Anti virus software needs to be constantly updated. I'm still waiting for somebody to hack the ability to fake a Microsoft Certificate, so they can use the update mechanism to distribute viruses/worms instead. What are the chances of Microsoft's security measures actually becoming yet another vector for compromising security? Am I the only one that wonders if I'm actually getting Microsoft blessed software every time I run Windows Update?
carrying compatibility baggage going all the way back to early DOS.(P> All these years I thought x86 was backwards compatible with the Intel 4004, and now you tell me it's actually backwards compatible with an old operating system! Well, I guess you learn new something every day...
The GPL license is about anti-corporatism. Yeah, that's why companies like IBM and HP are investing so heavily in developing GPL software -- 'cause they are so ardently anti-corporate!
Not if the technology uses Microsoft-patented technology, they won't. Remember, public-key encryption was patented by RSA. Think there's any chance of a "fool-proof" authentication scheme using some patented technology?
That still doesn't prevent overworked pharmacy technicians from putting the wrong pills in the bottle. It just prevents nurses from picking up the wrong bottle. Heck, my wife went to pick up my prescription, and they gave her (and forced her to pay for) a complete stranger's prescription! Then they got pissed off at her when she took the prescription back and demanded her money back! As if it were her fault they screwed up, despite the fact that she argued with them at the time about the additional charges...
making doctors fill out prescriptions similarly to how most government forms are- one box per letter,capital letters(and when a prescription is rejected- the pharmacy makes it clear to the patient, AND the hospital, WHY. Doctors who can't be bothered to write clearly for the safety of their patient find themselves on the street). Screw that. My doctor types in all presciptions (and appears to keep all his charts)on the computer. This allows the system to check for drug interactions up front, and it would be a simple extension to email the prescription to the pharmacists, although some people will still need the printed copy.
lurking in an arcane sea-green Dodge Dart parked in the far corner of the drugstore parkinglot Man, get with the times... they're all driving black SUVs (usually Chevy Suburbans) now! That guy that looks exactly like Agent Smith that's watching you from the Dart is completely harmless... trust me!
I suppose my tinfoil hat is a felony too? I'm sorry, but you can't make foil-lined bags illegal unless they are used in the commission of a crime. Perhaps there are legitimate uses for lining your shopping bag with foil? How about a photographer's film case or a laptop case? People aren't allowed to protect their possessions from stray electromagnetic radiation or xrays?
You think that's bad? Imagine a bomb which explodes when it detects the RFID tag in an American passport nearby. No problem. We'll just encorporate that same RFID tag in all the food aid packages and bootleg blue jeans, and they'll all explode long before they get anywhere near an American!
When the drugs are in the bag, RFID readers are blocked. Take them out, they're readable... RSA promises that this new technology will not interfere with the normal operation of RFID systems or allow hackers to use security technology to bypass theft-control systems..." What kind of double speak is this? Look, either the technology blocks reading of RFID tags, or it doesn't. If it does block reading, it enables people to bypass theft control systems. If it does not, it does not protect privacy. It's as simple as that! RSA is trying to convince us their technology is smart enough to tell the difference between an honest drug consumer and a shoplifter?!? WTF?!?
actually my understanding is that the BSD tcp/ip stack wasn't (and isn't?) highly multi-threaded, whereas windows's stack is. That's a re-write that seems worth doing, don't you think ?That depends. Certainly if you have a large process switch overhead, as I beleive Windows has, rewritting code to make it support threading better is worthwhile. However, don't recent tests with Linux 2.6 show that threading just isn't that big a win under Linux, since process overhead isn't significantly worse that thread overhead? It's probably not worth the rewrite in BSD either. And since TCP/IP was implemented in the kernel in Unix, I'm not sure the "needs to be highly threaded" argument applies at all -- does Microsoft implement TCP/IP in user space instead?
Maybe it's just me, but this seems to not address any of the important RFID issues at all. Yes, but it sure solves the issue of it being difficult to steal items from stores that use RFID for inventory control! (I recall seeing on TV that the the professional "boosters" are already using foil-lined bags.)
the change in kerberos was spec-legal, and was used to support functionality NT needed. That every unix implementatino ever was broken isn't microsoft's problem. a) I don't beleive the functionality Microsoft implemented was part of the Kerboros spec. Granted, specs tend to be ambiguous. b) I don't see the reasoning behind your "every unix implementation ever was broken." Obviously the unix implementation of Kerboros worked just fine. c) I'm not convinced that Microsoft couldn't have implemented the new functionality in a way that was backwards compatible with existing implementations. They chose not to.
