means through which the offending program
is available for download at the Sarovar site at the following URL: http://sarovar.org/projects/playfair/."
Not necessarily. All of these articles conveniently ignore the agreement users are bound by if they choose to utilize iTunes, and neither do they present legal justifications for why the agreement should be void. Unless I've made a mistake in my thinking here, I believe everyone has missed the point entirely.
Yeah, well-meaning or not, it fits my definition of a pet project. Taking just the *first* item from the list of Python differences, it already looks as if it's deviating from the hyped "vision" and taking advantage of the fork to make an existing language conform to one's own personal standards. But maybe that's just me, I'll let you decide. Said example:
"Only tabs are allowed in indents. Spaces are not allowed. Indenting two or more indents than the line above indicates a continuation of the line above. Spaces are allowed after the extra indents to align the continuation line. Continuation is not allowed due to comma lists alone as allowed in Python."
I could pick apart a few others, but this is enough to illustrate my point already. I'm not blindly against the idea of a prototype-based Python. But changes like this with no justified explanation provided (changing established standards for the hell of it because you happen to like it better that way yourself) this early into a project's history is a little uncalled for.
The exploit has not been fixed, as there is no patch for the application in question. The "fix" present in IE6 could have been something as simple as a different person writing that portion of the code over again.
The "no excuse for not upgrading it" argument holds little water in my opinion when you consider the catastrophic level of this exploit. MS would never dare risk their reputation by not fixing a problem of this sort if they were aware of it.
In short, MS does not deserve any credit for having "fixed" this problem. The "fix" was accidental. The bad code was written, and it was not caught. So yes, the author was wrong on at least one account. MS did not detect this bug, and did not fix it.
The future of hacking: by shaking hands with someone you're stealing their credit card, social security number, and a gigabyte of porn they keep stored in their pocket for when the office is slow.
Wait, isn't that how CNN portrays hackers already?
Gratuitous typos included. i cn speel relly gud
---
VeriSign's primary strategy in keeping their SiteFinder service alive is to keep the controversy in the arena of effect it has on the average user who only uses the internet for WWW/HTTP browsing. The internet is an extremely diversified network of countless data-transfer protocals which are by no means similar to HTTP. This is the personal opinion of the writer, but VeriSign is endangering its position of having the right to run the TLD name servers which govern these additional protocals.
VeriSign insists that the technical difficulties SiteFinder introduces to the internet are "negligable", justifying this opinion by what the common user is capable of casually percieving. This demonstrates a desire of VeriSign's to willingly jeapordize the rest of the internet for the sake of their marketing strategies depending on a single protocal. VeriSign only further incriminates itself by offering its latest defense to complaining professionals, "you guys don't think consumers are relevant". This is a gross mis-statement, as VeriSign is only considering its own consumers while damaging the operations of other companies and *individuals* worldwide.
As an IT professional, who has no legal authority to inforce his opinions, I'm of the mind that VeriSign needs to have its rights to host the TLDs re-evaluated. The company has demonstrated its willingness to compromise the entire internet, by which I refer to all data transfer protocals and not simply HTTP, and attempt sway support of the general public to its cause by taking advantage of its ignorance. It is our duty as administrators to simplify the operation of the internet for ordinary users, so that they are not *required* to have an exhaustive knowledge of protocals and how they inter-operate. It is a testament to our resolve that users are able to utilize the internet effectively without knowledge of protocals other than HTTP. Taking advantage of this ignorance, especially to selfishly sway the opinion of the masses away from their own intersests for the sake of imagined democracy, is highly irresponsible.
I'm very sure the actual administrators working for VeriSign know *very well* the harm of what they're doing, but it isn't them who are making the decisions. We need only look as far as the commentary from VeriSign's ranking executives to see that it's all fluff, with a blind eye turned to anything remotely technical.
Slashdot Mirror
It's a challenge to find a non-Apple translucent window that isn't just a snippet of desktop wallpaper pasted in the background.
Window translucency is hardly original. Not even gradiated transparency - the MMO game EVE allows you to set your window transparency to anywhere from 0% to 100% on a 10% graduation. That's just the first example I could think of (I've been on an EVE binge lately), there's at least a dozen more.
