Could a system of application DRM prevent bots on Windows?
By requiring a development license to create an application, which could be trivially obtainable from Microsoft validating user identity, no unknown application would be allowed to run on a machine that isn't the developers or alternate machinces once the application is 'published'. Using a system of centrally maintained and verifiable application IDs, destructive or errant software could then be denied the right to execute via a Microsoft security patch or a publically maintained database of elected 'bad' applications.
I'd be surprised if something similar isn't already in the pipeline.
That's about how I thought it worked. Most of my knowledge of how OSS development functions has been discerned from notes on the cathedral and the bizarre and experiences with Bugzilla.
That said, you don't need commit status to recognise a vulnerability, most OSS projects allow source download without registration.
As someone else has already mentioned, there are safer forms of payment than credit card, paypal, even paypal SMS I'm sure are very safe, if you register your card or phone details in IE or Safari of course!
I'm not opposed to OSS, I think it creates a very positive dynamic for the creation of new software with commercial opportunities.
Even so, when I'm about to rush to make an online purchase, I can't help wondering "Who did the last commit in the keycode in Firefox? What about the networking code? Maybe I'll use IE or Safari instead.", even though I'm using Firefox most of the time. Was it someone accountable to a company or just an email address?
Maybe this is off topic, perhaps the real issue is digitial identity online.
The Internet is an incredible contribution to humanity, the US doing for the world today what Rome did for Europe 2000 years ago: the Internet is the modern day equivalent of the road.
But do you think there are more enemies of society working for Microsoft? Or living in one of the 50+ nations who have entered military conflict with the US in the last 63 years?
The main question raised by Safari's arrival on Windows seems to have already been answered, that is to provide a development environment on Windows for the iPhone.
I wonder though; how many open source applications do you trust with your credit card details?
The web browser is the facade and user interface to the.coms,.govs and.orgs which we are every day increasingly more familiar with. As the range of facilities we access with the browser increases, I find an analogy with the motor vehicle becoming increasingly more relevant. At present the choice of browsers available are limited, with almost communist levels of variety: IE or Firefox account for almost 95% of the market, with an incredible 1.1bn users online. Any new presence in the browser market must therefore be a good thing for us users and a smart move for Apple?
As a commercial and hopefully more secure web browser, i.e. someone to sue (sic), I welcome Safari to the fray on the Windows platform.
I actually switched to Microsoft's Live.com in fit of anger, only to find Google restored this morning. Actually, Microsoft's offering is better, the page is tidier and more readable, it offers flexible column layout, more than 9 RSS elements for feeds with an option to disable pictures, plus you can backup your feeds to an OPML document. The only draw back being there seems to be less content available to add.
Surely bandwidth will reach a point where it is no longer required to store the 'licensed' audio or video on the customers device, in all cases it should be streamed from the publisher. Instead of the customers pirating material, it should be encouraged - 1st and 2nd generation copies only, each degrading and expiring after a limited amount of time: viral marketing - P2P filesharing is 'radio'.
Well that pricked the ears of the investors at Fox no doubt. Instead of a 'remove this copyrighted material' link, shouldn't it be 'buy this video now'? It's free advertising at a terrible resolution with a link to purchase, that's a gold mine surely?
Slashdot Mirror
Except when voicing opinions which are considered to be contentious by the dominant political system, in such situations anonymity is useful.
Could a system of application DRM prevent bots on Windows?
By requiring a development license to create an application, which could be trivially obtainable from Microsoft validating user identity, no unknown application would be allowed to run on a machine that isn't the developers or alternate machinces once the application is 'published'. Using a system of centrally maintained and verifiable application IDs, destructive or errant software could then be denied the right to execute via a Microsoft security patch or a publically maintained database of elected 'bad' applications.
I'd be surprised if something similar isn't already in the pipeline.
Supermarket 2.0 would certainly be an interesting place to shop.
Lol! I'll have to agree! I don't want to foster any more cyclical debate!
That's about how I thought it worked. Most of my knowledge of how OSS development functions has been discerned from notes on the cathedral and the bizarre and experiences with Bugzilla.
That said, you don't need commit status to recognise a vulnerability, most OSS projects allow source download without registration.
As someone else has already mentioned, there are safer forms of payment than credit card, paypal, even paypal SMS I'm sure are very safe, if you register your card or phone details in IE or Safari of course!
I'm not opposed to OSS, I think it creates a very positive dynamic for the creation of new software with commercial opportunities.
Even so, when I'm about to rush to make an online purchase, I can't help wondering "Who did the last commit in the keycode in Firefox? What about the networking code? Maybe I'll use IE or Safari instead.", even though I'm using Firefox most of the time. Was it someone accountable to a company or just an email address?
Maybe this is off topic, perhaps the real issue is digitial identity online.
And the code contribution process of any significant open source project has many eyeballs ensuring security.
And how many identifying vulnerabilities when there is money to be made?
The Internet is an incredible contribution to humanity, the US doing for the world today what Rome did for Europe 2000 years ago: the Internet is the modern day equivalent of the road.
But do you think there are more enemies of society working for Microsoft? Or living in one of the 50+ nations who have entered military conflict with the US in the last 63 years?
Googlebot speaks!
Oh mighty Googlebot can you mass produce us a 4x4 to carry us Gliese 581c on one tank of olive oil before they set us up the bomb?
The main question raised by Safari's arrival on Windows seems to have already been answered, that is to provide a development environment on Windows for the iPhone.
.coms, .govs and .orgs which we are every day increasingly more familiar with. As the range of facilities we access with the browser increases, I find an analogy with the motor vehicle becoming increasingly more relevant. At present the choice of browsers available are limited, with almost communist levels of variety: IE or Firefox account for almost 95% of the market, with an incredible 1.1bn users online. Any new presence in the browser market must therefore be a good thing for us users and a smart move for Apple?
I wonder though; how many open source applications do you trust with your credit card details?
The web browser is the facade and user interface to the
As a commercial and hopefully more secure web browser, i.e. someone to sue (sic), I welcome Safari to the fray on the Windows platform.
Oh wait! There are no un-metered bandwidth mobile telecommunications companies in the UK.
I actually switched to Microsoft's Live.com in fit of anger, only to find Google restored this morning. Actually, Microsoft's offering is better, the page is tidier and more readable, it offers flexible column layout, more than 9 RSS elements for feeds with an option to disable pictures, plus you can backup your feeds to an OPML document. The only draw back being there seems to be less content available to add.
Surely bandwidth will reach a point where it is no longer required to store the 'licensed' audio or video on the customers device, in all cases it should be streamed from the publisher. Instead of the customers pirating material, it should be encouraged - 1st and 2nd generation copies only, each degrading and expiring after a limited amount of time: viral marketing - P2P filesharing is 'radio'.
Is there a CPAN equivalent for Java?
Well that pricked the ears of the investors at Fox no doubt. Instead of a 'remove this copyrighted material' link, shouldn't it be 'buy this video now'? It's free advertising at a terrible resolution with a link to purchase, that's a gold mine surely?