Problem: You want to produce a payroll system which is easy to administer centrally, doesn't require the sysadmin to install specific software and should have a rich, pretty interface.
Solution: Make it web based.
Problem: It's 1998. Web based things are a right royal PITA to write if you're using straight HTTP/HTML, particularly if they're stateful. XHTML doesn't exist, Java is patchy at best. JSP has hardly been heard of (did it exist then?)
Solution: This ActiveX thingy looks interesting. The program's still web-based but you've got a pretty good API to work with. Okay, so it's Windows only, but Macs are not exactly in heavy use in payroll departments, and whoever heard of Linux on the desktop? Adware, spyware and other miscellaneous security nightmares in IE are still a distant speck on the horizon.
Memory leaks are notoriously difficult to fix, largely because it's very difficult to find what's caused it.
The basic definition of a memory leak is "program requests memory, uses it, then doesn't give it back to the system afterwards". Here's an example of code that will cause a memory leak every time it's called:
int leakyRoutine () {
char *leak;
leak=malloc(1024);
return 0; }
What happens here is: The program asks the operating system for 1024 bytes of memory. The operating system will return with a pointer to 1024 bytes of memory, which is stored in the variable leak.
It's the program's responsibility to give that memory back afterwards. But once you're out of the function leakyRoutine(), the context is lost - you don't know what the value of the variable (and thus pointer) was. And if you don't know what memory you've got, you can't give it back.
The operating system knows what memory every program has allocated, so can reclaim the memory back quite easily. But because the operating system doesn't know what the program is doing with its memory, it can't do so while the program is running. Otherwise, data corruption is likely.
The above is a trivial example, and it's easy to see the problem. But what if there's a million lines of code, pointers are passed as arguments and return values between functions and you're not clear as to which function is responsible for freeing which pointers?
Given the vast mess of stuff out there that's IE only, I can see Microsoft making IE7 vaguely standards-compliant whilst retaining most of its old rendering bugs.
Microsoft is no longer the monopoly. They can't enforce their ideas, "either you do it our way or not at all"
I'd disagree with that. Microsoft is still the monopoly insofar as relatively few large installations of Windows/Office have seriously contemplated switching. But I reckon MS have seen the future, and have deduced that unless they tread very carefully, they're not in it.
Monopoly or not, this amounts to the same thing - they're suddenly forced to compete. Not something Microsoft is terribly experienced or indeed good at, so it'll be interesting to see if (how?) they adapt.
It was a very patronising "we don't think it will pass and even if it does, we're happy with the wording". Completely ignored my points.
Now I think of it I've written to politicians on a number of occasions, generally to express a point of view different to the party line, and I've had a similar response to that every time. Kind of makes me wonder what my tax goes on because it's certainly not representation.
History in Eastern Europe suggests that eventually communism collapses, to be replaced by a more capitalistic society (with rampant corruption in many cases). Perhaps society is circular.
Now the danger is with application vendors abusing the TPM functionality to limit computer use such as requiring the TPM to be active or storing identitfying information in the TPM.
Not a troll, but my interpretation of that is "Trusted Computing only works if all the parts of the equation (ie. OS, software, hardware) are running it".
Most of the big companies are involved in Trusted Computing of some sort, and have invested heavily in it. The idea that they will go that all that expense and then not use the platform strikes me as unlikely.
The only real hope I can see is lack of consumer acceptance. Whether or not that happens remains to be seen.
The guy was shining a laser at aircraft, including a police helecoptor. He then lied about it and tried to put the blame on his kid. Getting arrested is the least that should happen to him.
I don't think that's the issue. The issue is "Why is it necessary to use anti-terrorism laws for someone whos crime isn't terrorist in nature? Further, if the laws can be used in this way, exactly how well written are they?"
True, but $5 will save the company $5 * (number of players manufactured) and will still put off anyone with less than $10,000 to blow.
IME, the formats which survive being cracked longest tend to be the relatively unpopular ones, cf. Minidisc, Sega DreamCast (never sold as well as the Playstation), Nintendo Gamecube (never sold as well as the PS2 or XBox).
Sooner or later there has to be a way to get to the relevant keys that decrypt the disk. The most anyone can do is erect hurdles to make this harder.
Whether or not sufficiently complex hurdles are possible without adding unacceptable complication to the system is another issue altogether.