"It was recently brought to our clients' attention that a program called "PlayFair" had been developed, which decoded our clients' protected AAC files, converting them to unencrypted files allowing them to be played and distributed in an unrestricted manner. This is contrary to our clients' terms and conditions governing availability of the service and is causing them enormous potential loss of revenue and reputation. Not only that, the PlayFair program is against the express provisions of our Information Technology Act, 2000 and the Copyright Act, 1957 and you are equally liable as accessories, being the means through which the offending program is available for download at the Sarovar site at the following URL: http://sarovar.org/projects/playfair/."
Not necessarily. All of these articles conveniently ignore the agreement users are bound by if they choose to utilize iTunes, and neither do they present legal justifications for why the agreement should be void. Unless I've made a mistake in my thinking here, I believe everyone has missed the point entirely.
Yeah, well-meaning or not, it fits my definition of a pet project. Taking just the *first* item from the list of Python differences, it already looks as if it's deviating from the hyped "vision" and taking advantage of the fork to make an existing language conform to one's own personal standards. But maybe that's just me, I'll let you decide. Said example:
"Only tabs are allowed in indents. Spaces are not allowed. Indenting two or more indents than the line above indicates a continuation of the line above. Spaces are allowed after the extra indents to align the continuation line. Continuation is not allowed due to comma lists alone as allowed in Python."
I could pick apart a few others, but this is enough to illustrate my point already. I'm not blindly against the idea of a prototype-based Python. But changes like this with no justified explanation provided (changing established standards for the hell of it because you happen to like it better that way yourself) this early into a project's history is a little uncalled for.
The exploit has not been fixed, as there is no patch for the application in question. The "fix" present in IE6 could have been something as simple as a different person writing that portion of the code over again. The "no excuse for not upgrading it" argument holds little water in my opinion when you consider the catastrophic level of this exploit. MS would never dare risk their reputation by not fixing a problem of this sort if they were aware of it. In short, MS does not deserve any credit for having "fixed" this problem. The "fix" was accidental. The bad code was written, and it was not caught. So yes, the author was wrong on at least one account. MS did not detect this bug, and did not fix it.
The future of hacking: by shaking hands with someone you're stealing their credit card, social security number, and a gigabyte of porn they keep stored in their pocket for when the office is slow.
Wait, isn't that how CNN portrays hackers already?
"It seems like we're going to need to reset the network. Get everyone in the office to join hands together, and then..."
Remind me to use Preview more often, it ate all of my returns!
Gratuitous typos included. i cn speel relly gud --- VeriSign's primary strategy in keeping their SiteFinder service alive is to keep the controversy in the arena of effect it has on the average user who only uses the internet for WWW/HTTP browsing. The internet is an extremely diversified network of countless data-transfer protocals which are by no means similar to HTTP. This is the personal opinion of the writer, but VeriSign is endangering its position of having the right to run the TLD name servers which govern these additional protocals. VeriSign insists that the technical difficulties SiteFinder introduces to the internet are "negligable", justifying this opinion by what the common user is capable of casually percieving. This demonstrates a desire of VeriSign's to willingly jeapordize the rest of the internet for the sake of their marketing strategies depending on a single protocal. VeriSign only further incriminates itself by offering its latest defense to complaining professionals, "you guys don't think consumers are relevant". This is a gross mis-statement, as VeriSign is only considering its own consumers while damaging the operations of other companies and *individuals* worldwide. As an IT professional, who has no legal authority to inforce his opinions, I'm of the mind that VeriSign needs to have its rights to host the TLDs re-evaluated. The company has demonstrated its willingness to compromise the entire internet, by which I refer to all data transfer protocals and not simply HTTP, and attempt sway support of the general public to its cause by taking advantage of its ignorance. It is our duty as administrators to simplify the operation of the internet for ordinary users, so that they are not *required* to have an exhaustive knowledge of protocals and how they inter-operate. It is a testament to our resolve that users are able to utilize the internet effectively without knowledge of protocals other than HTTP. Taking advantage of this ignorance, especially to selfishly sway the opinion of the masses away from their own intersests for the sake of imagined democracy, is highly irresponsible. I'm very sure the actual administrators working for VeriSign know *very well* the harm of what they're doing, but it isn't them who are making the decisions. We need only look as far as the commentary from VeriSign's ranking executives to see that it's all fluff, with a blind eye turned to anything remotely technical.