This virus doesn't do any damage. Is that because Star Basic runs in a sandbox and can't actually do damage? Or is it because the proof-of-concept virus didn't want to do any damage? If there is a sandbox, all this did is prove how secure Star Office is, not how vulnerable it is.
Fair enough. I am probably not really a libertarian, I just find that my ideas fall in that direction and it is the best way for people to understand my viewpoints. Most people don't understand that it is possible to have opinions that don't match a pre-defined label.
Regarding the platform on monopolies: WTF? Monopolies are created by the government? Did these people miss macroeconomics 101? Even with no government, natural monopolies exist, even if the libertarians pretend they don't exist. I really hope that the FAQ is just an oversimplification.
is the website for the supporters of Net Neutrality.
You mean for the opponents of net neutrality. Hence the name "hands off" meaning "don't force net neutrality." That's why it is supported by all the major telecoms.
It's interesting how they talk about "vast new regulations" when all the regulations would do is keep the status quo. It talks about how the US will fall behind other countries, even though those other countries have net neutrality. Their May 24th article complains about how difficult it will be to implement, even though it is already in place. If this group wasn't a serious threat, it would be a funny read.
1) I don't watch Seinfeld 2) In the examples I gave, it was end-users who called me because their computer wasn't working because of the software that was installed. Other than spyware (caused by people installing software, which you claim people don't do) the next most common complaint is that the computer is too complicated. Go buy a Dell - the default start menu si so big you have to scroll to get to the Microsoft Office stuff at the bottom. That's ridiculous.
You don't understand the libertarian viewpoint: Libertarians aren't against all regulation. We are against regulation that interferes with business. Regulation of natural monopolies, such as companies that own phone lines and carry the data, is necessary.
Now, specifically on net neutrality: net neutrality promotes fair access to a monopolized resource. That is good for business. It is good for everyone. I strongly support net neutrality.
I preferred the days when PC manufacturers were neutral to the software that you installed on them. They only pre-installed the basics, or nothing at all. Manufacturers tying in with specific software vendors and pre-installing tons of applications isn't done to improve the user experience: it is to improve their bottom line.
Free internet access. How do we make money? Volume.
That's genius! You can get a quiet phone call for free, but normal phone calls would cost 1 cent per minute, and loud phone calls 2 cents per minute. If you want speaker phone, that's 3 cents per minute, or 1 center per minute per person within audio range.
Where do the free antivirus programs get their virus definitions? Is there some open virus definition database or something? I think that Symantec has a team who writes^H^H^H^H^H^H researches new viruses and update the signatures. But who does that for the free projects?
Nope. You would be quite dim if I gave you explicit permission to distribute my software, and you sued me claiming that you don't actually have that right. Even dimmer would be to take away your own right then to continue distributing it.
Going back a few posts: someone said the GPL is a "contract" which is not true. The GPL is not a contract, not a license. It is a copyright. Thus, it would not be possible to sue claiming that you had MORE rights than the copyright allows you.
The courts need to sort this type of stuff out before it gets out of hand. The fundamental issue is that computer-generated results of any kind cannot be construed as doing something illegal.
If Excel says my Church's bank account balance is "69" I can't sue Microsoft for indecency.
If Yahoo suggests "Slashdot Sucks" when I type "Slashdot" OSDN can't sue for slander.
If a fractal generator produces a picture of your famous painting, you can't sue for copyright violations.
If you sell your biography on Amazon and it says "people who bought this book also bought: 'Famous Idiots'" you can't sue Amazon for... well... anthing.
If a thousand simulated monkeys at a thousand virtual keyboards produce the plotline to a video game movie, Uwe Boll can't sue.
Aggregated information is just that: information. It is not owned or copyrighted by anyone. The judge should simply rule that Google is not the one to sue, because they do not own the fact that 1000 people searched for this result.
This is just sad. This isn't an issue where there are valid points on the other side about why it might be good to have a tiered internet. It's CEOs and CFOs against the rest of the earth, and the fact that they might win demonstrates how badly our government is put together.
Naturally, the companies that make and sell the hardware would be VERY happy to see a tiered internet. But I highly doubt that this opinion is reflected by most of the employees of the company. They are regular people who will lose-out on this just like the remaining 99% internet users. It is sad that a handful of people at the top who stand to make money on this have decided a policy.
