I question just how accurately temperatures from 2000 years ago can be measured, relative to, say, satellite technology now. If the global mean temperature has increased 3C (and from I've heard it's less than that...) and your error is +/-5C then just how useful is that data?
It's good that you question, but are you willing to accept the answers? We know what the temperature has been like over at least the last 650,000 years. Do a search for "ice cores" sometime.
What, the amount of scariness of the claimed bad things that are purported to happen doesn't make it any more convincing?
Um, no? Assuming you're not joking, perhaps, by the above 'logic', you believe this as well:
If you say "Jesus" more than 1000 times in your lifetime after tomorrow, God will zap you with lightning, infest you with Botfly larvae, then slowly peel away the tissue from your bones in one-cell-thick layers, while a swarm of atheist wasps attacks your genitals. And then only you will be sent to Hell. Thrice. And THEN, God will make the Flying Spaghetti Monster real, just to piss you off.
His solution to the address crunch is better that the current IPv6 specification because he has come up with a way to make the transition to 16-byte addresses happen automatically as part of regular software/hardware upgrades, with no extra configuration.
As many of you know, Bruce Schneier has been pushing for new law to make software developers liable for defects, regardless of warranty disclaimers. While I don't dispute his analysis of the situation from a short-term security standpoint, I think such the liability he wants would be a disaster for self-employed software developers and the free/open-source software movement in general, and I think such law is unnecessary in the long run (remember that the software industry is still in its infancy).
That said, if we, as software developers and vendors, start taking arbitrary classes of security holes and declare them "non-vulnerabilities" for the sake of convenience, we are just begging to be regulated!
Whether or not we should care about certain vulnerabilities is another question (for example, executing arbitrary ActiveX code on a tightly-controlled private network is not necessarily something to worry about), but claiming that such vulnerabilities aren't security issues is lying.
3(A) pretty much excludes full disclosure, or even any kind of public disclosure, doesn't it? Specifically "the information derived... used solely to promote the security of the owner... or shared directly with the developer".
I would love to have a 'Linux Shop' near me. A place to get hardware that I know will work with my OS.
That *would* be handy, especially if they had the "proprietary drivers only" section separated out from the rest. Unfortunately, I don't think the market penetration is there yet.
I hate talking to answering machines and usually won't leave a message unless I have already tried calling several times with no answer and have no other way to contact the person.
It's a little hard to ignore the phone when it's ringing incessantly.
I reject to use any companies product if they don't give a sh*t to my platform of choice.
I prefer that the company's product doesn't give a sh*t about what platform I'm using. Just give me complete interface documentation (or better, use a standard protocol -- in this case, XMPP) and I'll be on my way, thank you.
Still I'm sure they have some idea how the army would be used. Locally deployed poison?
My guess is that the plan involves having lots of manpower. Armies also have lots of manpower, which sits idle most of the time, but you have to keep them around "just in case". Somebody in the Australian government put two and two together...
There's no analogy to be used here, it's just simply speculation. They've done this study with lab mice, now why don't they do a sampling of populations and ask people whether they work in an office with a controlled air system or outdoors/farm work where they're exposed to plants & animals daily.
That information, while useful, would probably be less useful than you might think. Even if you discount the typical problems associated with questionnaire-based studies, such a study will won't distinguish between problems caused by sterile environments and problems caused by different allergens that may be associated with air conditioning systems or with urban areas in general.
Somehow I don't think Micro$oft is limited in it's ability to charge license fees on a per client basis.
The real question is, if Microsoft sends you the media, would you be violating the copyright laws in your country by installing the software? If not, then you don't need a license from Microsoft in the first place.
Face it, it was at best a silly question. From a practical standpoint, it was asked merely because someone thought "hey, here is a way for me to get around paying for licenses".
How do you know? Frankly, if I were proposing a switch to Evolution to management, this is one of the first questions I would expect to be asked. A manager will want to know how much money he'll potentially save by migrating his client-side software to Evolution, in order to decide whether it's worth the risk and the temporary loss in worker productivity.
