I do think I said if the user needs write access create a partition they can write to but that programs can't be executed from. It is technically true that in Windows a program can be executed from memory, but I haven't seen an e-mail program or browser that will do this for an e-mail attachment. They need to save to disk (if only to a temp directory) in order to execute. If a filesystem's permissions are set properly a user can be prevented from executing anything on that filesystem, though they can write to it.
As for browser based exploits, this remains a problem in the wild. However, if it's possible to use Vista browser sandboxing should help (Vista's not great, but something like sandboxing can protect from a number of exploits).
Finally, no, I'm not a security expert, I'm a software engineer. However, I do know how to reply to a post without calling the parent post or poster "dumb".
You do need to be able to run it though. The user shouldn't have write access to a drive that programs can run from (set up a separate partition if they need save to the local machine).
> Things will get better if you dump your electric heaters. They are expensive and there are shitloads of better systems available.
I can't speak for New England, but in upstate New York that isn't always the case. The heaters themselves may cost more, but running them can be much cheaper than gas depending on where you live. We run primarily off nuclear and hydro. Ontario's entire baseload is hydro and nuclear, and it's 2x their off-peak usage.
Nevertheless, it's true that CFLs always work out to an energy savings vs. incandescent. The heat generated is not "free". If you're using an electric heat system, it has the exact same cost as the heater, except that the heat is probably not distributed very well.
I have EZ Pass (NYS resident). I got tired of waiting at toll booths on the way to Canada. It is a privacy issue, but the fact is I have complete choice in the matter. I don't have to use it at all if I don't want to. Plus, all it really says is I went to Canada and came back. Not where I went or where I went after I came back.
GPS could be used to tell where I am every second that I'm driving, and turning it off would be tax evasion.
Overall, proposals like this seem doomed. People won't allow the government to intrude onto their property to reduce their privacy in order to tax them, with no tangible benefit to them. EZ Pass trades convenience for privacy. Income tax is a big privacy issue, but it's not quite the same as the government installing a recording device in your car.
Electricity is used for quite a lot of other things, taxing it for road use doesn't make sense.
Two solutions I propose:
- Only track commercial vehicles, make them pay the tax - Just maintain the roads through general revenues. No matter how much you drive you benefit from the roads in some way.
Overall, I like the second better. Tracking where I'm driving is totally unacceptable.
Plus, you eventually end up with a system where all applications have to be approved by the BOFH. Then, when a developer/techie who knows what he's doing needs to use a new tool to solve a problem it ends up in a 6-month queue for "approval".
Even for a minority member of the market it is to their advantage. Advertising that it is easier to move (and scaring consumers that other vendors/landlords "lock you in") gets you customers. This either means you end up with more customers, or you force everyone in the industry to add the ability to move. If they choose the latter, then you can compete on features and be able to easily pull customers from other vendors.
I can install anything I want on my G1, even things T-Mo doesn't approve of like Tetherbot. A lot of phones out there aren't really powerful enough to do anything interesting. The iPhone, G1 and Windows Mobile phones are. Of those three, I only know of one that requires applications to be approved.
I never said they claimed to be gods, but they did claim to descend from gods. Caesar, for instance, claimed to be a descendant of Jupiter. Granted, Caesar was never emperor, but he was close. Other emperors claimed it as well, especially the Julio-Claudians.
Egyptian Pharaohs most certainly DID claim to be gods, as I said.
Republicans during the last administration, "Don't question the President!" and that crap. Historical basis for the state being sacred can be seen in the divine right of kings, or Roman Emperors claiming to be the descendants of gods, or pharaohs claiming to be gods.
Notice how I said "instantly"? I meant it, the lawsuit would go nowhere. Maybe for a smaller site this would be an issue, but we're talking about Google here. Even a judge would recognize the page.
Any attempt like you describe by another company wouldn't make it past summary judgement.
Google (as far as I can remember) was the first to use this page design, thus they can patent it (though it seems a bit late, it's been in public view for ages). There's really no point in having a patent you don't intend to enforce, unless you intend to use it for cross-licensing. Just because you have a patent doesn't mean it can't be invalidated by someone else proving that they already patented the same thing.
This isn't an "obvious to software engineers" obvious, it's a "anyone who has used a computer in the last 10 years has seen the Google homepage".
