I think that articles are harder to read and understand for non-native English speakers if they contain spelling and/or grammar errors. For example a non-native speaker might not easily understand that "to" happened to be a typo and that it should have been "too". This might leave one wondering what the article was supposed to say. Therefore in the interest of the non-native speakers reading slashdot, it would be great if spelling & grammar errors could be fixed while an article is being edited.
a Internet browser is nothing compared to a full Office suit. All the open office suits are really doing is playing catch-up with Microsoft. I am not expecting any major innovation from them, but I do expect that from Microsoft. Microsoft hasn't been sleeping since Office 2003, and what I have seen so far on the Internet about the new Office...wow. I wonder how many years it will take the open office suits to catch up to that?
Maybe it wasn't for the advice but for the news conveyed by this post. I was quite shocked when I saw that Tulane is cutting their Engineering School.
Patrick
Let's assume Sony had acted ethically once they were informed by F-Secure. The patch they created would have then been a removal tool for the rootkit. Sony would have announced that they experimented with DRM software, but unfortunately the company they hired to do this did a bad job. They would announce the patch in the same instance, sever their ties with that software company and recall the CDs. Sony would acknowledge F-Secure's role in notifying them of the problem.
That would have been the correct and ethical response by Sony BMG. I doubt anyone would have critized F-Secure then for notifying Sony first. Unfortunately for Sony, they tried to cover it up. Reminds me of a comment I read in an article about the CIA leak investigation. The reporter noted that with Watergate and the CIA leak investigation, the cover up was a worse offense than the actual incident. I guess Sony executives didn't read that story.
I think F-Secure's response was very appropriate.
Imagine the following scenario: A serious flaw that could be exploited by a worm is discovered in Windows. All one needs to write a worm is to know some vague information about the flaw, e.g. where to look for it. A good programmer could write a worm in a day. A patch for the flaw takes longer to create, as it needs to pass some rigorous testing (after all the patch shouldn't break your Windows installation).
So, what do you prefer? Immediate public disclose and a day later a worm infects windows installations all around the world? Or public disclosure concurrent with a patch from Microsoft which had been privately warned about it?
I know I prefer the latter scenario.
F-Secure was acting in the best interest of the people who had been infected by this rootkit. Sony BMG though had no interest in helping those people, because they were more interested in covering up their illegal doings. F-Secure would have gone public eventually. They would have not just sat there and watched Sony get away with it. However, they gave Sony BMG a reasonable chance in fixing the security holes, as they do give any other company rightly so.
Patrick Schmid
It depends how serious the affected company is about security. I like the idea of having a patch available concurrent with the disclosure of a threat. In this case Sony was trying to cover up its illegal doings, so they had no real interest in patching. I doubt that F-Secure would have let Sony get away with this for much longer.
He has a point...Traditionally software isn't pulled off the shelves when a security flaw is found in it. Imagine Windows being pulled off the shelf once a month...
Nevermind...I forgot that people bought music from Sony and not software;)
And his comment about the patch on the internet? Sony would look MUCH better by now, if they actually had posted a real patch for this problem aka as a clean uninstaller!
Haven't read through quite a bit of the comments, I can understand the issues related with the bill.
What I still don't understand is though why it would actually matter?
Passing a bill that essentially exempts the Internet from campaing finance laws opens the Internet up to massive campaign spending for US based services. Having the Internet though regulated by campaign finance law would at least curb that, but where does it stop applying? What if the campaign ad is hosted on an international server, but the actual Internet site is US based and only subscribes to an ad service from abroad. How will you ever apply campaign finance laws to this??????
Regulating the Internet has proven to be a pretty tough thing to do for one nation alone. Just remember the CanSpam act and how spam has dramatically increased since that law was passed (the only success I can see is that one indicted spammer who was dumb enough to be US based).
As much as I support campaign finance laws, I really have to wonder what they matter to the Internet in any regard. In my opinion, whether to actually apply them or specifically exempt them is a mute point, as circumventing their application is a piece of cake.
both products are pretty bad compared to applications available in other fields. There was a time when Blackboard e.g. didn't support the moving of files, and I think WebCT did neither. That was way back then...in 2003.
Maybe this will lead to better software from a new competitor...
