Um, the police don't need a warrant to arrest people in most circumstances. (An exception in Canada being to enter somebody's dwelling house to arrest them, but that still doesn't apply unless they guy was in his house.)
SCO Has *Not* Brought a Motion for Sanctions Against IBM for Spoliation of Evidence
Saturday, July 22 2006 @ 11:13 AM EDT
First, SCO has not filed a motion for sanctions for spoliation. That's the way to get an issue regarding missing evidence properly before a judge. It has not happened. I checked Pacer.
Second, SCO didn't file any motions in March of 2006, sealed or otherwise, despite Forbes "reporting" that SCO filed the allegations as part of a sealed motion that month ("Hatch, SCO's attorney, says SCO learned about the destruction of code when it took depositions from IBM programmers. This is the first time SCO has made the allegation in public, though Hatch says the claim was part of a motion SCO filed in March 2006, which has remained sealed."). Well, I don't know who got it wrong, Hatch or Forbes, but that's just not true.
You, sir, are exactly the kind of person I was talking about. Do you know what IND-CCA2 is? I didn't think so.
My entire point is that I would disable the access point's crappy built-in security mechanism and use something that is actually strong. I actually did this for a number of years after the RC4 cryptanalysis.
Great, so now if I'm disabling my wireless card's weak encryption, and instead using a proper firewall and OpenVPN connection behind the AP, the condo board is going to come after me because my "wireless" is allegedly insecure?
Seriously, if you don't at least know what indistinguishability under adaptive chosen-ciphertext attack is, you shouldn't be making security policy.
No kidding. I've never understood why so many people try to encourage random people they've never met to vote. People have way too much blind faith in the system...
trolling by definition means you are expressing a view that you yourself do not believe in order to elicit a desired response.
More or less, but I'd say that your personal beliefs are irrelevant to the difference between a troll and flamebait. What is important is intent.
Every few months, somebody posts to debian-legal asking whether the GPL violates the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This has been discussed before, and the concensus is that it does not, for various reasons. If the Debian mailing lists had a Slashdot moderation system, it would be correct to moderate these posts as "flamebait", because the person who are posting them are typically interested in getting a legitimate answer. On the other hand, if the same person came back, and posted the same type question every month, merely to elicit a flamewar, then those posts would be considered "trolls". Note that, in this case, the person may honestly believe that the GPL violates the DFSG, but it is nevertheless considered trolling if your intent is to cause a flame war, rather than to actually resolve a particular issue.
Put in another way, if you post a bunch of "BSD is dying" trolls, it's not a defence to claim that you really believe that BSD is dying.
... which it is. (I'll probably be modded down for this, but...)
I disagree, but this argument is completely missing the point. If the word "forces" is so dear to you, we can drop it. The problem remains: Microsoft uses its market position to gain additional sales, from unhappy customers, that would never occur in a perfectly competitive market, and this practice is draining resources from the economy that would otherwise be invested in developing better technology that would benefit consumers.
This phenomenon is often summarized as "Microsoft is forcing me to buy XYZ". It's my opinion that saying this is no more inappropriate than the commonly-used phrases "copy protection", "free software", "gigabit Ethernet", etc. Each are somewhat inaccurate, but nevertheless convey the desired information if used in the appropriate context.
Security through obscurity, while weak, sometimes works in the physical world because the number of potential attackers, as well as the means to spread information about a successful attack, is much more limited than it is on the Internet. Most Slashdot readers now know that those card "locks" will take any card, but I don't think that will have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the system.
I don't know about the grandparent poster, but my student cards has a magnetic stripe that isn't used for anything. The library uses the barcode printed on the front of the card, the financial office just enters your student number manually (since it's not encoded into barcode number), and door locks use a different card.
However, this isn't a case of ATI etc not releasing directX10 for WinXP (it's not their product). Rather, directX is made by Microsoft, windows is made by Microsoft, and getting a newer DirectX looks like it's going to require you buy a newer Microsoft OS (Vista).
That's my point. Some other people have been arguing that there is little technical reason why DirectX 10 don't run on Windows XP, since it's being developed on WinXP. My argument is that just because somebody can run a development verion of DX10 on WinXP doesn't mean that it will be released for WinXP.
Considering that slashdot gleefully bashed Microsoft for removing Vista features and/or backporting previously Vista-exclusive features to XP (thus lessening incentive to upgrade to Vista), it's hypocritical for slashdot to criticize Microsoft for keeping DX10 a Vista-exclusive feature.
... because "Slashdot" is an individual rational being.
If I remember correctly, Quake was originally developed on either a Linux or an SGI box. That doesn't mean consumers had access to the *nix version of Quake when the original DOS version was released.
[I should probably not post right now, because my ability to write coherently seems to be damped by my sleepiness, but this is Slashdot...]
Something tells me that you misunderstand the nature of "force". Tell me, if somebody puts a gun to your head and says, "Install Vista", and you do, could you say you were "forced" to do so?