However, it could be that they want to use it against look-alike scam sites (or just sites that pretend to be Google in general). I would think trademark protection would take care of that though.
Google's home page would be such an obvious piece of prior art that any such patent would be thrown out instantly. No, they did this to stifle competition.
They were sold by Apple. This is sold by Apple, is there any reason to believe there couldn't ever be another batch of bad batteries? Is there any reason to believe Apple improved their testing to deal with higher-than-clean-room environments?
Free speech is better termed freedom of expression. The government cannot limit what you can say or where you can say it, that's the basic idea. Private entities are not held to this limitation. However, there's no good analogue for the telephone. The best I can think of is that's like a door, someone knocks, you can answer. However, with a door, I can also tell you to get the hell off my property. With a telephone, identifying exactly who is calling can be difficult (my cell phone only shows the name if it's in my contacts). It's also difficult to make them stop calling.
However, I don't think a law against door-to-door soliciting (for politics or sales) would violate the first amendment. Therefore, I don't think banning political calls would violate the first amendment. The first amendment doesn't say anything about political speech.
No, the FTC is wrong here. I should be able to block all mass calling if I so choose, by something like the DNC registry, but expanded. All robocalling should be banned. That's all there is to it.
On the other hand, I canceled my $120 since I couldn't get all the channels I wanted on my PVR (HBO, for instance). Now, I watch TV from Hulu and OTA. I switched to DSL as well. I hope others do as well.
The key to the issue is that all corpses should be given the same level of respect. If a criminal's corpse is treated worse than a non-criminal's in that country then that is wrong. Apparently, Chinese culture considers taking organs out of the body after death to be a taboo. Thus by doing it to criminals they are essentially desecrating the body *after* having already killed them. That is wrong.
If in another country all corpses were subject to organ removal, then that is at least not as bad (depending on your views on organ removal). We don't need to apply our own feelings on the issue to know that continuing a criminal's punishment after death is wrong.
Slashdot Mirror
I do think I said if the user needs write access create a partition they can write to but that programs can't be executed from. It is technically true that in Windows a program can be executed from memory, but I haven't seen an e-mail program or browser that will do this for an e-mail attachment. They need to save to disk (if only to a temp directory) in order to execute. If a filesystem's permissions are set properly a user can be prevented from executing anything on that filesystem, though they can write to it.
As for browser based exploits, this remains a problem in the wild. However, if it's possible to use Vista browser sandboxing should help (Vista's not great, but something like sandboxing can protect from a number of exploits).
Finally, no, I'm not a security expert, I'm a software engineer. However, I do know how to reply to a post without calling the parent post or poster "dumb".
Intent follows the bullet, or the e-mail in this case.
You do need to be able to run it though. The user shouldn't have write access to a drive that programs can run from (set up a separate partition if they need save to the local machine).
> Things will get better if you dump your electric heaters. They are expensive and there are shitloads of better systems available.
I can't speak for New England, but in upstate New York that isn't always the case. The heaters themselves may cost more, but running them can be much cheaper than gas depending on where you live. We run primarily off nuclear and hydro. Ontario's entire baseload is hydro and nuclear, and it's 2x their off-peak usage.
Nevertheless, it's true that CFLs always work out to an energy savings vs. incandescent. The heat generated is not "free". If you're using an electric heat system, it has the exact same cost as the heater, except that the heat is probably not distributed very well.
I have EZ Pass (NYS resident). I got tired of waiting at toll booths on the way to Canada. It is a privacy issue, but the fact is I have complete choice in the matter. I don't have to use it at all if I don't want to. Plus, all it really says is I went to Canada and came back. Not where I went or where I went after I came back.
GPS could be used to tell where I am every second that I'm driving, and turning it off would be tax evasion.
Overall, proposals like this seem doomed. People won't allow the government to intrude onto their property to reduce their privacy in order to tax them, with no tangible benefit to them. EZ Pass trades convenience for privacy. Income tax is a big privacy issue, but it's not quite the same as the government installing a recording device in your car.
I agree entirely, I've never understood why gas is taxed to pay for roads. It really doesn't make sense from an economic standpoint.
Electricity is used for quite a lot of other things, taxing it for road use doesn't make sense.
Two solutions I propose:
- Only track commercial vehicles, make them pay the tax
- Just maintain the roads through general revenues. No matter how much you drive you benefit from the roads in some way.