Slashdot Mirror
I think that articles are harder to read and understand for non-native English speakers if they contain spelling and/or grammar errors. For example a non-native speaker might not easily understand that "to" happened to be a typo and that it should have been "too". This might leave one wondering what the article was supposed to say. Therefore in the interest of the non-native speakers reading slashdot, it would be great if spelling & grammar errors could be fixed while an article is being edited.
yes
a Internet browser is nothing compared to a full Office suit. All the open office suits are really doing is playing catch-up with Microsoft. I am not expecting any major innovation from them, but I do expect that from Microsoft. Microsoft hasn't been sleeping since Office 2003, and what I have seen so far on the Internet about the new Office...wow. I wonder how many years it will take the open office suits to catch up to that?
Maybe it wasn't for the advice but for the news conveyed by this post. I was quite shocked when I saw that Tulane is cutting their Engineering School. Patrick
Let's assume Sony had acted ethically once they were informed by F-Secure. The patch they created would have then been a removal tool for the rootkit. Sony would have announced that they experimented with DRM software, but unfortunately the company they hired to do this did a bad job. They would announce the patch in the same instance, sever their ties with that software company and recall the CDs. Sony would acknowledge F-Secure's role in notifying them of the problem. That would have been the correct and ethical response by Sony BMG. I doubt anyone would have critized F-Secure then for notifying Sony first. Unfortunately for Sony, they tried to cover it up. Reminds me of a comment I read in an article about the CIA leak investigation. The reporter noted that with Watergate and the CIA leak investigation, the cover up was a worse offense than the actual incident. I guess Sony executives didn't read that story.
I think F-Secure's response was very appropriate. Imagine the following scenario: A serious flaw that could be exploited by a worm is discovered in Windows. All one needs to write a worm is to know some vague information about the flaw, e.g. where to look for it. A good programmer could write a worm in a day. A patch for the flaw takes longer to create, as it needs to pass some rigorous testing (after all the patch shouldn't break your Windows installation). So, what do you prefer? Immediate public disclose and a day later a worm infects windows installations all around the world? Or public disclosure concurrent with a patch from Microsoft which had been privately warned about it? I know I prefer the latter scenario. F-Secure was acting in the best interest of the people who had been infected by this rootkit. Sony BMG though had no interest in helping those people, because they were more interested in covering up their illegal doings. F-Secure would have gone public eventually. They would have not just sat there and watched Sony get away with it. However, they gave Sony BMG a reasonable chance in fixing the security holes, as they do give any other company rightly so. Patrick Schmid
It depends how serious the affected company is about security. I like the idea of having a patch available concurrent with the disclosure of a threat. In this case Sony was trying to cover up its illegal doings, so they had no real interest in patching. I doubt that F-Secure would have let Sony get away with this for much longer.
He has a point...Traditionally software isn't pulled off the shelves when a security flaw is found in it. Imagine Windows being pulled off the shelf once a month... Nevermind...I forgot that people bought music from Sony and not software ;)
And his comment about the patch on the internet? Sony would look MUCH better by now, if they actually had posted a real patch for this problem aka as a clean uninstaller!
Haven't read through quite a bit of the comments, I can understand the issues related with the bill. What I still don't understand is though why it would actually matter? Passing a bill that essentially exempts the Internet from campaing finance laws opens the Internet up to massive campaign spending for US based services. Having the Internet though regulated by campaign finance law would at least curb that, but where does it stop applying? What if the campaign ad is hosted on an international server, but the actual Internet site is US based and only subscribes to an ad service from abroad. How will you ever apply campaign finance laws to this?????? Regulating the Internet has proven to be a pretty tough thing to do for one nation alone. Just remember the CanSpam act and how spam has dramatically increased since that law was passed (the only success I can see is that one indicted spammer who was dumb enough to be US based). As much as I support campaign finance laws, I really have to wonder what they matter to the Internet in any regard. In my opinion, whether to actually apply them or specifically exempt them is a mute point, as circumventing their application is a piece of cake.
both products are pretty bad compared to applications available in other fields. There was a time when Blackboard e.g. didn't support the moving of files, and I think WebCT did neither. That was way back then...in 2003. Maybe this will lead to better software from a new competitor...