Consider the plight of Loki Games and Ezeal. If they would have stepped forward and asked everyone in the Linux community for a little extra help they may have not gone under. If nothing else quietly slipping into the night is not the way to go.
There is a warning though: although this is a great way to get people invovled and save some worth while endevors it does not fix broken management. The danger is that even with extra cash broken management will still make bad decision and may end up using this help as a crutch.
It is well known that one of the places that Window's succeeds in is small/middle sized network configurations. You plug in hardware, install (costly) software, and everything nearly automagically works. Files are shared. Printers are shared. With a little domain administration you can even tightly control it.
The fact that the Samba Team has created such a successful implementation of the same smb/cifs kills this completely. Note the "(costly)" part in my previous paragraph goes away if you use Samba instead of a WinNT Server. And no goofy licenses either(how many seats do I need to buy?). And now that Samba has set their sights on implementing recent features like Active Directory why wouldn't Microsoft be running scared? Take away this feature from Windows and you've undercut their monopoly on administration software of Windows networks.
People sued bands for making songs that their kids listen to and commit suicide.
People sued authors for making stores that their kids read and commited suicide.
The key I believe is that there is no link between listening to the band and the mental state of a suicidal person. Same thing with books and people. Same thing with EQ and this player. I believe it is as simple as that. If it wasn't EQ it would have been something else. But I guess the short sighted solution would be to sue them instead.
Instead of looking for why EQ set this person on the path of self destruction the parents may want to look at why they didn't see it coming. I am under the impression suicidal behavior has many indicators that shouldn't be ignored. So why didn't they recognize something is wrong? Sure they may have not been licensed or studied anything about sucide but ignoring abnormal and extremely weird behavior is irresponsible.
And, here is the kicker folks, not the band, the author's, or EQ's fault.
Now more than ever we need to get rid of spam! Think about how many birds die each time someone uses an open relay to tell you about their special deal that isn't a pyramid scheme or that you should buy their penis enlarger? Truly horrifying!
You put the disk in your player but being The One Disk it makes your player disappear. You then end up poking blindly at the front panel for the play button(or eject button...which ever comes first) or finding the long lost remote.
Aren't talking about things you like/dislike, scenes, and giving your insight into movies you watch the very thing the Fair Use clause in copyright law supposed to protect? Isn't this then the very essense of this idea?
After all the alternate audio commentaries are somewhat meaningless unless you have the video to go along with it.
Just what we need...people trying to learn English from what? Star Trek: TNG? Star Wars? The Matrix?!
There is no substitute for structured classes and learning the formal parts of any language. Watching movies and reading newpapers can help suplement language learning but one should never base learning around "pop culture". There are too many slangs and reagonal things to be really useful for general communication.
Most RTS games today are purely "by the numbers". If two competent players sit down and play a modern RTS game the winner is usually predicted by the player ever has more resources and who can get it faster. There are no "alternate" strategies for almost all RTS games out there now and it sounds like WC3 is going to be the same. Any other path is less efficient and results in defeat. The only "defense" against this is being more efficient(ie the same strategy).
Even in the fastest Chess "rush" strategy there is a counter(take a piece or take a spot that is key to their strategy). There is nothing to counter a Starcraft "rush" besides beating them to the "rush".
Not very interesting in my view. I'll probably get WC3 too because it will be fun but give me Civ and Alpha Centari if you want to talk about strategy.
I knew people where going to post "So don't install it! Use **insert small window manager here**!"
I believe the point of this excirse is "is it possible?" not whether or not you should. Obviously on a minimalist system you don't install heavy weight software.
There is a reason to point out things like the fact KDE and Gnome have issues running on small systems. It is up to the reader or the developers to figure out for themselves what this means.
While they are dinking around with the file system they will most certainly change the way the SMB works. What is the purpose of having all of these spiffy new features in a file system that can't be "exposed" to other machines as shares?
I do think Blizzard has mistepped here. You should fight "abuses" with technology not lawyers.
Regardless does the EFF really think this is something worth fighting over? IIRC, Warcraft 3 and Battle.net will have gone under major release/revisions and all of this will be moot. Why fight over something this transitory? I would would rather see the EFF tackle more serious issues like privacy issues than this...
So what is the underlying moral issue to fight for here?