Overall, I like the second better. Tracking where I'm driving is totally unacceptable.
Plus, you eventually end up with a system where all applications have to be approved by the BOFH. Then, when a developer/techie who knows what he's doing needs to use a new tool to solve a problem it ends up in a 6-month queue for "approval".
Even for a minority member of the market it is to their advantage. Advertising that it is easier to move (and scaring consumers that other vendors/landlords "lock you in") gets you customers. This either means you end up with more customers, or you force everyone in the industry to add the ability to move. If they choose the latter, then you can compete on features and be able to easily pull customers from other vendors.
What the heck would be the point of being gay if you didn't?
Less communist, and yet somehow more Stalinist.
FDR wasn't communist, he saved capitalism.
I can install anything I want on my G1, even things T-Mo doesn't approve of like Tetherbot. A lot of phones out there aren't really powerful enough to do anything interesting. The iPhone, G1 and Windows Mobile phones are. Of those three, I only know of one that requires applications to be approved.
I never said they claimed to be gods, but they did claim to descend from gods. Caesar, for instance, claimed to be a descendant of Jupiter. Granted, Caesar was never emperor, but he was close. Other emperors claimed it as well, especially the Julio-Claudians.
Egyptian Pharaohs most certainly DID claim to be gods, as I said.
Republicans during the last administration, "Don't question the President!" and that crap. Historical basis for the state being sacred can be seen in the divine right of kings, or Roman Emperors claiming to be the descendants of gods, or pharaohs claiming to be gods.
Notice how I said "instantly"? I meant it, the lawsuit would go nowhere. Maybe for a smaller site this would be an issue, but we're talking about Google here. Even a judge would recognize the page.
It's not prior art if you created it.
Any attempt like you describe by another company wouldn't make it past summary judgement.
Google (as far as I can remember) was the first to use this page design, thus they can patent it (though it seems a bit late, it's been in public view for ages). There's really no point in having a patent you don't intend to enforce, unless you intend to use it for cross-licensing. Just because you have a patent doesn't mean it can't be invalidated by someone else proving that they already patented the same thing.
This isn't an "obvious to software engineers" obvious, it's a "anyone who has used a computer in the last 10 years has seen the Google homepage".
However, it could be that they want to use it against look-alike scam sites (or just sites that pretend to be Google in general). I would think trademark protection would take care of that though.
Google's home page would be such an obvious piece of prior art that any such patent would be thrown out instantly. No, they did this to stifle competition.
They were sold by Apple. This is sold by Apple, is there any reason to believe there couldn't ever be another batch of bad batteries? Is there any reason to believe Apple improved their testing to deal with higher-than-clean-room environments?
Actually, you're both wrong.
Free speech is better termed freedom of expression. The government cannot limit what you can say or where you can say it, that's the basic idea. Private entities are not held to this limitation. However, there's no good analogue for the telephone. The best I can think of is that's like a door, someone knocks, you can answer. However, with a door, I can also tell you to get the hell off my property. With a telephone, identifying exactly who is calling can be difficult (my cell phone only shows the name if it's in my contacts). It's also difficult to make them stop calling.
However, I don't think a law against door-to-door soliciting (for politics or sales) would violate the first amendment. Therefore, I don't think banning political calls would violate the first amendment. The first amendment doesn't say anything about political speech.
No, the FTC is wrong here. I should be able to block all mass calling if I so choose, by something like the DNC registry, but expanded. All robocalling should be banned. That's all there is to it.
On the other hand, I canceled my $120 since I couldn't get all the channels I wanted on my PVR (HBO, for instance). Now, I watch TV from Hulu and OTA. I switched to DSL as well. I hope others do as well.
The key to the issue is that all corpses should be given the same level of respect. If a criminal's corpse is treated worse than a non-criminal's in that country then that is wrong. Apparently, Chinese culture considers taking organs out of the body after death to be a taboo. Thus by doing it to criminals they are essentially desecrating the body *after* having already killed them. That is wrong.
If in another country all corpses were subject to organ removal, then that is at least not as bad (depending on your views on organ removal). We don't need to apply our own feelings on the issue to know that continuing a criminal's punishment after death is wrong.
When such advertising includes blatant fraud, it is illegal in any civilized country.
Adjusted for population, the U.S. naturalizes 2x as many people per year as France. That's not even counting illegal immigration.