If I worked at a company that did something like this, I would start a coup d'état and happily leave if I lost. I wonder what the buzz is within Cisco this morning?
It was only a few days ago that everyone here was predicting that membership would surge due to the recently publicity. Then they suddenly go out of business? WTF? I hope this is some sort of ploy just to make spammers look bad, because this is definitely NOT a happy ending. Hell, this isn't even an ending.
Maybe it is time for them to start charging subscribers. Or to make this a community project.
We need a constitutional ammendment to fix this. The founding fathers forbade the federal government from regulating free speech. But the government found a loophole:
1) Offer federal funding to sources of media (schools, libraries). 2) Get them hooked on it. 3) Threaten to cut it off if they don't comply with a freedom of speech limitation.
Really, they could pass any law at all using this technique. Ex: "The president is now above all laws. Any state that does not agree to enforce this loses all state funding."
The federal legislature would never pass a limitation on their own power, but it is possible for the states to propose and pass an amendment without federal support according to Article V of the US constitution. (Note 2 explains this)
I suppose that is silly though - the states could just start refusing federal funding. But that isn't likely unless all of them do because no state wants to be at a disadvantage.
It would rock if some search engine decided to not index content that had ActiveX controls on it. Or sites that SiteAdvisor (or some other heuristic) indicates is unsafe. It would cut the revenue stream from these sites fairly quickly. I would probably pay for such a service if it meant that it cut revenue from these jerks.
Not that any of this is any excuse for the foolish security flaws (IE,running as admin) and naive user actions (installing anything, ignoring EULAs, etc.).
It's much more exciting to be swarmed by 7 or 8 nameless mooks who die at the end of your sword than to spend 1/2 hour chasing down one guy who keeps hiding behind cover, shooting you from the back, and running away when injured.
That's the best summary of this whole issue I've heard. People like to be Rambo or Neo. There is great pleasure beating up 10 guys at once. But after a while it gets old.
Most intelligent gamers eventually grow up and don't play those games any more. They switch to multiplayer games because humans opponents hide behind cover, shoot you from the back, and run away when injured. Nothing is more fun than losing to a superior enemy.
Doesn't ALSA effectively do this? I thought ALSA was a kernel module that provides an API for other kernel modules. That way, when the kernel API changes, the developers only need to modify ALSA, not every driver. Can't they just make something like that for each type of driver?
Actually, Windows has always had SUDO. A limited user can right-click the icon and select "run as." It will then prompt them for credentials. It really isn't that different from how other OS's work. You can also do it from the command-line.
To modify Windows to operate the way other OSs do (prompt you the password at the right time) is trivial. They could just modify the user interface to prompt when you run the app. I modified the shortcuts in my "Administrative tools" folder to do this.
Microsoft's boneheaded mistakes are that: 1) They didn't do this by default. 2) The UI takes at least 3+ to do what requires 0 clicks in Linux. - Windows: Right-click, run as, other user, type user name, tab, type password, enter. - Linux: Click, type password, hit enter. 3) They don't support, or encourage 3rd-parties to support, non-administrative users. 4) They don't clearly separate administrative actions from normal ones. Ex: "System restore" and "Windows Update" are under Accessories along with "Calculator".
I'm curious how this handles applications that constantly modify system settings inappropriately. Does it prompt you every time, or just once? Does it remember the setting? Ex: Most games still save their save files into C:\Program Files. When I save my game, am I booted from my DirectX environment back to the desktop to answer the prompt? If so, does it happen every time I save? Or can it work like a firewall and say "let me do this every time."
0xA reasons 802.11N is not likely replace home networks any time soon.
1) 180Mbps is the theoretical throughput if the devices are right next to each other. 2) Even then, you STILL won't get that speed. A typical cat 5 cable and switch will give you 99.9% of the theoretical max. 3) The latency is higher (gaming) 4) It's harder to configure. 5) It's less secure. 6) It's constantly changing. 7) It is expensive. 8) Linux drivers are hard to find. 9) ISPs won't support it.
Please reply to continue the list. There has to be at least one more.