It's about gaining compliance through coersion. In both cases, somebody is doing something that they don't want to do, but are doing anyway because the drawbacks of non-compliance are deemed not worth the benefits.
RTFA. Their policy is not to tell the public the details of the problem because the information might be "proprietary" (Hah!). Somebody associated with OpenSSL will be told.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, the police don't need a warrant to arrest people in most circumstances. (An exception in Canada being to enter somebody's dwelling house to arrest them, but that still doesn't apply unless they guy was in his house.)
Depending on how you're using it, you could replace Matlab with GNU Octave.
Avoiding proprietary dependencies (especially expensive ones like Matlab) is generally a good idea.
There is very little running on PHP can be described as "mature". PHP itself certainly is not.
You, sir, are exactly the kind of person I was talking about. Do you know what IND-CCA2 is? I didn't think so.
My entire point is that I would disable the access point's crappy built-in security mechanism and use something that is actually strong. I actually did this for a number of years after the RC4 cryptanalysis.
Great, so now if I'm disabling my wireless card's weak encryption, and instead using a proper firewall and OpenVPN connection behind the AP, the condo board is going to come after me because my "wireless" is allegedly insecure?
Seriously, if you don't at least know what indistinguishability under adaptive chosen-ciphertext attack is, you shouldn't be making security policy.
WTF? What are you, 12 years old?
No. Such a claim can't be supported or refuted. That's the entire problem with the Diebold voting machines!
No kidding. I've never understood why so many people try to encourage random people they've never met to vote. People have way too much blind faith in the system...
unmount isn't a *nix command.
Heh. Just like it worked in Nuremberg.
The president's boss is the people.
no text
More or less, but I'd say that your personal beliefs are irrelevant to the difference between a troll and flamebait. What is important is intent.
Every few months, somebody posts to debian-legal asking whether the GPL violates the Debian Free Software Guidelines. This has been discussed before, and the concensus is that it does not, for various reasons. If the Debian mailing lists had a Slashdot moderation system, it would be correct to moderate these posts as "flamebait", because the person who are posting them are typically interested in getting a legitimate answer. On the other hand, if the same person came back, and posted the same type question every month, merely to elicit a flamewar, then those posts would be considered "trolls". Note that, in this case, the person may honestly believe that the GPL violates the DFSG, but it is nevertheless considered trolling if your intent is to cause a flame war, rather than to actually resolve a particular issue.
Put in another way, if you post a bunch of "BSD is dying" trolls, it's not a defence to claim that you really believe that BSD is dying.
... which it is. (I'll probably be modded down for this, but...)
I disagree, but this argument is completely missing the point. If the word "forces" is so dear to you, we can drop it. The problem remains: Microsoft uses its market position to gain additional sales, from unhappy customers, that would never occur in a perfectly competitive market, and this practice is draining resources from the economy that would otherwise be invested in developing better technology that would benefit consumers.
This phenomenon is often summarized as "Microsoft is forcing me to buy XYZ". It's my opinion that saying this is no more inappropriate than the commonly-used phrases "copy protection", "free software", "gigabit Ethernet", etc. Each are somewhat inaccurate, but nevertheless convey the desired information if used in the appropriate context.
Security through obscurity, while weak, sometimes works in the physical world because the number of potential attackers, as well as the means to spread information about a successful attack, is much more limited than it is on the Internet. Most Slashdot readers now know that those card "locks" will take any card, but I don't think that will have a significant impact on the effectiveness of the system.
I don't know about the grandparent poster, but my student cards has a magnetic stripe that isn't used for anything. The library uses the barcode printed on the front of the card, the financial office just enters your student number manually (since it's not encoded into barcode number), and door locks use a different card.
That's my point. Some other people have been arguing that there is little technical reason why DirectX 10 don't run on Windows XP, since it's being developed on WinXP. My argument is that just because somebody can run a development verion of DX10 on WinXP doesn't mean that it will be released for WinXP.
Yet another reason to use OpenGL: Your software takes longer to develop than Microsoft's API support cycle.
... because "Slashdot" is an individual rational being.
If I remember correctly, Quake was originally developed on either a Linux or an SGI box. That doesn't mean consumers had access to the *nix version of Quake when the original DOS version was released.
Or maybe that was Doom.
[I should probably not post right now, because my ability to write coherently seems to be damped by my sleepiness, but this is Slashdot...]
Something tells me that you misunderstand the nature of "force". Tell me, if somebody puts a gun to your head and says, "Install Vista", and you do, could you say you were "forced" to do so?
It's about gaining compliance through coersion. In both cases, somebody is doing something that they don't want to do, but are doing anyway because the drawbacks of non-compliance are deemed not worth the benefits.
Everybody, point your vacuum cleaners west!
RTFA. Their policy is not to tell the public the details of the problem because the information might be "proprietary" (Hah!). Somebody associated with OpenSSL will be told.
What's a semete?