Acception money in certain industry for ranking is viewed as very bad. Especially bad for those who try are in the "rating products" game. For instance could Consumer Reports weild the command and power they have if they accepted outside money? Probably not. Consumer Reports is all about building the reputation that you can believe their findings because they have a reputation of never bowing to manufacture's pressure because they accept none of their money. No money means no pressure to bias.
Maybe it is high time people realize that search engines that "slight" there returned results a probably not as accurate or as trusted. In the back of my mind I never touch Yahoo, MS, et al for broad internet searches because I can't convince myself they'll produce an accurate unbiased list of hits.
Or in short, why should I believe Yahoo's search results over MSN's? Why should even try either when I know Google will give me many more hits in an unbias manner?
I'm lery of "dual licenses" because it seems to voilate one important part of Open Software(let alone Free Software as the Gnu philosophy defines it).
Open Software should be available for ***everyone*** to use. Single users to multiple users. Non-profit to big profit. None of that should matter if you really want "open" software. Restricting it to be open for some (non profits and profits that pay) but not others has all sorts of dubious problems.
I do recognize that some groups do need to make money but I think that APIs/library usage are the wrong places to do it for Open Software.
Open Source was and should never be billed as a "magic bullet" that will fix anything. This includes security.
However there is an important feature of Open Source projects over proprietary stuff is that "openness" breeds honesty and trust.
If a bunch of people say Apache is secure(pulling an OSP out of the air) it is not only because people use Apache and found the claims to be reasonable but people have looked at its open internals and believe that its design is secure. If a bunch of people say IIS is secure(pulling a related closed product out of the air) there seems to be less credibility. Although people do use IIS no one really knows much about the internals of IIS except Microsoft.
Especially with MS's recent performance, are you going to trust the vendor's claims that their closed product is safe and secure? At least with the source you can hire people to do security audits on Open Source programs.
Keep in mind that Microsoft and Apache Project both have the same "no warrenty" on their programs. If you use them and something goes bad(ie. you get hacked) it isn't our fault. It turns out that Microsoft's scheme isn't better and it costs more(you have to buy the product, you have to buy support from Microsoft, you have to pay for them to look at your problems). So why do people continue to believe MS over Apache?
And lastly, Open Source doesn't fix user stupidity. Apache for instance can be very easy to break if you configure it very poorly and IIS can be very secure if you take the time to tighten it.
Everything in the article is sounds advice for security minded software and not just for Microsoft. Seperation of "data" and "code". Seperation of "package" and "protocol". Extra software is bad. Etc.etc.etc.etc.
The overwhelming point is that this stuff is often contrary to what MS has in mind for its future software development. If they are really serious about putting security 1st in.Net then they have the embrace the possibility they'll have to delay releasing it. How many are willing to believe MS will do this?
When it comes to business vs design decisions, MS has always gone for biz.
Evidently the generation of keys takes a lot of crunching and may take awhile to generate one useable key. If you want to hack out more keys or at a faster rate you must throw more hardware at it or parallelize it.
Not knowing the details of how they think keys are generated (which is probably a wise thing to keep tight lipped about it) one wonders if you can break the key generation into idependant parts. It may not be possible because it breaks the crypographic nature of the key but that isn't for certain either since MS doesn't want to make key generation the slow part in its production.
If this is true then WPA is done(as in stick a fork in it). How many thousands of people outside of the US(and heck inside of the US) who would contribute CPU to generate thousands and thousands of keys?
Guild MeanPeople are always trying to put down Guild GoodPeople. They are always sneaking about trying to make GoodPeople miserable while GoodPeople are constantly trying to succeed no matter what. Wait a minute, why were GoodCleric hanging out with a bunch of MeanPeople group? We know they are short of knowledge able Clerics and are agressively recruiting. Are they trying to sway them with good gear and big items?
This stuff happens all of the time in EQ. The social interaction is quiet deep. Rivalries, "debts", and sneaking can and do happen. Why wouldn't homemakers eat this kind of drama up?!
...Was on QWest DSL and then was summarily switched over to MSN(not much else they could do, or at least QWest made it sound like it). Unfortunately the service just wasn't what they expected (ie. they could never get the software to work with the hardware they had) so they asked to be disconnected and release the DSL line so they could switch to another DSL ISP(which coincidently is local).
That was in October or so where are they now? Without DSL. QWest can't release the line to another ISP because MSN is provisioned for the line. As far as MSN is concerned they aren't paying customers so why spend time helping them.