However, as has already been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the issue is rapidly moving away from how easy it is for the masses to rip to how easy it is for one person anywhere in the world to rip and share. This is much harder to guard against.
Simple. Each fight takes another year or two. Meantime, they're producing the Next Big Version of Windows.
When the highest court they can appeal to finally says "No, do as you were told in the first place!", Microsoft say "We can't. Since that case was decided, the product we sell has moved on and the functionality you want removed is now an integral part."
This is exactly what happened with IE and Win95/8.
It can only be done indirectly... e.g. "break up your company or you can't do business in Europe"
Wellll... the courts could say this. I suspect they're slightly concerned that Microsoft would say "OK then. BTW, if we can't do business in Europe, I guess that means that all your contracts to buy our software are void, and you don't own any of it. We'll have it back, please."
I'm in.uk, and I'm interested to know - does your government tie everything together with your ID card?
FWIW, the UK government is proposing that basically any and all government interaction (taxes, healthcare, criminal records etc etc etc) will be recorded - either on the ID card itself or against it in a database.
This will also be extendible to private companies under certain "regulations" yet to be decided.
The ID card and the systems which it underpins are being pitched as being 100% infallible. So if you can get hold of one which proves you're someone quite different to who you really are, then nobody will question this. After all, the card's infallible, you must be who it says on there, right?
To top it off, the proposal includes saving cash by seeding this system from existing passport and driving license databases. Yes, those systems which are known to contain information which in some non-trivial number of cases is downright wrong will be used to seed a system which is supposedly 100% authoritative.
As a UK citizen, I don't dispute that ID cards can serve a purpose. What I dispute is:
1. That they will serve the purposes for which they are being proposed, namely to prevent terrorism, reduce crime, benefit fraud and ID theft. They may up the barrier for the more amateurish crooks but the organised gangs - forget it.
2. That making it illegal (on threat of honking fines and jail sentences) will prevent criminals from obtaining false documents. They're criminals, they don't much care if they have to commit a crime!
I explained this one to my MP, I got a letter back essentially saying "Yes, we know. Haven't figured out a way around this yet. You got any ideas?"
3. That they are a cost effective means of achieving any of these aims. The cost of this card and its associated systems is estimated to be in the BILLIONS. As a UK citizen, I get to see on my payslip every month around 33% of my income go straight to the government. The money never even sees my bank account. It sickens me to think that the government is taking all this money off people and pissing it away on an expensive project which isn't going to achieve anything.
4. The government makes no secret that the plan is for these ID cards to eventually become compulsory. And you have to pay for your ID card separately - it doesn't magically arrive free in the post. Various costs have been banded around, from about £20 to £80.
So I have to pay money to the government to receive a product/service, and it's compulsory, regardless of whether or not I want that product/service? Sounds like a tax to me.
My superiors make their decisions based on information (and mis-information) given to them by Microsoft based vendors.
That's something which always puzzles me.
Mercedes-Benz says "The new Mercedes is the best car in its class!". I would expect most people to say "No kidding. What do you expect them to say about their own product?"
Yet software companies say "Our product is the best on the market" and PHBs the world over say "Really? Tell me more..."
but all the criminals they're trying to catch will!
Assuming, of course, that the criminals are also computer-savvy enough to use Knoppix and strong encyption end to end for everything they do.
The subset of computer users that have even heard of Knoppix is small. I'd be willing to bet that for all but the most organised of criminal rings, the same can be said. And if the criminal ring is that organised, it will take more than a few software taps to bring them down.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. My g/f uses Natwest's online banking all the time, and this box runs Linux so it's pretty unlikely she's using IE.
You may have to set the browser to identify itself as IE though, as some online banking sites are picky like that.
I'm playing devil's advocate here, but hey...
Problem: You want to produce a payroll system which is easy to administer centrally, doesn't require the sysadmin to install specific software and should have a rich, pretty interface.
Solution: Make it web based.
Problem: It's 1998. Web based things are a right royal PITA to write if you're using straight HTTP/HTML, particularly if they're stateful. XHTML doesn't exist, Java is patchy at best. JSP has hardly been heard of (did it exist then?)
Solution: This ActiveX thingy looks interesting. The program's still web-based but you've got a pretty good API to work with. Okay, so it's Windows only, but Macs are not exactly in heavy use in payroll departments, and whoever heard of Linux on the desktop? Adware, spyware and other miscellaneous security nightmares in IE are still a distant speck on the horizon.
