As an employee of a security company, I don't have a problem with this. I would have more of a problem with Microsoft giving it away for free. (And, I hope, the toothless antitrust enforcement might have a problem with it, too, but I wouldn't bet on it.)
But really, we cry "unfair" over what they did to Netscape. Rightly so; it was unfair. If they had sold IE as a separate product, it wouldn't have been unfair. So now they sell this stuff as a separate product. They're not bundling. So what's the problem?
And there's another way this is good: TCO studies. The more extra charges you have to have from Microsoft to have a working product, the better TCO Linux has by comparison. (That is, if it's an honest comparison. But instead, what we'll probably see is bogus TCO "studies" where Microsoft looks good, but it omits the security stuff. Then when you go to actually buy it, there's these extra costs, like the auto dealers do with "dealer prep".)
You said "maybe using a locked-down ftp server". Thing is, SCO has a history of not being the most competent at administering their own web site. So they put on some "technical access controls" that don't actually work. Then they claim that IBM "hacked" because they "bypassed" the technical access controls...
IBM didn't admit to any such thing. They said that they downloaded the source to Linux from SCO's server. They didn't say that they hacked to do it; they said that it was freely, publicly available.
SCO says that IBM hacked, but provides no evidence (not even a sworn deposition!) that IBM did so.
I was surprised to read his conciliatory advice to Indians treated suspiciously on the basis of their skin color or accent in the panic-prone modern America to "please accept it," rather than to bristle. That might be pragmatic and sensible advice, but America will be a better place when it's unnecessary.
No, he's right, because at that point, he's talking to the Indians. They can either accept it, resent it, or leave, because unfortunately, that's the way it is.
But the reviewer is also right. America will be a better place when racism is gone. Talking to the Americans, I say, "Racism is morally wrong. It is harmful both to recipient and to the racist. Knock that *%^&* off!"
If I understand correctly, this encryption doesn't do what we normally think of encryption as doing for us. Yes, the message is encrypted. But since the keys get published (necessary for forge-ability), anybody who kept a copy of the session can read the whole thing (once the session is over).
Or have I missed some essential detail?
Well, first of all, this can be a lot faster than setellite, because you only have 13 miles of time lag, instead of 24,000 miles.
Second, maintenance is a lot easier than satellite. Once you have a satellite in geostationary orbit, even the shuttle can't service it - even when the shuttle is flying.
And how expensive is it? Well, it's less expensive than launching into geostationary orbit...
But is it enough cheaper than cable/DSL and enough faster than dialup to matter to people? I don't know.
Not the/. crowd, but more "average" users. Why do they hate Microsoft?
One reason is "leverage". Microsoft does things to "leverage" the Windows platforms, that is, to use Windows' dominance to get users to use other Microsoft stuff. People hate Microsoft for this because being on the receiving end of leverage feels a lot like being forced. People resent being forced to do something. It doesn't matter what it is that they are being forced to do, they resent the force being used on them.
In the battle for user's hearts and minds, don't do the same things that they resent when Microsoft does them. Don't leverage KDE to move the OS kernel. Don't try to force users to switch OSes just to get KDE. Let the user choose.
(And, as a practical matter, if you get them on KDE on Windows, then it's easy to say, "Let's move you over to Linux. Nothing will change except that that computer will quit crashing."
No, the problem is that users set the bar very high.
See, OS kernels, compilers, word processors, and that kind of stuff are old hat now. There aren't any staggering breakthroughs being made in proportional-spacing algorithms these days. So OO.o, for example, has not too hard of a time creating a word processor that does just about anything anyone will ever need a word processor to do.
EDA is a whole different ball game. The leading-edge designs that people want to do are beyond the capabilities of the current software, even the software from the major vendors. Users need staggering breakthroughs, just to make the tools adequate for handling the user's current designs.
I'm not saying that open source can't compete here. But it's very different from "yeah, open source can build an OS that doesn't crash." That was a low bar that one particular vendor's stuff had a lot of problems with due to very bad design; OSS cleared that bar quite handily.