The main issue is this possible "slamming" but I bet more than one person has been bitten by situations just like this. Anyone got suggestions for my friend to take against QWest and MSN beyond asking the Iowa Attorney General to step in?
- Kernels(Linx, BSD, etc)
- Apache
- Most of the GNU Tools
- Most implementations of X Windows
...are all writen in C. And because it is "old" makes C "bad" why njdj? C++ and other OO languages aren't a "magic bullet" by any stretch of the imagination.
C and C++ and any other language binding have thier uses in the right places but to claim a language is bad because it is simply "old" is stupid.
Full disclosure is meant to help increase security in dynamicly changing and (supposedly) supported software.
You will note that if you read the article and this is probably the only time where "bug secrecy" is necessary, that is it extremely bad to publish a bug for non-fixable systems(like air traffic control computers). It is good in one sense that the exploit is known (so that they avoid it the next time) but it is bad to let it loose if the system is still deployed and can not be changed and aren't going away soon.
So the continue the allogy, it isn't good to disclose vulnerabilities of nuclear stockpiles because you can't fix them.
...place to detail security changes. Isn't the purpose of the Changelog to provide a brief at-a-glance notification of changes? After all you don't want the 10k of gorey details about why ext3 driver was patched nor should there probably be security alerts. Instead how about make another document or document directory in the Documentation that details stuff like this instead of harping on maintainers of Changelog?
If you ever played with a system with enough ram to support mounting a ramdrive on/tmp(and soft link to/usr/tmp etc...Solaris directly maps/tmp into virtual memory/swap??) you see a huge speed up increase for some takes that require generating temporary files.
If there is such a huge speed up why not make devices that act like drives that are really memory? Becuase the software has already been written (ramdrive drivers) and it is faster and cheaper than implimenting a completely seperate piece of hardware and driver.
Also consider the fact that you would have not only create hardware to plug into the SCIS/IDE system, the SCSI and IDE channel bandwidths aren't nearly as good as straight memory. Plus it is nice not to eat sometimes crowded cases with another piece of hardware.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider the plight of Loki Games and Ezeal. If they would have stepped forward and asked everyone in the Linux community for a little extra help they may have not gone under. If nothing else quietly slipping into the night is not the way to go.
There is a warning though: although this is a great way to get people invovled and save some worth while endevors it does not fix broken management. The danger is that even with extra cash broken management will still make bad decision and may end up using this help as a crutch.
It is well known that one of the places that Window's succeeds in is small/middle sized network configurations. You plug in hardware, install (costly) software, and everything nearly automagically works. Files are shared. Printers are shared. With a little domain administration you can even tightly control it.
The fact that the Samba Team has created such a successful implementation of the same smb/cifs kills this completely. Note the "(costly)" part in my previous paragraph goes away if you use Samba instead of a WinNT Server. And no goofy licenses either(how many seats do I need to buy?). And now that Samba has set their sights on implementing recent features like Active Directory why wouldn't Microsoft be running scared? Take away this feature from Windows and you've undercut their monopoly on administration software of Windows networks.
People sued bands for making songs that their kids listen to and commit suicide.
People sued authors for making stores that their kids read and commited suicide.
The key I believe is that there is no link between listening to the band and the mental state of a suicidal person. Same thing with books and people. Same thing with EQ and this player. I believe it is as simple as that. If it wasn't EQ it would have been something else. But I guess the short sighted solution would be to sue them instead.
Instead of looking for why EQ set this person on the path of self destruction the parents may want to look at why they didn't see it coming. I am under the impression suicidal behavior has many indicators that shouldn't be ignored. So why didn't they recognize something is wrong? Sure they may have not been licensed or studied anything about sucide but ignoring abnormal and extremely weird behavior is irresponsible.
And, here is the kicker folks, not the band, the author's, or EQ's fault.
Now more than ever we need to get rid of spam! Think about how many birds die each time someone uses an open relay to tell you about their special deal that isn't a pyramid scheme or that you should buy their penis enlarger? Truly horrifying!
You put the disk in your player but being The One Disk it makes your player disappear. You then end up poking blindly at the front panel for the play button(or eject button...which ever comes first) or finding the long lost remote.
Aren't talking about things you like/dislike, scenes, and giving your insight into movies you watch the very thing the Fair Use clause in copyright law supposed to protect? Isn't this then the very essense of this idea?
