This reminds me of a game called "Armor Alley" in which the player attempts to fly a helicopter past blimps on strings and enemy forces.
I remember the helicopter died when it hit a blimp's string.
What prevents a sudden gust of wind from blowing the kites into unsuspecting air traffic?
Safe makers know that safes only slow down would-be theifs, and that no safe is perfect. If computer systems are analogous to safes, does that imply that we will never produce a "perfectly secure" system?
To me, it seems that it is possible to create a perfectly secure system, since we are not bound by the same constraints as safesmiths, such as materials expenses and limited material strength.
There must be a good reason to have "a universal, hierarchical, fast and consistent namespace and infrastructure to access configuration parameters through a key-value pair mechanism" since Microsoft AND Apple use it...
I read the article and there's nothing in it detailing why free software was chosen over non-free software.
I do assume that the reason has something to do with the software not costing the government any money. However, I would like to see some administrative benchmarks (increased civil happiness, etc...) to see if free software really does cause the government to lead more effectively than non-free software.
This is the iPod killer because it can hold iPod's 20,000 songs in a proprietry format where each song is re-encoded as a single byte!
The DRM and compression on this is incredible! If you try to actually listen to the music, it's inaudible until you purchase the iPod and redownload the song onto its hardrive!
... but the law doesn't seem to matter that much in this case.
It's just like getting a cd player (or a bunch) and extending the headphone wire all the way to your friend's house (or houses) right?
That's not illegal is it?
Yeah, and I suppose looking through a multi-megabyte key log over a dialup connection is so much faster than just remotely using google desktop search.
If the RIAA does mess with MIT, I'm sure they'll wish they hadn't when 10 million slashdotters launch a manual DOS attack on all major label sites in a furious cascade of ctrl-left mouse button revenge.
This evil thought just occurred to me.
What if I installed tightVNC and used the no-tray icon trick on a target computer, then installed Google desktop search and set it's taskbar icon to "always hidden."
A normal user wouldn't go looking for unfamiliar executable names in the ctrl-alt-del menu, so it would be possible to log a users activity through Google desktop search and retrieve it quickly through tightVNC.
Slashdot Mirror
I for one, hope that the melted water doesn't leave Mars, since that's one of the few resources we need for colonization.
welcome our new proton overlords!
We've heard of one and not the other.
This reminds me of a game called "Armor Alley" in which the player attempts to fly a helicopter past blimps on strings and enemy forces. I remember the helicopter died when it hit a blimp's string. What prevents a sudden gust of wind from blowing the kites into unsuspecting air traffic?
Safe makers know that safes only slow down would-be theifs, and that no safe is perfect. If computer systems are analogous to safes, does that imply that we will never produce a "perfectly secure" system?
To me, it seems that it is possible to create a perfectly secure system, since we are not bound by the same constraints as safesmiths, such as materials expenses and limited material strength.
There must be a good reason to have "a universal, hierarchical, fast and consistent namespace and infrastructure to access configuration parameters through a key-value pair mechanism" since Microsoft AND Apple use it...
It can't just be a coincidence, can it?
I read the article and there's nothing in it detailing why free software was chosen over non-free software. I do assume that the reason has something to do with the software not costing the government any money. However, I would like to see some administrative benchmarks (increased civil happiness, etc...) to see if free software really does cause the government to lead more effectively than non-free software.
Everyone gather round the picture frame !
lame...
This is the iPod killer because it can hold iPod's 20,000 songs in a proprietry format where each song is re-encoded as a single byte! The DRM and compression on this is incredible! If you try to actually listen to the music, it's inaudible until you purchase the iPod and redownload the song onto its hardrive!
The Slashdotters have you.
If the patent goes the way of the copyright in China... Well, the result is an excercise left to the reader.
... but the law doesn't seem to matter that much in this case. It's just like getting a cd player (or a bunch) and extending the headphone wire all the way to your friend's house (or houses) right? That's not illegal is it?
Yeah, and I suppose looking through a multi-megabyte key log over a dialup connection is so much faster than just remotely using google desktop search.
If the RIAA does mess with MIT, I'm sure they'll wish they hadn't when 10 million slashdotters launch a manual DOS attack on all major label sites in a furious cascade of ctrl-left mouse button revenge.
They're always so progressive. I love MIT.
This evil thought just occurred to me. What if I installed tightVNC and used the no-tray icon trick on a target computer, then installed Google desktop search and set it's taskbar icon to "always hidden." A normal user wouldn't go looking for unfamiliar executable names in the ctrl-alt-del menu, so it would be possible to log a users activity through Google desktop search and retrieve it quickly through tightVNC.