"Strained" is exactly that, the silicon lattice is under strain. What does this do to the durability of the chip? Does it make the chip more subject to breaking from physical shock (dropping your laptop, for example)? Does it make the chip more subject to failure from the stress of power-up?
No, that password is the "root" password to my life, not to my machine. And no, it isn't "root" or "password".
Why is it better? Because I only have to remember one. I can do that. And because I only have to make one secure one. I think I can do that, too (of course, lots of people think that they can, and a number are mistaken...)
PasswordSafe, from Bruce Schneier's outfit Conterpane Security, is a great help. I can have multiple passwords to different things stored in it; I can even have "secure" machine-generated ones, and I don't have to remember any of them. All I have to remember is one good, solid password - the password to PasswordSafe. (If you will, it's my "root" password.)
... the same nonsense we keep having with the patent system: They think that idea X "using the internet" is completely different from plain old idea X.
It's not just this lawyer. The patent office fairly consistently agrees with this nonsense.
Technically, I believe that you are probably correct (IANAL, however). But I sure don't see anything wrong with it (though I do see something wrong with out-and-out piracy).
And if I'm an evil corporation, what do I care about? Money. You sold another copy of my game? Cool. I don't care about the letter of the law; just pay me. You move a copy of my game without paying me, I'll find a way to nail you.
And if I'm a judge with a clue, and I find that someone is legitimately purchasing the game, pre-loading it, destroying the CD, and selling the pre-loaded box, and the law says they can't do that, I might have to tell them to stop, but criminal charges? Get outta here. Where's the harm? Where's the damage to the victim? There isn't any.
Well, yes, Microsoft deserves some credit for taking the hard path, the painful path, and doing the right thing. It looks like their commitment to security is more than lip service. They're doing security even if it hurts.
And yet, many of us also remember that Microsoft deliberately got to where they are. They chose features over security. They build architectures that were badly flawed in order to get to market first, or to get higher performance, or in order to be able to assert in court that IE was a fundamental part of the OS. They didn't get here by being horrible coders; they got here by deliberately, consistently choosing money and market-share over security. For this reason, while it's encouraging to see Microsoft doing the right thing, it's also hard to not gloat a bit over the fix they got themselves into by their own greed...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Korean educational system emphasize rote? And doesn't the US emphasize "the more practical aspects of mathematics"? So saying that the rote learning approach doesn't do as well seems like a bit of a stretch...
Yes, but what has he sworn under affidavit? That he built a prototype? That he built a prototype, and the guy who asked him to intended to use it? Or that he built a prototype and it was used in the election?
If the politician in question wanted a prototype built to show how easily it could be done - to show how insecure electronic voting machines are - doesn't that make him one of the good guys?
The key point in this story isn't that vote tampering happened (if vote tampering actually did happen, I will retract this statement!), but rather that any politician can buy a custom vote-tampering package for the next election. Now how good do all those promises of E-voting security look?
Because this is what people want to see? Right... that's why TV ratings are at all-time lows.
Yeah, I know, some people tuned out because they went to cable and the internet, but there's more to it than that.
Some people quit watching because so much of TV is crap. (Did everybody who could actually write decent material die off over the last 30 years?)
And some people quit watching because so much of TV was crap morally. Most of them didn't write letters to the FCC; they just said, "why am I watching this stuff that is so morally offensive?" and decided not to watch it any more.
And for those of you who think "it doesn't matter, it's just TV, get a life and let us watch what we want", let me point out one thing. Advertisers spend a million dollars to air one 30-second-long commercial. Why? Because they don't have anything better to do with their money? No, because they believe that they can, in 30 seconds, make a change in people's behavior that will mean more than a million dollars to their bottom line.
But people say that all the sex and violence on TV doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect people's behavior. Right... one 30-second-long commercial changes people's behavior but seeing a thousand murders, and who-knows-how-many sex acts, doesn't? Sure.
So who's right? I believe the people who are putting their million dollars where their mouth is.