After all the alternate audio commentaries are somewhat meaningless unless you have the video to go along with it.
Just what we need...people trying to learn English from what? Star Trek: TNG? Star Wars? The Matrix?!
There is no substitute for structured classes and learning the formal parts of any language. Watching movies and reading newpapers can help suplement language learning but one should never base learning around "pop culture". There are too many slangs and reagonal things to be really useful for general communication.
I wonder if the Telco Act as it stands now already cover this? IANAL nor do I keep the law text lying around to study. :-)
Most RTS games today are purely "by the numbers". If two competent players sit down and play a modern RTS game the winner is usually predicted by the player ever has more resources and who can get it faster. There are no "alternate" strategies for almost all RTS games out there now and it sounds like WC3 is going to be the same. Any other path is less efficient and results in defeat. The only "defense" against this is being more efficient(ie the same strategy).
Even in the fastest Chess "rush" strategy there is a counter(take a piece or take a spot that is key to their strategy). There is nothing to counter a Starcraft "rush" besides beating them to the "rush".
Not very interesting in my view. I'll probably get WC3 too because it will be fun but give me Civ and Alpha Centari if you want to talk about strategy.
I knew people where going to post "So don't install it! Use **insert small window manager here**!"
I believe the point of this excirse is "is it possible?" not whether or not you should. Obviously on a minimalist system you don't install heavy weight software.
There is a reason to point out things like the fact KDE and Gnome have issues running on small systems. It is up to the reader or the developers to figure out for themselves what this means.
While they are dinking around with the file system they will most certainly change the way the SMB works. What is the purpose of having all of these spiffy new features in a file system that can't be "exposed" to other machines as shares?
Do you know how long it will take to fill in each of the holes in those punch cards?
I do think Blizzard has mistepped here. You should fight "abuses" with technology not lawyers.
Regardless does the EFF really think this is something worth fighting over? IIRC, Warcraft 3 and Battle.net will have gone under major release/revisions and all of this will be moot. Why fight over something this transitory? I would would rather see the EFF tackle more serious issues like privacy issues than this...
So what is the underlying moral issue to fight for here?
Acception money in certain industry for ranking is viewed as very bad. Especially bad for those who try are in the "rating products" game. For instance could Consumer Reports weild the command and power they have if they accepted outside money? Probably not. Consumer Reports is all about building the reputation that you can believe their findings because they have a reputation of never bowing to manufacture's pressure because they accept none of their money. No money means no pressure to bias.
Maybe it is high time people realize that search engines that "slight" there returned results a probably not as accurate or as trusted. In the back of my mind I never touch Yahoo, MS, et al for broad internet searches because I can't convince myself they'll produce an accurate unbiased list of hits.
Or in short, why should I believe Yahoo's search results over MSN's? Why should even try either when I know Google will give me many more hits in an unbias manner?
I'm lery of "dual licenses" because it seems to voilate one important part of Open Software(let alone Free Software as the Gnu philosophy defines it).
Open Software should be available for ***everyone*** to use. Single users to multiple users. Non-profit to big profit. None of that should matter if you really want "open" software. Restricting it to be open for some (non profits and profits that pay) but not others has all sorts of dubious problems.
I do recognize that some groups do need to make money but I think that APIs/library usage are the wrong places to do it for Open Software.
Open Source was and should never be billed as a "magic bullet" that will fix anything. This includes security.
However there is an important feature of Open Source projects over proprietary stuff is that "openness" breeds honesty and trust.
If a bunch of people say Apache is secure(pulling an OSP out of the air) it is not only because people use Apache and found the claims to be reasonable but people have looked at its open internals and believe that its design is secure. If a bunch of people say IIS is secure(pulling a related closed product out of the air) there seems to be less credibility. Although people do use IIS no one really knows much about the internals of IIS except Microsoft.
Especially with MS's recent performance, are you going to trust the vendor's claims that their closed product is safe and secure? At least with the source you can hire people to do security audits on Open Source programs.
Keep in mind that Microsoft and Apache Project both have the same "no warrenty" on their programs. If you use them and something goes bad(ie. you get hacked) it isn't our fault. It turns out that Microsoft's scheme isn't better and it costs more(you have to buy the product, you have to buy support from Microsoft, you have to pay for them to look at your problems). So why do people continue to believe MS over Apache?
And lastly, Open Source doesn't fix user stupidity. Apache for instance can be very easy to break if you configure it very poorly and IIS can be very secure if you take the time to tighten it.