I'm in. But I'm a developer - the physical world is not my domain. I bet we could secure some funding for this if we had some experienced people. Who do you know who can build a submarine?
Heck, I bet there is research money to be found in trying to build an underwater squid-like robot too. Anyone ever experiment with that type of locomotion before?
Slashdot Mirror
This virus doesn't do any damage. Is that because Star Basic runs in a sandbox and can't actually do damage? Or is it because the proof-of-concept virus didn't want to do any damage? If there is a sandbox, all this did is prove how secure Star Office is, not how vulnerable it is.
Fair enough. I am probably not really a libertarian, I just find that my ideas fall in that direction and it is the best way for people to understand my viewpoints. Most people don't understand that it is possible to have opinions that don't match a pre-defined label.
Regarding the platform on monopolies: WTF? Monopolies are created by the government? Did these people miss macroeconomics 101? Even with no government, natural monopolies exist, even if the libertarians pretend they don't exist. I really hope that the FAQ is just an oversimplification.
It's interesting how they talk about "vast new regulations" when all the regulations would do is keep the status quo. It talks about how the US will fall behind other countries, even though those other countries have net neutrality. Their May 24th article complains about how difficult it will be to implement, even though it is already in place. If this group wasn't a serious threat, it would be a funny read.
Stop modding this as interesting/informative! It's meant to be funny/trollish: Section eleet ace subsection leet ass does not exist in US Code.
I commend the troll for getting modded-up though.
1) I don't watch Seinfeld
:-)
2) In the examples I gave, it was end-users who called me because their computer wasn't working because of the software that was installed. Other than spyware (caused by people installing software, which you claim people don't do) the next most common complaint is that the computer is too complicated. Go buy a Dell - the default start menu si so big you have to scroll to get to the Microsoft Office stuff at the bottom. That's ridiculous.
My bitching stands undeterred.
...one, zero... Howdy, I'm your man!
You don't understand the libertarian viewpoint: Libertarians aren't against all regulation. We are against regulation that interferes with business. Regulation of natural monopolies, such as companies that own phone lines and carry the data, is necessary.
Now, specifically on net neutrality: net neutrality promotes fair access to a monopolized resource. That is good for business. It is good for everyone. I strongly support net neutrality.
I preferred the days when PC manufacturers were neutral to the software that you installed on them. They only pre-installed the basics, or nothing at all. Manufacturers tying in with specific software vendors and pre-installing tons of applications isn't done to improve the user experience: it is to improve their bottom line.
Where do the free antivirus programs get their virus definitions? Is there some open virus definition database or something? I think that Symantec has a team who writes^H^H^H^H^H^H researches new viruses and update the signatures. But who does that for the free projects?
Nope. You would be quite dim if I gave you explicit permission to distribute my software, and you sued me claiming that you don't actually have that right. Even dimmer would be to take away your own right then to continue distributing it.
Going back a few posts: someone said the GPL is a "contract" which is not true. The GPL is not a contract, not a license. It is a copyright. Thus, it would not be possible to sue claiming that you had MORE rights than the copyright allows you.
Aggregated information is just that: information. It is not owned or copyrighted by anyone. The judge should simply rule that Google is not the one to sue, because they do not own the fact that 1000 people searched for this result.
This is just sad. This isn't an issue where there are valid points on the other side about why it might be good to have a tiered internet. It's CEOs and CFOs against the rest of the earth, and the fact that they might win demonstrates how badly our government is put together.
Naturally, the companies that make and sell the hardware would be VERY happy to see a tiered internet. But I highly doubt that this opinion is reflected by most of the employees of the company. They are regular people who will lose-out on this just like the remaining 99% internet users. It is sad that a handful of people at the top who stand to make money on this have decided a policy.
If I worked at a company that did something like this, I would start a coup d'état and happily leave if I lost. I wonder what the buzz is within Cisco this morning?
It was only a few days ago that everyone here was predicting that membership would surge due to the recently publicity. Then they suddenly go out of business? WTF? I hope this is some sort of ploy just to make spammers look bad, because this is definitely NOT a happy ending. Hell, this isn't even an ending.
Maybe it is time for them to start charging subscribers. Or to make this a community project.