Note that I am not saying that everyone who watches all this stuff on TV turns into a murderer or a sex maniac or whatever. Not everyone who watches a Coke commercial goes out and buys more Coke, either. But just as the Coke ads changes enough people's behavior to matter to Coke, the sex and violence changes enough people's behavior to matter to society.
I wouldn't put it past the cell phone companies to try this, but on what basis? I mean, if it's a local call for the cell phone, then in terms of the usage of the cell phone network, it's a local call, right? So what's the basis for prohibiting it (or putting a surcharge on it, which IMHO would make more sense for the cell companies to try)?
First, if I understand it correctly, he's calling for us to fix it, rather than the governement. So all the "keep government out of it" replies are irrelevant.
Second: "With great power comes great responsibility". The internet gives anyone on it the power to communicate with anyone else on it, worldwide. Too many people are not using the power responsibly.
When I first got on the internet, it was a community. I guess it still is, but it's a community where the bad elements are running wild. It's not the wild west, it's more like the inner city - you have to have multiple locks on your doors, all your windows barred, and even then you may not be safe. I don't want to live in that kind of environment. I want the old internet back. I want a community where people help each other instead of trying to scam each other. I want the freedom of not having to be up-to-the-second on patches in order to be safe. I want the freedom to use the internet without fear.
Now, I know that in some fundamental way I'm bumping against the flaws in human nature. (Fix the people, make them honest instead of scam artists and kind instead of jerks, and then the internet will be fine.) But looking around at the current state of the internet, I can see how much we've lost. Can it be that there's nothing we can do to make it better, make it more like what it was? Can it be that the only answer is "If you don't like it, leave"?
However, a contract must be agreed to by both parties. If you manage to download software onto my machine without asking, that also means that I didn't get a chance to agree to the EULA. No contract then exists between me and the "vendor".
Well, they may argue that it's not a contract, it's an agreement. But if I didn't agree to it, how is it an agreement?
No matter how you slice it, you aren't bound to a contract/license/agreement that you never even saw, let alone agreed to...
Re:There's a preventive vaccine already
on
HIV Vaccine
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Figure out that the heterosexual spread of AIDS is rapidly becoming true in the rest of the world, and you'll live longer...
Seriously, read the news articles that are coming out today. The spread of AIDS in the heterosexual population is not just an African thing. It may be more advanced in Africa, but it's coming to the rest of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
But really, we cry "unfair" over what they did to Netscape. Rightly so; it was unfair. If they had sold IE as a separate product, it wouldn't have been unfair. So now they sell this stuff as a separate product. They're not bundling. So what's the problem?
And there's another way this is good: TCO studies. The more extra charges you have to have from Microsoft to have a working product, the better TCO Linux has by comparison. (That is, if it's an honest comparison. But instead, what we'll probably see is bogus TCO "studies" where Microsoft looks good, but it omits the security stuff. Then when you go to actually buy it, there's these extra costs, like the auto dealers do with "dealer prep".)
You said "maybe using a locked-down ftp server". Thing is, SCO has a history of not being the most competent at administering their own web site. So they put on some "technical access controls" that don't actually work. Then they claim that IBM "hacked" because they "bypassed" the technical access controls...
IBM didn't admit to any such thing. They said that they downloaded the source to Linux from SCO's server. They didn't say that they hacked to do it; they said that it was freely, publicly available.
SCO says that IBM hacked, but provides no evidence (not even a sworn deposition!) that IBM did so.
Take the SCO claim with several pounds of salt...
No, he's right, because at that point, he's talking to the Indians. They can either accept it, resent it, or leave, because unfortunately, that's the way it is.
But the reviewer is also right. America will be a better place when racism is gone. Talking to the Americans, I say, "Racism is morally wrong. It is harmful both to recipient and to the racist. Knock that *%^&* off!"
If I understand correctly, this encryption doesn't do what we normally think of encryption as doing for us. Yes, the message is encrypted. But since the keys get published (necessary for forge-ability), anybody who kept a copy of the session can read the whole thing (once the session is over). Or have I missed some essential detail?
(breaks out a calculator because he doesn't want to add 1024 to 65536 and make a mistake)
Hand over your geek license, buddy!
