I don't have evidence, but I tend to believe that governments that want to be reelected don't shut down honest websites. It's possible that my taking things on faith like this is a fault, but, as you said, it seems most probable that the government was doing it to protect its citizens.
Part of the hacker mindset is a love of tinkering -- the fantastic knowledge that you don't need anyone's help to create, to build, to acheive, to overcome. That with that computer that was going to be in the dumpster, you can now do something cool, regardless of the fact that it might take you longer to do it.
You have a point, but the problem is that it strikes at a target that doesn't really exist. The point of Slashdot isn't to advertise every new technology that comes out, but to advertise what is interesting to its readership. Given that a lot of us a predisposed to hacking and wonderful stuff like that, it makes sense that this should be posted here.
I suppose if you accept the premise that competent people exist and can be found, your system might work. I'm sure you can guess from my tone what I think about the odds of that being the case. =P It was nice debating this with you. We should do it again sometime.
Well, first of all, it's not "undoubted" that Cisco would have experienced losses if the flaw had gone unreported. According to them, they were busy fixing it, and though I know we hate to listen to the big evil corporations, there is the slightest possibility that they weren't lying.
Second, it's Cisco's right to do what they want with his research, since he did *break the law* in order to release it ( decompiling code + license agreement -> ?=( ). Following your conscience (in a way that was by some reports rash and poorly thought out) does not necessarily give you immunity from the consequences of your action.
As a security researcher, he of all people, should know the high stakes in that game. It's not like either Cisco's or the FBI's actions couldn't have been anticipated by anyone who thought the whole thing through to its logical conclusion. Hopefully, he had prepared himself for the inevitable results of his actions before he took them. Otherwise, I feel really bad for him.
PS: It's a good thing that the key monitoring tools you have on my computer output too much data when spread over 6000 employees to the extent that there's no way you'll catch me saying this.
=D
To all the nice, kind, good, trusting Sysadmins out there, if there are any, congrats, and keep it up. Don't let grouches like me get in your way!
I'm just refuting the point made in the article that these things aren't copied. I don't particularly mind IE, but I can't let it slip by that they are, indeed, standing on the shoulders of giants. That they killed. Many of them.
Also, I mind MS copying and then preventing others from copying whenever *they* come up with a good idea. It's just straight up not fair.
Re:I liked Internet Explorer 7 the first time...
on
IE7 Bugs and Reviews
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
erm, so like firefox didn't borrow those from opera
your point?
Erm, so like I said the competition, not "just Firefox." Is Opera part of the competition? Why, yes, my dear man, I do believe so. Thank you.
My point is that the thing the guy in the article said about not borrowing from the competition is wrong. That should have been clear if you read my post.
It's because the engine has demons in it, and that's the only type of game you can make with it. That's also why it sucks the life out of my CPU and GFX card. 100%, 100% of the time!
It looks exactly the same as Doom 3. How can you tell from these screenshots whether it will be any more decent?
Re:I liked Internet Explorer 7 the first time...
on
IE7 Bugs and Reviews
·
· Score: 5, Funny
I think the problem is, as this guy said, "I stopped using non-Microsoft browsers over two years ago because I found them to be unpolished." That is the only possible explanation for how he thinks that IE7 isn't "borrowing from the competition."
List of things borrowed: 1) Search bar 2) Tabs 3) Tabs in context menus 4) Not passing the acid test 5) TINY REFRESH BUTTONS THAT ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO CLICK ON OMGZ?
One thing I would agree with, though... within capitalistic economy, it is the only viable way to treat non-physical goods, there you are right. The thing is that capitalism is not proven by anyone to be the final, or, for that matter, the most efficient way of handling things.
I suppose it's fine if you say it that way. It's like saying that the speed of light is not proven to be the fastest way that a thing can travel around the universe. While technically true (you can't really prove anything), it's also a statement without a lot of usefulness. All the alternatives we can think of have been tried, and none of them have worked nearly so well as capitalism. Yours sounds like some limited form of socialism where profit is capped . . . and we've all seen how well socialism works).
What is it Winston Churchill said? "Capitalism is the worst economic system out there, except for all the other ones," or something like that?
Query: perhaps the name for the type of writer in our new medium of gaming should be "Game Designer?" We have seen tis work with some companies (take Valve for instance).
If anything, stock market is a good example of how people can make money while producing nothing useful.
Whatever arrogant attitude you want to take, none of what you see in this world today would have happened without some kind of market where you can buy and sell shares of companies.
If it worked that way, then only the first N copies of the software should be sold for a price (just enough to cover the expense and then give the authors some money for their time). After a certain point, selling copies becomes just that - selling air.
Um. No. So you pay for the cost of producing the software, then the remainder is profit for those who invested. What, suppose you are buying medicine. Do you think that the cost of medicine drops down to the cost to manufacture after the R&D investment has been recouped? No, the risk requires some kind of reward if it will be taken again, so those who invested money and time and love into a project will need some kind of payment. Their payment is proportional to the quality of what they made (I.e. if more people buy it, the better their investment pays back. This is all very basic really, I don't know why I have to explain it over and over to people who probably won't even listen.).