Well, perhaps because the law doesn't necessarily allow Microsoft to enforce whatever rules it wants to. Just because an EULA says something doesn't mean that: (1) the EULA is a binding contract, or (2) all the terms of the so-called EULA are enforceable. That's just for any seller of proprietary software; Microsoft might have additional restrictions placed upon it by anti-trust law or settlement(s).
On the other hand, you might not want to take Microsoft to court to find out what your rights are.
In any case, it's a legitimate question that shouldn't be dismissed off-hand.
Slashdot Mirror
Only if "basic security best practices" involve giving users a false sense of security.
It's good that you question, but are you willing to accept the answers? We know what the temperature has been like over at least the last 650,000 years. Do a search for "ice cores" sometime.
Um, no? Assuming you're not joking, perhaps, by the above 'logic', you believe this as well:
When I was a kid, I had an AMIGA.
HA HA!
That's "intolerant".
And you're not allowed to say "orient" anymore. It's "asiated" now.
So, you're saying that maybe you don't figure anything out on your own?
Isn't it the judge's job to judge whether or not the seriousness of the matter requires that information be given to police?
You guys need some serious privacy legislation.
That said, if we, as software developers and vendors, start taking arbitrary classes of security holes and declare them "non-vulnerabilities" for the sake of convenience, we are just begging to be regulated!
Whether or not we should care about certain vulnerabilities is another question (for example, executing arbitrary ActiveX code on a tightly-controlled private network is not necessarily something to worry about), but claiming that such vulnerabilities aren't security issues is lying.
3(A) pretty much excludes full disclosure, or even any kind of public disclosure, doesn't it? Specifically "the information derived ... used solely to promote the security of the owner ... or shared directly with the developer".
That *would* be handy, especially if they had the "proprietary drivers only" section separated out from the rest. Unfortunately, I don't think the market penetration is there yet.
Who runs the servers? Services are also called "products" in some circles.
I tagged this article "answered" and "answered15566146".
It's a little hard to ignore the phone when it's ringing incessantly.
You're the one who's interrupting my life by calling. If you don't want to talk to me that much, don't call. Send an email or something (or don't).
Market forces? In the US telecom industry? Surely, you jest.
I prefer that the company's product doesn't give a sh*t about what platform I'm using. Just give me complete interface documentation (or better, use a standard protocol -- in this case, XMPP) and I'll be on my way, thank you.
Didn't the dot-com boom (and bust) occur in the last decade?
From that Wikipedia article:
Just wonderful, isn't it?
My guess is that the plan involves having lots of manpower. Armies also have lots of manpower, which sits idle most of the time, but you have to keep them around "just in case". Somebody in the Australian government put two and two together...
We are resistant to cane toad venom. Our adaptation is specifically the ability to be smart enough not to ingest the stuff.
Yes; that's what I meant. Thank you.
That information, while useful, would probably be less useful than you might think. Even if you discount the typical problems associated with questionnaire-based studies, such a study will won't distinguish between problems caused by sterile environments and problems caused by different allergens that may be associated with air conditioning systems or with urban areas in general.
The real question is, if Microsoft sends you the media, would you be violating the copyright laws in your country by installing the software? If not, then you don't need a license from Microsoft in the first place.
How do you know? Frankly, if I were proposing a switch to Evolution to management, this is one of the first questions I would expect to be asked. A manager will want to know how much money he'll potentially save by migrating his client-side software to Evolution, in order to decide whether it's worth the risk and the temporary loss in worker productivity.
Well, perhaps because the law doesn't necessarily allow Microsoft to enforce whatever rules it wants to. Just because an EULA says something doesn't mean that: (1) the EULA is a binding contract, or (2) all the terms of the so-called EULA are enforceable. That's just for any seller of proprietary software; Microsoft might have additional restrictions placed upon it by anti-trust law or settlement(s).
On the other hand, you might not want to take Microsoft to court to find out what your rights are.
In any case, it's a legitimate question that shouldn't be dismissed off-hand.