(But I'll probably lose my geek license for admitting I used a calculator.)
Well, first of all, this can be a lot faster than setellite, because you only have 13 miles of time lag, instead of 24,000 miles. Second, maintenance is a lot easier than satellite. Once you have a satellite in geostationary orbit, even the shuttle can't service it - even when the shuttle is flying. And how expensive is it? Well, it's less expensive than launching into geostationary orbit... But is it enough cheaper than cable/DSL and enough faster than dialup to matter to people? I don't know.
At first I thought it was one of those "IP over carrier pigeons" things that geeks do when they get really bored...
Not the /. crowd, but more "average" users. Why do they hate Microsoft?
One reason is "leverage". Microsoft does things to "leverage" the Windows platforms, that is, to use Windows' dominance to get users to use other Microsoft stuff. People hate Microsoft for this because being on the receiving end of leverage feels a lot like being forced. People resent being forced to do something. It doesn't matter what it is that they are being forced to do, they resent the force being used on them.
In the battle for user's hearts and minds, don't do the same things that they resent when Microsoft does them. Don't leverage KDE to move the OS kernel. Don't try to force users to switch OSes just to get KDE. Let the user choose.
(And, as a practical matter, if you get them on KDE on Windows, then it's easy to say, "Let's move you over to Linux. Nothing will change except that that computer will quit crashing."
See, OS kernels, compilers, word processors, and that kind of stuff are old hat now. There aren't any staggering breakthroughs being made in proportional-spacing algorithms these days. So OO.o, for example, has not too hard of a time creating a word processor that does just about anything anyone will ever need a word processor to do.
EDA is a whole different ball game. The leading-edge designs that people want to do are beyond the capabilities of the current software, even the software from the major vendors. Users need staggering breakthroughs, just to make the tools adequate for handling the user's current designs.
I'm not saying that open source can't compete here. But it's very different from "yeah, open source can build an OS that doesn't crash." That was a low bar that one particular vendor's stuff had a lot of problems with due to very bad design; OSS cleared that bar quite handily.
"Strained" is exactly that, the silicon lattice is under strain. What does this do to the durability of the chip? Does it make the chip more subject to breaking from physical shock (dropping your laptop, for example)? Does it make the chip more subject to failure from the stress of power-up?
Put the windmills near Washington DC. There's an unending stream of hot air flowing out of there...
(And if you think this is aimed at one particular political party - either one - you have some serious blinders on.)
Why is it better? Because I only have to remember one. I can do that. And because I only have to make one secure one. I think I can do that, too (of course, lots of people think that they can, and a number are mistaken...)
PasswordSafe, from Bruce Schneier's outfit Conterpane Security, is a great help. I can have multiple passwords to different things stored in it; I can even have "secure" machine-generated ones, and I don't have to remember any of them. All I have to remember is one good, solid password - the password to PasswordSafe. (If you will, it's my "root" password.)
It's not just this lawyer. The patent office fairly consistently agrees with this nonsense.
Don't worry, the procedure will become much more automated very soon...
And if I'm an evil corporation, what do I care about? Money. You sold another copy of my game? Cool. I don't care about the letter of the law; just pay me. You move a copy of my game without paying me, I'll find a way to nail you.
And if I'm a judge with a clue, and I find that someone is legitimately purchasing the game, pre-loading it, destroying the CD, and selling the pre-loaded box, and the law says they can't do that, I might have to tell them to stop, but criminal charges? Get outta here. Where's the harm? Where's the damage to the victim? There isn't any.
Well, yes, Microsoft deserves some credit for taking the hard path, the painful path, and doing the right thing. It looks like their commitment to security is more than lip service. They're doing security even if it hurts.
And yet, many of us also remember that Microsoft deliberately got to where they are. They chose features over security. They build architectures that were badly flawed in order to get to market first, or to get higher performance, or in order to be able to assert in court that IE was a fundamental part of the OS. They didn't get here by being horrible coders; they got here by deliberately, consistently choosing money and market-share over security. For this reason, while it's encouraging to see Microsoft doing the right thing, it's also hard to not gloat a bit over the fix they got themselves into by their own greed...