As far as the "one software" rant, the point I was trying to make is that you are not necessary making life easier by assisting a monopoly in maintaining their software lock-in. Of course, I support your right to choose to do so, and your opinion may differ.
Consider this - if you beleive MS writes shitty software, wouldn'y you want them using as much BSD code as possible ? Yes. But apparently in going from NT4.0 to Win2K, they rewrote most of the BSD-derived TCP code to make it less compatible with other BSD Sockets based apps. wouldn't that help standards compliance ? How does that stop them from "embracing and extending" the protocols once they have the source? Remember how Microsoft "adopting" Kerboros for SMB authentication, but perverted one of unused fields so it wouldn't work with anybody else's servers? Giving them a no-strings-attached implementation just makes their job of "embrace and extend" that much easier. Wouldn't that help make MS's products less bad ? Yes, it has in the past... until they rewrite the code. Wouldn't that inturn make life better for everyone ? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we all had one government, one religion, one software? Personally, the fact that I have to make so many choices every time I go to the grocery store really pisses me off... we'd all be off if there was only one food vendor!
SCO apparently beleives the GPL is SCO License compatible... which just goes to show what somebody thinks doesn't mean jack until you test it in court.
will the plug-in be available for non-Microsoft systems? If not, then this will just cause a shift in the host OS of choice for spamming, thus allowing Microsoft to blame spam on "those commie hippy pinko open-source zealots."
Because they don't mind donating their work to Microsoft for free? Personally, I love it when Microsoft encorporates some of my work into their software... but I figure they can afford to pay me for it.
Delete your logs. Delete them early, and delete them often. Searching through 24 hours worth of data is a lot easier then searching through 2 years worth...
Slashdot Mirror
Anti virus software needs to be constantly updated. I'm still waiting for somebody to hack the ability to fake a Microsoft Certificate, so they can use the update mechanism to distribute viruses/worms instead. What are the chances of Microsoft's security measures actually becoming yet another vector for compromising security? Am I the only one that wonders if I'm actually getting Microsoft blessed software every time I run Windows Update?
carrying compatibility baggage going all the way back to early DOS.(P> All these years I thought x86 was backwards compatible with the Intel 4004, and now you tell me it's actually backwards compatible with an old operating system! Well, I guess you learn new something every day...
The GPL license is about anti-corporatism. Yeah, that's why companies like IBM and HP are investing so heavily in developing GPL software -- 'cause they are so ardently anti-corporate!
Not if the technology uses Microsoft-patented technology, they won't. Remember, public-key encryption was patented by RSA. Think there's any chance of a "fool-proof" authentication scheme using some patented technology?
That still doesn't prevent overworked pharmacy technicians from putting the wrong pills in the bottle. It just prevents nurses from picking up the wrong bottle. Heck, my wife went to pick up my prescription, and they gave her (and forced her to pay for) a complete stranger's prescription! Then they got pissed off at her when she took the prescription back and demanded her money back! As if it were her fault they screwed up, despite the fact that she argued with them at the time about the additional charges...
making doctors fill out prescriptions similarly to how most government forms are- one box per letter,capital letters(and when a prescription is rejected- the pharmacy makes it clear to the patient, AND the hospital, WHY. Doctors who can't be bothered to write clearly for the safety of their patient find themselves on the street). Screw that. My doctor types in all presciptions (and appears to keep all his charts)on the computer. This allows the system to check for drug interactions up front, and it would be a simple extension to email the prescription to the pharmacists, although some people will still need the printed copy.
lurking in an arcane sea-green Dodge Dart parked in the far corner of the drugstore parkinglot Man, get with the times... they're all driving black SUVs (usually Chevy Suburbans) now! That guy that looks exactly like Agent Smith that's watching you from the Dart is completely harmless... trust me!