Memory leaks are notoriously difficult to fix, largely because it's very difficult to find what's caused it.
The basic definition of a memory leak is "program requests memory, uses it, then doesn't give it back to the system afterwards". Here's an example of code that will cause a memory leak every time it's called:
int leakyRoutine () {
char *leak;
leak=malloc(1024);
return 0;
}
What happens here is: The program asks the operating system for 1024 bytes of memory. The operating system will return with a pointer to 1024 bytes of memory, which is stored in the variable leak.
It's the program's responsibility to give that memory back afterwards. But once you're out of the function leakyRoutine(), the context is lost - you don't know what the value of the variable (and thus pointer) was. And if you don't know what memory you've got, you can't give it back.
The operating system knows what memory every program has allocated, so can reclaim the memory back quite easily. But because the operating system doesn't know what the program is doing with its memory, it can't do so while the program is running. Otherwise, data corruption is likely.
The above is a trivial example, and it's easy to see the problem. But what if there's a million lines of code, pointers are passed as arguments and return values between functions and you're not clear as to which function is responsible for freeing which pointers?
Given the vast mess of stuff out there that's IE only, I can see Microsoft making IE7 vaguely standards-compliant whilst retaining most of its old rendering bugs.
Love that phrase "non-compliant". IE certainly isn't compliant with anything I know, except possibly IE.
Microsoft is no longer the monopoly. They can't enforce their ideas, "either you do it our way or not at all"
I'd disagree with that. Microsoft is still the monopoly insofar as relatively few large installations of Windows/Office have seriously contemplated switching. But I reckon MS have seen the future, and have deduced that unless they tread very carefully, they're not in it.
Monopoly or not, this amounts to the same thing - they're suddenly forced to compete. Not something Microsoft is terribly experienced or indeed good at, so it'll be interesting to see if (how?) they adapt.
Michael Moore convinced Kmart to stop selling bullets just by talking to them - granted he brought columbine victims along.
He also brought video cameras along.
I got a reply.
It was a very patronising "we don't think it will pass and even if it does, we're happy with the wording". Completely ignored my points.
Now I think of it I've written to politicians on a number of occasions, generally to express a point of view different to the party line, and I've had a similar response to that every time. Kind of makes me wonder what my tax goes on because it's certainly not representation.
I just want the absolute most superior movie format for posterity's sake.
If your chosen format doesn't take off, many films won't get released on it. So it doesn't much matter how superior it is.
This must be the first time in history a video camera has been slashdotted.
Sounds a lot like communist theory. (see also http://www.geocities.com/aufheben2/auf_11_tcreply. html.)
History in Eastern Europe suggests that eventually communism collapses, to be replaced by a more capitalistic society (with rampant corruption in many cases). Perhaps society is circular.
jimicus.
Now the danger is with application vendors abusing the TPM functionality to limit computer use such as requiring the TPM to be active or storing identitfying information in the TPM.
Not a troll, but my interpretation of that is "Trusted Computing only works if all the parts of the equation (ie. OS, software, hardware) are running it".
Most of the big companies are involved in Trusted Computing of some sort, and have invested heavily in it. The idea that they will go that all that expense and then not use the platform strikes me as unlikely.
The only real hope I can see is lack of consumer acceptance. Whether or not that happens remains to be seen.
What is it about the unlucky version 4? Duke Nukem 4ever -- Elite 4(ever)? Maybe version 4 should be skipped entirely by software developers.
Microsoft did. Windows 3.11 to Windows '95, anyone?
The guy was shining a laser at aircraft, including a police helecoptor. He then lied about it and tried to put the blame on his kid. Getting arrested is the least that should happen to him.
I don't think that's the issue. The issue is "Why is it necessary to use anti-terrorism laws for someone whos crime isn't terrorist in nature? Further, if the laws can be used in this way, exactly how well written are they?"
True, but $5 will save the company $5 * (number of players manufactured) and will still put off anyone with less than $10,000 to blow.
IME, the formats which survive being cracked longest tend to be the relatively unpopular ones, cf. Minidisc, Sega DreamCast (never sold as well as the Playstation), Nintendo Gamecube (never sold as well as the PS2 or XBox).