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Korean educational system emphasize rote? And doesn't the US emphasize "the more practical aspects of mathematics"? So saying that the rote learning approach doesn't do as well seems like a bit of a stretch...
If the politician in question wanted a prototype built to show how easily it could be done - to show how insecure electronic voting machines are - doesn't that make him one of the good guys?
The key point in this story isn't that vote tampering happened (if vote tampering actually did happen, I will retract this statement!), but rather that any politician can buy a custom vote-tampering package for the next election. Now how good do all those promises of E-voting security look?
Because this is what people want to see? Right... that's why TV ratings are at all-time lows.
Yeah, I know, some people tuned out because they went to cable and the internet, but there's more to it than that.
Some people quit watching because so much of TV is crap. (Did everybody who could actually write decent material die off over the last 30 years?)
And some people quit watching because so much of TV was crap morally. Most of them didn't write letters to the FCC; they just said, "why am I watching this stuff that is so morally offensive?" and decided not to watch it any more.
And for those of you who think "it doesn't matter, it's just TV, get a life and let us watch what we want", let me point out one thing. Advertisers spend a million dollars to air one 30-second-long commercial. Why? Because they don't have anything better to do with their money? No, because they believe that they can, in 30 seconds, make a change in people's behavior that will mean more than a million dollars to their bottom line.
But people say that all the sex and violence on TV doesn't matter, because it doesn't affect people's behavior. Right... one 30-second-long commercial changes people's behavior but seeing a thousand murders, and who-knows-how-many sex acts, doesn't? Sure.
So who's right? I believe the people who are putting their million dollars where their mouth is.
Note that I am not saying that everyone who watches all this stuff on TV turns into a murderer or a sex maniac or whatever. Not everyone who watches a Coke commercial goes out and buys more Coke, either. But just as the Coke ads changes enough people's behavior to matter to Coke, the sex and violence changes enough people's behavior to matter to society.
I wouldn't put it past the cell phone companies to try this, but on what basis? I mean, if it's a local call for the cell phone, then in terms of the usage of the cell phone network, it's a local call, right? So what's the basis for prohibiting it (or putting a surcharge on it, which IMHO would make more sense for the cell companies to try)?
First, if I understand it correctly, he's calling for us to fix it, rather than the governement. So all the "keep government out of it" replies are irrelevant.
Second: "With great power comes great responsibility". The internet gives anyone on it the power to communicate with anyone else on it, worldwide. Too many people are not using the power responsibly.
When I first got on the internet, it was a community. I guess it still is, but it's a community where the bad elements are running wild. It's not the wild west, it's more like the inner city - you have to have multiple locks on your doors, all your windows barred, and even then you may not be safe. I don't want to live in that kind of environment. I want the old internet back. I want a community where people help each other instead of trying to scam each other. I want the freedom of not having to be up-to-the-second on patches in order to be safe. I want the freedom to use the internet without fear.
Now, I know that in some fundamental way I'm bumping against the flaws in human nature. (Fix the people, make them honest instead of scam artists and kind instead of jerks, and then the internet will be fine.) But looking around at the current state of the internet, I can see how much we've lost. Can it be that there's nothing we can do to make it better, make it more like what it was? Can it be that the only answer is "If you don't like it, leave"?
IANAL.
However, a contract must be agreed to by both parties. If you manage to download software onto my machine without asking, that also means that I didn't get a chance to agree to the EULA. No contract then exists between me and the "vendor".
Well, they may argue that it's not a contract, it's an agreement. But if I didn't agree to it, how is it an agreement?
No matter how you slice it, you aren't bound to a contract/license/agreement that you never even saw, let alone agreed to...
Figure out that the heterosexual spread of AIDS is rapidly becoming true in the rest of the world, and you'll live longer...
Seriously, read the news articles that are coming out today. The spread of AIDS in the heterosexual population is not just an African thing. It may be more advanced in Africa, but it's coming to the rest of the world.