I thought this way too, until I found two key things:
1) PCI express cards cost about $50 cheaper than the AGP version fo the same card
2) A PCI express motherboard can be found under $50
Check out NewEgg's video card subcategory and compare the AGP and the PCI x16 sections.
We need a constitutional ammendment to fix this. The founding fathers forbade the federal government from regulating free speech. But the government found a loophole:
1) Offer federal funding to sources of media (schools, libraries).
2) Get them hooked on it.
3) Threaten to cut it off if they don't comply with a freedom of speech limitation.
Really, they could pass any law at all using this technique. Ex: "The president is now above all laws. Any state that does not agree to enforce this loses all state funding."
The federal legislature would never pass a limitation on their own power, but it is possible for the states to propose and pass an amendment without federal support according to Article V of the US constitution. (Note 2 explains this)
I suppose that is silly though - the states could just start refusing federal funding. But that isn't likely unless all of them do because no state wants to be at a disadvantage.
It would rock if some search engine decided to not index content that had ActiveX controls on it. Or sites that SiteAdvisor (or some other heuristic) indicates is unsafe. It would cut the revenue stream from these sites fairly quickly. I would probably pay for such a service if it meant that it cut revenue from these jerks.
Not that any of this is any excuse for the foolish security flaws (IE,running as admin) and naive user actions (installing anything, ignoring EULAs, etc.).
Most intelligent gamers eventually grow up and don't play those games any more. They switch to multiplayer games because humans opponents hide behind cover, shoot you from the back, and run away when injured. Nothing is more fun than losing to a superior enemy.
Doesn't ALSA effectively do this? I thought ALSA was a kernel module that provides an API for other kernel modules. That way, when the kernel API changes, the developers only need to modify ALSA, not every driver. Can't they just make something like that for each type of driver?
Did anyone else read the headline "Boot Camp For Suckers?" and imagine that this was a camp run by Dogbert? I was ready to sign-up some coworkers.
Surprise! Games certified to run on Windows XP don't either:i ew.mspx
http://www.microsoft.com/winlogo/software/swoverv
They have never enforced the certifications. Does anyone bother to certify anymore. Is Vista going to refuse to run non-certified applications?
Actually, Windows has always had SUDO. A limited user can right-click the icon and select "run as." It will then prompt them for credentials. It really isn't that different from how other OS's work. You can also do it from the command-line.
To modify Windows to operate the way other OSs do (prompt you the password at the right time) is trivial. They could just modify the user interface to prompt when you run the app. I modified the shortcuts in my "Administrative tools" folder to do this.
Microsoft's boneheaded mistakes are that:
1) They didn't do this by default.
2) The UI takes at least 3+ to do what requires 0 clicks in Linux.
- Windows: Right-click, run as, other user, type user name, tab, type password, enter.
- Linux: Click, type password, hit enter.
3) They don't support, or encourage 3rd-parties to support, non-administrative users.
4) They don't clearly separate administrative actions from normal ones.
Ex: "System restore" and "Windows Update" are under Accessories along with "Calculator".
I'm curious how this handles applications that constantly modify system settings inappropriately. Does it prompt you every time, or just once? Does it remember the setting? Ex: Most games still save their save files into C:\Program Files. When I save my game, am I booted from my DirectX environment back to the desktop to answer the prompt? If so, does it happen every time I save? Or can it work like a firewall and say "let me do this every time."
0xA reasons 802.11N is not likely replace home networks any time soon.
1) 180Mbps is the theoretical throughput if the devices are right next to each other.
2) Even then, you STILL won't get that speed. A typical cat 5 cable and switch will give you 99.9% of the theoretical max.
3) The latency is higher (gaming)
4) It's harder to configure.
5) It's less secure.
6) It's constantly changing.
7) It is expensive.
8) Linux drivers are hard to find.
9) ISPs won't support it.
Please reply to continue the list. There has to be at least one more.
I'm in. But I'm a developer - the physical world is not my domain. I bet we could secure some funding for this if we had some experienced people. Who do you know who can build a submarine?
Heck, I bet there is research money to be found in trying to build an underwater squid-like robot too. Anyone ever experiment with that type of locomotion before?