All in all, it just shows how the existing model of treating software and such as if they were physical goods is fundamentally flawed.
There is ample reason in my and other posts to show why software must be treated like any other value-adding good. If you still disagree, an intro macroeconomics course is in order. If you still disagree after that, you just have your eyes closed and are in denial of the obvious truth. All of our science and observation and understanding of the economy and human psychology points toward the necessity of interpreting even non-physical goods with the same kind of respect as we give to physical ones.
It seems like doing much of anything with a read-only drive is pretty difficult. Maybe if you wanted to *read* the spyware binaries, but beyond that, what can you do? You can't write out any of the changes!
If you are him, I would like to ask you: why did you feel it was worth losing your job so that you could talk about an exploit that had already been fixed that, on top of that, could not be completed remotely? The odds of this being a real problem seem pretty low to me.
Most big budget games have writers, and most of them still have crap storytelling/writing/voiceacting. Just as author's are rarely good for screenplays and screenwriters rarely are able to write books, neither will be able, in general, to fully leverage the pen of the video game. We need a new genre of writer to write for the new medium we have created.
It doesn't matter whether Free software is great, at least the way the GP was talking about it. He's just saying that there is a certain bent of most/.ers to take these stances and defend them to the death, even in situations where they are not applicable.
The generalization, it seems to me, is getting less accurate (some people's minds are opening up a little, if only because they realize how polemic most of the community is), however, I don't think anything the GP says is inaccurate if you just insert "most of" in front of the things he says.
Can you tell me what development tool is superior to visual studio? Certainly not KDevelop. Anjunta? I haven't used it so I guess I wouldn't know. I've used more than ten different development environments in my (admittedly short) two years of programming, and I've never encountered any better than VS. It has it's flaws and there are things I would love to see improved, but to say that it's the worst is unbelievable.
Saying that MSDN adds negative value is crap, too. It provides good knowledge about something that YOU arrogantly look down upon, but that doesn't mean that the knowledge isn't useful to MOST people with minds that are slightly more open than the vacuum sealed container yours must be living in.
Slashdot Mirror
The original article says specifically that the guy who manages the firewall would refuse to change it come hell or high water.
I don't have evidence, but I tend to believe that governments that want to be reelected don't shut down honest websites. It's possible that my taking things on faith like this is a fault, but, as you said, it seems most probable that the government was doing it to protect its citizens.
And yet there are various precedents for license agreements having been upheld as contracts. IANAL, but I think you need to check your facts.
without the "killing civilians" bit
Unfortunately, we aren't without that bit, so I don't think the question of when the government might stop has much relevance here.
Part of the hacker mindset is a love of tinkering -- the fantastic knowledge that you don't need anyone's help to create, to build, to acheive, to overcome. That with that computer that was going to be in the dumpster, you can now do something cool, regardless of the fact that it might take you longer to do it.
You have a point, but the problem is that it strikes at a target that doesn't really exist. The point of Slashdot isn't to advertise every new technology that comes out, but to advertise what is interesting to its readership. Given that a lot of us a predisposed to hacking and wonderful stuff like that, it makes sense that this should be posted here.
FTR, though, I don't think you're a troll.
The question is, is it worth your life? That is, the development project.
About your CS thing . . . well, CS is CS pretty much anywhere. Knowing what it is your are going to develop would help us to advise you better.
Haha only serious.
The guy already said, "It's impossible to change the firewall." You can't answer that by saying, "Change the firewall."
I suppose if you accept the premise that competent people exist and can be found, your system might work. I'm sure you can guess from my tone what I think about the odds of that being the case. =P It was nice debating this with you. We should do it again sometime.
Well, first of all, it's not "undoubted" that Cisco would have experienced losses if the flaw had gone unreported. According to them, they were busy fixing it, and though I know we hate to listen to the big evil corporations, there is the slightest possibility that they weren't lying.
Second, it's Cisco's right to do what they want with his research, since he did *break the law* in order to release it ( decompiling code + license agreement -> ?=( ). Following your conscience (in a way that was by some reports rash and poorly thought out) does not necessarily give you immunity from the consequences of your action.
As a security researcher, he of all people, should know the high stakes in that game. It's not like either Cisco's or the FBI's actions couldn't have been anticipated by anyone who thought the whole thing through to its logical conclusion. Hopefully, he had prepared himself for the inevitable results of his actions before he took them. Otherwise, I feel really bad for him.
Sysadmins: Thanks for blocking all my webpages.
PS: It's a good thing that the key monitoring tools you have on my computer output too much data when spread over 6000 employees to the extent that there's no way you'll catch me saying this.
=D
To all the nice, kind, good, trusting Sysadmins out there, if there are any, congrats, and keep it up. Don't let grouches like me get in your way!