Everything in the article is sounds advice for security minded software and not just for Microsoft. Seperation of "data" and "code". Seperation of "package" and "protocol". Extra software is bad. Etc.etc.etc.etc.
.Net then they have the embrace the possibility they'll have to delay releasing it. How many are willing to believe MS will do this?
The overwhelming point is that this stuff is often contrary to what MS has in mind for its future software development. If they are really serious about putting security 1st in
When it comes to business vs design decisions, MS has always gone for biz.
Evidently the generation of keys takes a lot of crunching and may take awhile to generate one useable key. If you want to hack out more keys or at a faster rate you must throw more hardware at it or parallelize it.
Not knowing the details of how they think keys are generated (which is probably a wise thing to keep tight lipped about it) one wonders if you can break the key generation into idependant parts. It may not be possible because it breaks the crypographic nature of the key but that isn't for certain either since MS doesn't want to make key generation the slow part in its production.
If this is true then WPA is done(as in stick a fork in it). How many thousands of people outside of the US(and heck inside of the US) who would contribute CPU to generate thousands and thousands of keys?
Guild MeanPeople are always trying to put down Guild GoodPeople. They are always sneaking about trying to make GoodPeople miserable while GoodPeople are constantly trying to succeed no matter what. Wait a minute, why were GoodCleric hanging out with a bunch of MeanPeople group? We know they are short of knowledge able Clerics and are agressively recruiting. Are they trying to sway them with good gear and big items?
This stuff happens all of the time in EQ. The social interaction is quiet deep. Rivalries, "debts", and sneaking can and do happen. Why wouldn't homemakers eat this kind of drama up?!
This makes me wonder if lining the edges/corners with metal would be sufficient for shielding. Curses....my knowledge of college EE has faded a bunch.
...Was on QWest DSL and then was summarily switched over to MSN(not much else they could do, or at least QWest made it sound like it). Unfortunately the service just wasn't what they expected (ie. they could never get the software to work with the hardware they had) so they asked to be disconnected and release the DSL line so they could switch to another DSL ISP(which coincidently is local).
That was in October or so where are they now? Without DSL. QWest can't release the line to another ISP because MSN is provisioned for the line. As far as MSN is concerned they aren't paying customers so why spend time helping them.
The main issue is this possible "slamming" but I bet more than one person has been bitten by situations just like this. Anyone got suggestions for my friend to take against QWest and MSN beyond asking the Iowa Attorney General to step in?
...how things like...
- Kernels(Linx, BSD, etc)
- Apache
- Most of the GNU Tools
- Most implementations of X Windows
...are all writen in C. And because it is "old" makes C "bad" why njdj? C++ and other OO languages aren't a "magic bullet" by any stretch of the imagination.
C and C++ and any other language binding have thier uses in the right places but to claim a language is bad because it is simply "old" is stupid.
Full disclosure is meant to help increase security in dynamicly changing and (supposedly) supported software.
You will note that if you read the article and this is probably the only time where "bug secrecy" is necessary, that is it extremely bad to publish a bug for non-fixable systems(like air traffic control computers). It is good in one sense that the exploit is known (so that they avoid it the next time) but it is bad to let it loose if the system is still deployed and can not be changed and aren't going away soon.
So the continue the allogy, it isn't good to disclose vulnerabilities of nuclear stockpiles because you can't fix them.
...place to detail security changes. Isn't the purpose of the Changelog to provide a brief at-a-glance notification of changes? After all you don't want the 10k of gorey details about why ext3 driver was patched nor should there probably be security alerts. Instead how about make another document or document directory in the Documentation that details stuff like this instead of harping on maintainers of Changelog?
If you ever played with a system with enough ram to support mounting a ramdrive on /tmp(and soft link to /usr/tmp etc...Solaris directly maps /tmp into virtual memory/swap??) you see a huge speed up increase for some takes that require generating temporary files.
If there is such a huge speed up why not make devices that act like drives that are really memory? Becuase the software has already been written (ramdrive drivers) and it is faster and cheaper than implimenting a completely seperate piece of hardware and driver.
Also consider the fact that you would have not only create hardware to plug into the SCIS/IDE system, the SCSI and IDE channel bandwidths aren't nearly as good as straight memory. Plus it is nice not to eat sometimes crowded cases with another piece of hardware.