You keep neglecting the fact that this is all available via HTTP, which is a method of _publication_. Publication implies authorization. How can this escape you?
I like where you're going with that. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Something like a protocol doesn't fit under copyright. It would be a patent thing. The clause would have to be in the copyright of the software that implements the protocol and you've already got so many http servers out there that it would be pretty impossible to get them all to set this up.
Are you really that stupid? If you can link to something on the web, then it's been published to the web. Publishing something == authorizing access unless you protect it somehow. Don't want that naked picture of you to get out? Don't publish it!
It's an unfortunate fact that a lot of web-based software that businesses use still only works in IE6. I deal with it every day and it drives me crazy, but there's no other realistic solution for us at the moment.
You know what the underlying theme is of everything you mentioned? Microsoft doing whatever they please without working with anyone else. This is far from beneficial in the long run.
If you want Linux to be adopted by more than just the geeky segment of the population, this is the type of stuff that has to be dealt with. I can say I went through a similar process when I first started using Linux. The two biggest groups that were helpful to me were the Gentoo and Ubuntu crowds. The Gentoo scene has some really great documentation that can be applied to other distributions if you're willing to spend some time with it.
Personally, I don't necessarily care if one company copies a good idea that another company has. What I don't like is when that company comes out and acts as if they were the first ones to have the idea and that it's better than anyone else's. Going a step farther, if they bastardize what they're copying and still proclaim its greatness, that's just utter bullshit.
That's still relying on a human to do so. If you have the proper equipment, it's impossible to have both connected at once. That's how it should be done.
Please show me which service pack made that many changes. Microsoft does the same thing with service packs as Apple does with the 10.x.x releases. They just don't do them as often. If you're going to give Apple crap, why not point out some real flaws rather than making stuff up. For instance, 10.5 is slow to log on and launch apps and needs too many damned restarts for updates to install.
Are you aware of any open source firmware available for wireless access points? I've already got a solid router (Cisco 2611xm) in place and I'd rather not double-nat.
Right. There was security on the share and his account was given access to said share. A user account is more specific than a key. User accounts have specific access restrictions associated to them. In this case, the user account had rights to access that folder. Unless explicitly told otherwise, he was authorized.
The only question in my mind was his intent. Unfortunately, the email hasn't been released, so that's hard to figure out. The article said there was intent to profit, but without anything to back it up, I'm still on the fence.
A sharper picture doesn't do you much good if you can't see what's on the screen due to glare.
I'm all for them selling glossy screens to people that want them, but why should I have to suffer for it? I guess I'll be sticking with my older MBP for quite some time.
Where I work we're starting to strip away admin rights as well. The problem of software requiring administrative rights is nowhere near as bad as it used to be. Our biggest hurdle is mobile users that need to install printers wherever they might be working. It's not possible for everyone to take away admin rights, but for those that can, it's a good idea.
We're also using Sophos antivirus, which has software access control built in. We can tell it not to let users install Skype, etc. They'll have device control soon as well. No plugging in thumb-drives unless we say it's ok.
Slashdot Mirror
You keep neglecting the fact that this is all available via HTTP, which is a method of _publication_. Publication implies authorization. How can this escape you?
One unfortunate part of our legal system is that a behemoth can currently smother an opponent with money whether they're right or not.
I like where you're going with that. Unfortunately, it's not that simple. Something like a protocol doesn't fit under copyright. It would be a patent thing. The clause would have to be in the copyright of the software that implements the protocol and you've already got so many http servers out there that it would be pretty impossible to get them all to set this up.
But please, don't be an ass and make us all look bad. If you're going to comment, make it something thoughtful and constructive.
The only way it could cover a URL is if that URL somehow bypassed authorization for a site.
Are you really that stupid? If you can link to something on the web, then it's been published to the web. Publishing something == authorizing access unless you protect it somehow. Don't want that naked picture of you to get out? Don't publish it!
It's an unfortunate fact that a lot of web-based software that businesses use still only works in IE6. I deal with it every day and it drives me crazy, but there's no other realistic solution for us at the moment.
Personally, I'd be pretty annoyed if an article I wrote got on slashdot and coralcache got all of the hits.
You know what the underlying theme is of everything you mentioned? Microsoft doing whatever they please without working with anyone else. This is far from beneficial in the long run.
Mod parent up.
If you want Linux to be adopted by more than just the geeky segment of the population, this is the type of stuff that has to be dealt with. I can say I went through a similar process when I first started using Linux. The two biggest groups that were helpful to me were the Gentoo and Ubuntu crowds. The Gentoo scene has some really great documentation that can be applied to other distributions if you're willing to spend some time with it.
Yeah. It's called welfare and it comes out of our pockets.
Well said.
Personally, I don't necessarily care if one company copies a good idea that another company has. What I don't like is when that company comes out and acts as if they were the first ones to have the idea and that it's better than anyone else's. Going a step farther, if they bastardize what they're copying and still proclaim its greatness, that's just utter bullshit.
That's still relying on a human to do so. If you have the proper equipment, it's impossible to have both connected at once. That's how it should be done.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but are you serious with point one and OS X?
http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/300.html
Please show me which service pack made that many changes. Microsoft does the same thing with service packs as Apple does with the 10.x.x releases. They just don't do them as often. If you're going to give Apple crap, why not point out some real flaws rather than making stuff up. For instance, 10.5 is slow to log on and launch apps and needs too many damned restarts for updates to install.
True. I guess I'm still thinking about things with that mindset of proprietary firmware. Anyone got a reccomendation for an 802.11n router?
Are you aware of any open source firmware available for wireless access points? I've already got a solid router (Cisco 2611xm) in place and I'd rather not double-nat.
Right. There was security on the share and his account was given access to said share. A user account is more specific than a key. User accounts have specific access restrictions associated to them. In this case, the user account had rights to access that folder. Unless explicitly told otherwise, he was authorized.
The only question in my mind was his intent. Unfortunately, the email hasn't been released, so that's hard to figure out. The article said there was intent to profit, but without anything to back it up, I'm still on the fence.
It depends on your plan. I can tether without any extra charges, but I've already got a full unlimited BlackBerry plan.
A sharper picture doesn't do you much good if you can't see what's on the screen due to glare.
I'm all for them selling glossy screens to people that want them, but why should I have to suffer for it? I guess I'll be sticking with my older MBP for quite some time.
I grew up in Maine. I never saw chains on anything other than a plow truck.
Who said the picture on the Roku sucks? I've been quite pleased with mine.
Why do things the hard way? Active Directory + Radius + 802.1x would simplify things quite a bit for you. It's also much more secure.
Where I work we're starting to strip away admin rights as well. The problem of software requiring administrative rights is nowhere near as bad as it used to be. Our biggest hurdle is mobile users that need to install printers wherever they might be working. It's not possible for everyone to take away admin rights, but for those that can, it's a good idea.
We're also using Sophos antivirus, which has software access control built in. We can tell it not to let users install Skype, etc. They'll have device control soon as well. No plugging in thumb-drives unless we say it's ok.
In the end, though, if most people benefit, that means that spammers aren't going to make any money and will hopefully quit anyway.