I'm just refuting the point made in the article that these things aren't copied. I don't particularly mind IE, but I can't let it slip by that they are, indeed, standing on the shoulders of giants. That they killed. Many of them.
Also, I mind MS copying and then preventing others from copying whenever *they* come up with a good idea. It's just straight up not fair.
erm, so like firefox didn't borrow those from opera
your point?
Erm, so like I said the competition, not "just Firefox." Is Opera part of the competition? Why, yes, my dear man, I do believe so. Thank you.
My point is that the thing the guy in the article said about not borrowing from the competition is wrong. That should have been clear if you read my post.
It's because the engine has demons in it, and that's the only type of game you can make with it. That's also why it sucks the life out of my CPU and GFX card. 100%, 100% of the time!
It looks exactly the same as Doom 3. How can you tell from these screenshots whether it will be any more decent?
I think the problem is, as this guy said, "I stopped using non-Microsoft browsers over two years ago because I found them to be unpolished." That is the only possible explanation for how he thinks that IE7 isn't "borrowing from the competition."
List of things borrowed:
1) Search bar
2) Tabs
3) Tabs in context menus
4) Not passing the acid test
5) TINY REFRESH BUTTONS THAT ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO CLICK ON OMGZ?
That is all.
One thing I would agree with, though... within capitalistic economy, it is the only viable way to treat non-physical goods, there you are right. The thing is that capitalism is not proven by anyone to be the final, or, for that matter, the most efficient way of handling things.
I suppose it's fine if you say it that way. It's like saying that the speed of light is not proven to be the fastest way that a thing can travel around the universe. While technically true (you can't really prove anything), it's also a statement without a lot of usefulness. All the alternatives we can think of have been tried, and none of them have worked nearly so well as capitalism. Yours sounds like some limited form of socialism where profit is capped . . . and we've all seen how well socialism works).
What is it Winston Churchill said? "Capitalism is the worst economic system out there, except for all the other ones," or something like that?
Query: perhaps the name for the type of writer in our new medium of gaming should be "Game Designer?" We have seen tis work with some companies (take Valve for instance).
If anything, stock market is a good example of how people can make money while producing nothing useful.
Whatever arrogant attitude you want to take, none of what you see in this world today would have happened without some kind of market where you can buy and sell shares of companies.
If it worked that way, then only the first N copies of the software should be sold for a price (just enough to cover the expense and then give the authors some money for their time). After a certain point, selling copies becomes just that - selling air.
Um. No. So you pay for the cost of producing the software, then the remainder is profit for those who invested. What, suppose you are buying medicine. Do you think that the cost of medicine drops down to the cost to manufacture after the R&D investment has been recouped? No, the risk requires some kind of reward if it will be taken again, so those who invested money and time and love into a project will need some kind of payment. Their payment is proportional to the quality of what they made (I.e. if more people buy it, the better their investment pays back. This is all very basic really, I don't know why I have to explain it over and over to people who probably won't even listen.).
All in all, it just shows how the existing model of treating software and such as if they were physical goods is fundamentally flawed.
There is ample reason in my and other posts to show why software must be treated like any other value-adding good. If you still disagree, an intro macroeconomics course is in order. If you still disagree after that, you just have your eyes closed and are in denial of the obvious truth. All of our science and observation and understanding of the economy and human psychology points toward the necessity of interpreting even non-physical goods with the same kind of respect as we give to physical ones.
It seems like doing much of anything with a read-only drive is pretty difficult. Maybe if you wanted to *read* the spyware binaries, but beyond that, what can you do? You can't write out any of the changes!
If you are him, I would like to ask you: why did you feel it was worth losing your job so that you could talk about an exploit that had already been fixed that, on top of that, could not be completed remotely? The odds of this being a real problem seem pretty low to me.
Most big budget games have writers, and most of them still have crap storytelling/writing/voiceacting. Just as author's are rarely good for screenplays and screenwriters rarely are able to write books, neither will be able, in general, to fully leverage the pen of the video game. We need a new genre of writer to write for the new medium we have created.
This is an interesting occurrence, but I think that in general this will not be the way things pan out.
It doesn't matter whether Free software is great, at least the way the GP was talking about it. He's just saying that there is a certain bent of most /.ers to take these stances and defend them to the death, even in situations where they are not applicable.
The generalization, it seems to me, is getting less accurate (some people's minds are opening up a little, if only because they realize how polemic most of the community is), however, I don't think anything the GP says is inaccurate if you just insert "most of" in front of the things he says.
Can you tell me what development tool is superior to visual studio? Certainly not KDevelop. Anjunta? I haven't used it so I guess I wouldn't know. I've used more than ten different development environments in my (admittedly short) two years of programming, and I've never encountered any better than VS. It has it's flaws and there are things I would love to see improved, but to say that it's the worst is unbelievable. Saying that MSDN adds negative value is crap, too. It provides good knowledge about something that YOU arrogantly look down upon, but that doesn't mean that the knowledge isn't useful to MOST people with minds that are slightly more open than the vacuum sealed container yours must be living in.