I suppose my tinfoil hat is a felony too? I'm sorry, but you can't make foil-lined bags illegal unless they are used in the commission of a crime. Perhaps there are legitimate uses for lining your shopping bag with foil? How about a photographer's film case or a laptop case? People aren't allowed to protect their possessions from stray electromagnetic radiation or xrays?
You think that's bad? Imagine a bomb which explodes when it detects the RFID tag in an American passport nearby. No problem. We'll just encorporate that same RFID tag in all the food aid packages and bootleg blue jeans, and they'll all explode long before they get anywhere near an American!
When the drugs are in the bag, RFID readers are blocked. Take them out, they're readable... RSA promises that this new technology will not interfere with the normal operation of RFID systems or allow hackers to use security technology to bypass theft-control systems..." What kind of double speak is this? Look, either the technology blocks reading of RFID tags, or it doesn't. If it does block reading, it enables people to bypass theft control systems. If it does not, it does not protect privacy. It's as simple as that! RSA is trying to convince us their technology is smart enough to tell the difference between an honest drug consumer and a shoplifter?!? WTF?!?
actually my understanding is that the BSD tcp/ip stack wasn't (and isn't?) highly multi-threaded, whereas windows's stack is. That's a re-write that seems worth doing, don't you think ?That depends. Certainly if you have a large process switch overhead, as I beleive Windows has, rewritting code to make it support threading better is worthwhile. However, don't recent tests with Linux 2.6 show that threading just isn't that big a win under Linux, since process overhead isn't significantly worse that thread overhead? It's probably not worth the rewrite in BSD either. And since TCP/IP was implemented in the kernel in Unix, I'm not sure the "needs to be highly threaded" argument applies at all -- does Microsoft implement TCP/IP in user space instead?
Maybe it's just me, but this seems to not address any of the important RFID issues at all. Yes, but it sure solves the issue of it being difficult to steal items from stores that use RFID for inventory control! (I recall seeing on TV that the the professional "boosters" are already using foil-lined bags.)
Not baffling at all. Wouldn't attempts to maintain compatibility with Microsoft's bastardized "standards" be a lot easier with access to the source?
As far as the "one software" rant, the point I was trying to make is that you are not necessary making life easier by assisting a monopoly in maintaining their software lock-in. Of course, I support your right to choose to do so, and your opinion may differ.
Consider this - if you beleive MS writes shitty software, wouldn'y you want them using as much BSD code as possible ? Yes. But apparently in going from NT4.0 to Win2K, they rewrote most of the BSD-derived TCP code to make it less compatible with other BSD Sockets based apps. wouldn't that help standards compliance ? How does that stop them from "embracing and extending" the protocols once they have the source? Remember how Microsoft "adopting" Kerboros for SMB authentication, but perverted one of unused fields so it wouldn't work with anybody else's servers? Giving them a no-strings-attached implementation just makes their job of "embrace and extend" that much easier. Wouldn't that help make MS's products less bad ? Yes, it has in the past... until they rewrite the code. Wouldn't that inturn make life better for everyone ? Wouldn't it be better for everyone if we all had one government, one religion, one software? Personally, the fact that I have to make so many choices every time I go to the grocery store really pisses me off... we'd all be off if there was only one food vendor!
SCO apparently beleives the GPL is SCO License compatible... which just goes to show what somebody thinks doesn't mean jack until you test it in court.
will the plug-in be available for non-Microsoft systems? If not, then this will just cause a shift in the host OS of choice for spamming, thus allowing Microsoft to blame spam on "those commie hippy pinko open-source zealots."
Until SCO sues you, claiming that some third party has merged UNIX(TM) code with your code, therefore now all your codebase is belong to Darl.
Because they don't mind donating their work to Microsoft for free? Personally, I love it when Microsoft encorporates some of my work into their software... but I figure they can afford to pay me for it.
now how will I surf the 'net when the power lines go down? Uh, hold on... never mind!
to raise to a fine art form the act of prank faxing people a picture of certain portions of your anatomy!
Delete your logs. Delete them early, and delete them often. Searching through 24 hours worth of data is a lot easier then searching through 2 years worth...
Hey, you can't expect the Feds to just find their free porn on the 'net like the rest of us!
can you dance to it?
I have done embedded development using Linux, pSOS, and vxWorks. No, I have never used QNX, so I'm not really qualified to comment on it.