Sooner or later there has to be a way to get to the relevant keys that decrypt the disk. The most anyone can do is erect hurdles to make this harder.
Whether or not sufficiently complex hurdles are possible without adding unacceptable complication to the system is another issue altogether.
However, as has already been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, the issue is rapidly moving away from how easy it is for the masses to rip to how easy it is for one person anywhere in the world to rip and share. This is much harder to guard against.
Then don't bruteforce it. Decrypt it using a key which you've managed to reverse engineer from another player.
For best results, try and get a key from a popular make/model of player. If it's revoked, the uproar will be far greater.
Simple. Each fight takes another year or two. Meantime, they're producing the Next Big Version of Windows.
When the highest court they can appeal to finally says "No, do as you were told in the first place!", Microsoft say "We can't. Since that case was decided, the product we sell has moved on and the functionality you want removed is now an integral part."
This is exactly what happened with IE and Win95/8.
It can only be done indirectly... e.g. "break up your company or you can't do business in Europe"
Wellll... the courts could say this. I suspect they're slightly concerned that Microsoft would say "OK then. BTW, if we can't do business in Europe, I guess that means that all your contracts to buy our software are void, and you don't own any of it. We'll have it back, please."
I'm in .uk, and I'm interested to know - does your government tie everything together with your ID card?
FWIW, the UK government is proposing that basically any and all government interaction (taxes, healthcare, criminal records etc etc etc) will be recorded - either on the ID card itself or against it in a database.
This will also be extendible to private companies under certain "regulations" yet to be decided.
The ID card and the systems which it underpins are being pitched as being 100% infallible. So if you can get hold of one which proves you're someone quite different to who you really are, then nobody will question this. After all, the card's infallible, you must be who it says on there, right?
To top it off, the proposal includes saving cash by seeding this system from existing passport and driving license databases. Yes, those systems which are known to contain information which in some non-trivial number of cases is downright wrong will be used to seed a system which is supposedly 100% authoritative.
As a UK citizen, I don't dispute that ID cards can serve a purpose. What I dispute is:
1. That they will serve the purposes for which they are being proposed, namely to prevent terrorism, reduce crime, benefit fraud and ID theft. They may up the barrier for the more amateurish crooks but the organised gangs - forget it.
2. That making it illegal (on threat of honking fines and jail sentences) will prevent criminals from obtaining false documents. They're criminals, they don't much care if they have to commit a crime!
I explained this one to my MP, I got a letter back essentially saying "Yes, we know. Haven't figured out a way around this yet. You got any ideas?"
3. That they are a cost effective means of achieving any of these aims. The cost of this card and its associated systems is estimated to be in the BILLIONS. As a UK citizen, I get to see on my payslip every month around 33% of my income go straight to the government. The money never even sees my bank account. It sickens me to think that the government is taking all this money off people and pissing it away on an expensive project which isn't going to achieve anything.
4. The government makes no secret that the plan is for these ID cards to eventually become compulsory. And you have to pay for your ID card separately - it doesn't magically arrive free in the post. Various costs have been banded around, from about £20 to £80.
So I have to pay money to the government to receive a product/service, and it's compulsory, regardless of whether or not I want that product/service? Sounds like a tax to me.
My superiors make their decisions based on information (and mis-information) given to them by Microsoft based vendors.
That's something which always puzzles me.
Mercedes-Benz says "The new Mercedes is the best car in its class!". I would expect most people to say "No kidding. What do you expect them to say about their own product?"
Yet software companies say "Our product is the best on the market" and PHBs the world over say "Really? Tell me more..."
Wine is also VERY good at those little custom developed in-house vertical apps that all large companies seem to have lots of.
Good luck getting the outside company which developed those systems to support them running on Wine.
No longer strictly true with the Epson. But the driver is still under very heavy development, and I'm not sure how good the colours will be.
but all the criminals they're trying to catch will!
Assuming, of course, that the criminals are also computer-savvy enough to use Knoppix and strong encyption end to end for everything they do.
The subset of computer users that have even heard of Knoppix is small. I'd be willing to bet that for all but the most organised of criminal rings, the same can be said. And if the criminal ring is that organised, it will take more than a few software taps to bring them down.
Typical governmental logic. Prevent criminals from removing the tracking device by making it a crime to do so.
An imaginative criminal could easily work around that. I like the idea of pushing the car off a cliff.